Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1313 (DEL)

Anil v. State, NCT Govt. of Delhi

2014-04-23

S.P.GARG

body2014
JUDGMENT : S.P.GARG, J. 1. The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 07.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 47/2010 arising out of FIR No. 170/2010 PS Ranjit Nagar by which he was held guilty under Sections 392/397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 26.09.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Sections 392/397 IPC; RI for three years with fine Rs. 250/- each under Sections 25/27 Arms Act. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 01.09.2010 at about 08.10 P.M. near Gopal Dairy, Pandav Nagar, the appellant robbed complainant – Mohd. Naushad of his wallet containing Rs. 2,700/- and I-card of his wife at knife point. The appellant was apprehended at the spot and the robbed articles were recovered from his possession. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Mohd. Naushad’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish his guilt. In 313 statement, he denied complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. The occurrence took place at around 08.10 P.M. Statement of the complainant was recorded and FIR was lodged in promptitude by sending rukka (Ex.PW-2/B) at 10.00 P.M. In the complaint, Mohd. Naushad revealed that when he was going to purchase articles and reached near Gopal Dairy, Pandav Nagar, he was robbed of his wallet containing Rs. 2,700/- and I-card of his wife at knife point by Anil. When he raised alarm, he was caught hold by police officials who were on patrolling duty. The robbed articles and the knife were recovered from his possession. While appearing as PW-1, Mohd. Naushad proved the version given to the police without any variation. He identified Anil to be the assailant who had robbed him after putting him in fear at knife point. In the cross-examination, he denied that the appellant was known to him prior to the incident. While appearing as PW-1, Mohd. Naushad proved the version given to the police without any variation. He identified Anil to be the assailant who had robbed him after putting him in fear at knife point. In the cross-examination, he denied that the appellant was known to him prior to the incident. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material contradiction could be elicited or extracted to disbelieve him. PW-2 (SI Sohan Lal), PW-3 (Ct.Pavinder Kumar) and PW-5 (Ct.Pankaj) deposed about the apprehension of the accused at the spot and the recovery of the robbed articles and the knife from his possession. Their statements are consistent. No ulterior motive was assigned to them for falsely implicating the appellant. The appellant took inconsistent and conflicting defence. In 313 statement, he admitted that the complainant was slapped by him because he (the complainant) used to sell drugs to his nephew and was involved in several cases. However, the appellant did not examine any witness in defence to prove if the complainant was involved in any criminal case or that he used to sell drugs to his nephew. He even did not examine his nephew in defence to prove sale of any drugs to him. The appellant did not lodge any complaint against the complainant for selling drugs. No such suggestion was put to the complainant in the cross-examination. Suggestion was put to him that he used to tease a girl in the locality and the appellant was falsely implicated as he had objected to it. Again, the name of the girl to whom complainant used to tease was not disclosed. The girl was not examined in defence to substantiate the allegation. Contradictory suggestion was put to PW-3 (Ct.Pavinder Kumar) denying his presence at the spot. Altogether different suggestion was put to PW-5 (Ct.Pankaj) that the appellant was falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant as he used to object the running of illegal video game parlour by him. Apparently, defence put to witnesses is inconsistent and conflicting and deserves outright rejection. Nothing has come on record to infer if the complainant was acquainted with the appellant prior to the incident or had any extraneous consideration to falsely implicate him in the incident. Minor inconsistencies regarding the time taken to conduct proceedings etc. highlighted by appellant’s counsel are inconsequential and are not enough to shake the basic structure of prosecution case. 4. Nothing has come on record to infer if the complainant was acquainted with the appellant prior to the incident or had any extraneous consideration to falsely implicate him in the incident. Minor inconsistencies regarding the time taken to conduct proceedings etc. highlighted by appellant’s counsel are inconsequential and are not enough to shake the basic structure of prosecution case. 4. In the light of above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as unmerited. Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.