Bedh Rupesh Ingh 2 Others vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 3777 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 3777 Tel
Judgement Date : 18 July, 2022

Telangana High Court

Bedh Rupesh Ingh 2 Others vs The State Of A.P. on 18 July, 2022

Bench: K.Surender

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

     CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.1254 & 1364 OF 2008
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1.

The appellants/Accused 1 to 4 were convicted by the

II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide

judgment in SC No.130 of 2008 dated 25.09.2008 and

sentenced them to undergo RI for seven years for the

charge under Section 398 IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the

1st appellant filed Crl. Appeal No.1364 of 2008 and

appellants 2 to 4/A2 to A4 filed Crl. Appeal No.1354 of

2008. Since the conviction of all the accused arising out

of similar offence, they are being heard and disposed off by

way of this Common Judgment.

2. The case of the prosecution as per the statement of

P.W.1 is that on 13.12.2007, while he was returning from

his office to go to his house at Kachiguda and reached

near community hall, Barkathpura at about 11.00 pm. At

that time, four persons stopped P.W.1 and asked him to

give amount. Meanwhile, Rakshak police mobile van came

there and on seeing the police van, one among four

persons escaped from the spot. Three police constables

got down from the van and caught three persons, who are

the appellants/A1 to A3. For the said reason, P.W.1

lodged a complaint Ex.P1 against A1 to A4.

3. The prosecution also examined P.Ws.2 and 3, who

turned hostile to the prosecution case. P.Ws.2 and 3 are

panchas to the confession and seizure of M.Os.1 to 4,

which are two knives and two bikes.

4. P.Ws.4 and 5 are constable and home guard

respectively and P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of police, who

registered Ex.P1 complaint and investigated the case.

P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that on 13.12.2007 while they were

on duty doing rounds in Rakshak vehile saw a person

shouting for help. They approached the spot and

apprehended three persons, who are A1 to A3.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that

as seen from the complaint Ex.P1, it is mentioned that

four persons armed with knives had attacked and tried to

snatch gold chain, however, before the Court during his

chief examination, P.W.1 never stated that the accused

were holding knives or they tried to snatch his chain,

which is major contradiction. Further, during the course of

his cross-examination, he stated that Ex.P1 complaint was

given by his brother and he does not know the contents of

Ex.P1 complaint.

6. In the said circumstances, when the alleged victim P.W.1

had deposed before the Court that he was not shown any

knives nor the accused tried to snatch the chain, the

conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge under

Section 398 of IPC has to be set aside. Further the witnesses to

seizure turned hostile to the prosecution case.

7. Section 398 of IPC reads as follows:

"398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon.--If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the im- prisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years."

8. As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, none of the

accused were armed with any deadly weapons and P.W.1

also did not state the version as mentioned in the

complaint, however, it is stated that some persons asked

to give him the money. The ingredients of Section 398

IPC are that robbery or dacoity has to be attempted and at

the time of attempting such robbery or dacoity, accused

should have been armed with deadly weapons. As seen

from the evidence of P.W.1, during the course of his chief

examination, there is no such allegation of any accused

armed with any deadly weapons. Though M.Os.1 and 3

are shown as seized, it is not clear from whom the said