Delhi High Court
Mohd. Shahrukh vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 3rd October, 2018
Decided on: 31st May, 2019
+ CRL.A. 127/2018
MOHD. SHAHRUKH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr. Kushal Raj Gupta,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Represented by: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
APP for the State with SI
Naveen, PS Seelampur
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present appeal, Mohd. Shahrukh challenges the impugned
judgment dated 24th October, 2017 convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 392 IPC in FIR No. 589/2016 registered at PS
Seelampur and the order on sentence dated 3rd November 2017 directing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three and a half years
and to pay a fine of ₹ 500/- and in default whereof to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of six months.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the complainant Sonu
Kumar who was examined as PW-4, deposed contrary to his statement
before the police and does not support the case of the prosecution. He
further prays for reduction of sentence on the same ground.
3. Per contra, Learned APP for the State submits that the appellant was
apprehended at the spot and was causing injury to the complainant with a
shaving blade.
4. Process of law was set into motion on 26th December 2016 at about
12:30 P.M. when W/SI Rajesh received a phone call from HC Vikram
informing about one boy who had robbed a mobile phone from another man
was overpowered at the spot. Aforesaid information was recorded vide DD
No.12A (Ex.PW-3/A) and assigned to SI Manoj. He along with SI Rahul
and Ct. Devender reached the place of occurrence near Bihari Mandir, GT
Road Shastri Park. On reaching the spot he met the complainant Sonu
Kumar and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW-4/A wherein he stated that
he worked as a housekeeper at Jubli and Company, Pari Chowk. On 26th
December 2016, he left home to buy his Asthma Medicines from the
hospital near the University. He was travelling to Delhi via train and got
down at Yamuna Iron Bridge. When he was going to board the metro from
there at around 11:30 A.M., he took out his phone to call his cousin brother,
one boy whose name he later found out as Mohd. Shahrukh snatched his
mobile phone make MI2 Redmi Prime. He ran after him and caught hold of
him. When he started shouting 'Chor-Chor' loudly, Mohd. Shahrukh
slapped him 3-4 times and took out a shaving blade from his pocket and
started scaring him. When he was scaring him, some people who were
passing by saw and came to his rescue. During this fight, HC Vikram came
there and he caught hold of Mohd. Shahrukh. On the basis of the aforesaid
statement, FIR No. 589/2016 (Ex.PW-3/C) was lodged at PS Seelampur for
the offence punishable under Section 394/411 IPC.
5. Thereafter, Mohd. Shahrukh was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-
4/E5 and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW-4/E5 wherein a
MI2 Redmi Prime Mobile Phone and one half blade was recovered at his
instance. The phone was identified by Sonu Kumar as his phone. His
disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW-4/E7. SI Manoj prepared the
site plan vide Ex.PW-4/E4. The mobile phone and one half blade was seized
vide seizure memos Ex.PW-4/E2 and Ex.PW-4/E3. Photographs of the
mobile phone were taken vide Ex.PW-8/C. He collected a copy of the
mobile phone bill (Ex.PW-1/A) which revealed that the mobile phone was in
the name of one Abhishek who was the cousin brother of Sonu Kumar.
6. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Charge was
framed for offences punishable under Sections 394/397/411/ 34 IPC vide
order dated 1st May 2017.
7. Sonu Kumar (PW-4), complainant deposed that on 26th December
2016, he was travelling in train and was coming to Delhi to buy medicines
for his mother. When the train reached near lohe ka pul someone came to
him, snatched his mobile phone from his hand, jumped from the running
train and ran away. He also got down from the train as the train was going
very slow at that time. He could not apprehend the person. When he reached
the main road he noticed one police picket where he met a police official to
whom he narrated the entire incident. The police official directed him to go
to PS Seelampur. Thereafter, he went to PS Seelampur and got his statement
recorded. He stated that he was not in a position to identify the robber as he
had not seen him at that time. He further stated that no one was arrested by
the police in his presence neither was any weapon/blade used at the time of
the robbery.
8. Abhishek Kumar (PW-1), cousin brother of complainant stated that on
4th May 2015, he had purchased one mobile phone make Redmi2 in Black
& White color. The receipt of the same is Ex.PW-1/A. After 5-6 months, he
sold the phone to Sonu. He identified the photographs depicting the mobile
phone in court.
9. As noted above, appellant was not apprehended from the spot but later
on. The complainant could not identify the person who had robbed him as
he has not seen him at that time. He also denied that the appellant was
arrested in his presence or that any recovery was made from him. The
recovery of the mobile phone at the instance of the appellant is also not
connected with that of the complainant for the reason the mobile phone was
identified by the photographs and not by the actual instrument which
identification would not be proper as every mobile phone of series would be
similar in nature except that from the recordings therein or from the mobile
number or the SIM number or IMEI number, identification can be done.
From the evidence of the prosecution as noted above, it cannot be held that
the prosecution has proved that the appellant is guilty of offences punishable
under Sections 392 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the appellant is
entitled to the benefit of doubt. Impugned judgment of conviction and order
on sentence are set aside.
10. Appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of this order be sent to Superintendent Central Jail Tihar for
updation of the Jail record. The appellant be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
12. TCR be returned.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MAY 31, 2018
vj
