Delhi High Court
Puran Ram vs State on 16 June, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: June 16, 2017
+ CRL.A. 432/2015
PURAN RAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
Counsel Curiae with Mr. Dinesh
Malik, DHCLSC panel counsel
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Nisar Ahmad, Police
Station Sadar Bazar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
%
1. Vide impugned judgment of 3rd May, 2014, appellant-accused has
been held to be guilty of offences under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and
under Section 27 of Arms Act. Vide order of even date, appellant-accused
has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven years with
fine of `5,000/- with default clause for offence under Section 397 IPC
and for offence under Section 27 of Arms Act, he has been directed to
undergo simple imprisonment for three years with fine of `2,000/- with
default clause.
2. The factual matrix emerging from the impugned judgment is as
under:-
"On 29.9.2012 on receipt of DD no.21-A, ASI Shiv Kumar
reached at the spot at Rani Jhansi Road where Ct.
Pradeep along with complainant Sugreev Chaubey met
him and produced two boys including the accused herein
alongwith knife and belongings of complainant. IO took
the articles into possession vide seizure memo and
recorded statement of complainant wherein he stated with
respect to robbery of his bag at the point of knife by
accused and his associate namely Shanu Rehman who is
facing trial in juvenile justice board. After registration of
the case, IO arrested the accused, prepared site plan,
recorded disclosure statement of accused and after
completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet u/S
392/397/34 IPC & Sec. 27/54/59 Arms Act against the
accused in court. Accused Shanu Rehman was found to be
juvenile and therefore separate charge sheet against him
was filed in Juvenile Justice Board."
3. Trial court has relied upon the evidence of complainant (PW-1) and
other police officials to convict and sentence appellant-accused as noted
hereinabove, while discarding appellant's plea of false implication.
4. To assail the impugned conviction, learned counsel for appellant
had contended on instructions from appellant who was produced in
custody that appellant was driver by profession and he used to station his
TSR near the Mama Bhanja Park and on the fateful day, appellant was
sleeping in the park at a distance of 200 meters from the spot and it is
highly unlikely that his co-accused could be apprehended whereas
appellant could not have been apprehended. It was further submitted that
Mr. Desai, Accounts Manager of complainant's company, from whose
mobile phone complainant had made a call to the local police, has not
been made a witness. It was next submitted that version of complainant
stands contradicted by the version of police official (PW-2), as according
to complainant he had made a call to local police after about 10 minutes
whereas, as per version of PW-2, the apprehension of appellant-accused
was within a short time of this incident. It was also pointed out that
appellant was apprehended after about 15 minutes of this incident and
was found to be in drowsy condition and is so evident from his MLC.
Lastly, it was submitted that this case has been planted upon appellant
and so, without any independent corroboration, prosecution version ought
not to be relied upon.
5. To the contrary was the submission advanced by learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State, who had submitted
that the conviction and sentence of appellant is just and proper.
6. Submissions advanced by both the sides on the last date of hearing,
have been duly considered and on perusal of impugned judgment, order
on sentence, nominal roll of appellant and the evidence on record, I find
that nothing has come in the cross-examination of complainant (PW-1) to
substantiate appellant's plea of his not being apprehended at the spot.
Since there is no cross-examination of complainant (PW-1) regarding
appellant not being apprehended at the spot (though appellant claims that
he was very much near the spot), therefore no benefit accrues to appellant
on this count. Regarding contradiction inter se evidence of complainant
(PW-1) and police official (PW-2), I find after going through their
evidence that there is no apparent contradiction inter se their evidence.
No doubt, it has come in the evidence of complainant (PW-1) that there
were many passersby but there is no cross-examination of complainant as
to why no such person was joined in the investigation. In any case, denial
by police official (PW-2) regarding presence of public persons at the spot,
is of no avail as Investigating Officer (PW-6) has not been cross-
examined on this aspect. It is for the Investigating Officer to explain as
to why public persons were not joined in the investigation. Nothing turns
on this aspect for the reason that evidence of complainant (PW-1) is
clinching and after scrutinizing of evidence of complainant (PW-1), I find
no reason to disbelieve the version putforth by him. MLC of appellant-
accused does show that he was in a drowsy state, as he was a drug addict.
However, it is also noted in appellant's MLC that appellant was
conscious. So, it cannot be said that appellant was not in a position to
commit the offence in question due to his drowsiness. No reason is
forthcoming as to why complainant (PW-1) would falsely implicate
appellant, from whom weapon of offence i.e. knife used in commission of
offence in question, was recovered and also complainant's bag containing
looted articles was recovered. The ocular version putforth by
complainant (PW-1) receives ample corroboration from the recoveries
made from appellant-accused.
7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the conviction of appellant
is well merited. Since appellant-accused had used a big knife in
commission of this crime and the said knife has been recovered at the
instance of appellant, therefore, I find that the minimum sentence of
seven years awarded to appellant for offence under Section 397 of IPC
does not call for any interference. The sentence awarded to appellant is
just and proper in the facts and circumstances of his case.
8. In light of the aforesaid, finding no substance in this appeal, it is
dismissed. Appellant be apprised of the fate of his appeal through the
concerned Jail Superintendent.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
June 16, 2017
r
