Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 589 (UTT)

VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY v. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

2014-12-17

U.C.DHYANI

body2014
JUDGMENT U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral) Since the above mentioned Criminal Appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, therefore, they are being decided together for the sake of brevity and convenience. 2. Accused persons, namely, Vikram Singh @ Vicky, Rajkumar @ Raju and Gopi @ Vijay Kumar were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each, vide judgment and order dated 29.01.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, Pauri Garhwal. Accused persons, namely, Vikram Singh @ Vicky, Rajkumar @ Raju and Gopi @ Vijay Kumar were also convicted under Section 25 Arms Act. Each one of them was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year along with a fine of Rs. 1000/- vide selfsame judgment and order passed by the trial court. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Aggrieved against their conviction and sentences, the convicts have preferred present criminal appeals. The appellants are in judicial detention since 29th January, 2013. 4. The prosecution story is that when the informant was going back to his house, at 08:45 p.m., after closing his shop, Deepak Chauhan alias Anju requested the informant to accompany him on motorcycle. After some time, when the informant’s motorcycle went out of order, three unknown miscreants came and looted him on pistol point. The informant was robbed of Rs. 80,000/- along with gold ring and the miscreants ran away. Subsequent thereto, the arrest of the accused-persons was affected by the Police. On the basis of recovery of looted property and arsenals, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 307 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Separate charge-sheets were also filed against the accused-appellants Vikram Singh @ Vicky, Rajkumar @ Raju and Gopi @ Vijay Kumar for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. A charge sheet was also filed against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 411 of IPC. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the prosecution opened it’s case, charges were accordingly framed against the accused-persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. A charge sheet was also filed against the accused-appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 397 and 411 of IPC. 5. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the prosecution opened it’s case, charges were accordingly framed against the accused-persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. As many as 15 prosecution witnesses, namely, PW1 Jagdish Sharma, PW2 Pradeep Maheshwari, PW3 SI Ravindra Kumar Singh, PW4 Radhey Shyam Bansal, PW5 Mahesh Bansal, PW6 CP Pankaj Kumar, PW7 CP Sudhir Kumar, PW8 Deepak Kumar, PW9 D.S.Vajuva, PW10 Rajeev Kumar, PW11 Naseem Ahmad, PW12 Feroj Alam, PW13 Bhagvatinath Mishra, PW14 SI Gajendra Singh, and PW15 SSI Ajay Chauhan, were examined on behalf of the prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused-appellants under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they said that prosecution witnesses were telling a lie and nothing was recovered from their possession. DW 1 Ramesh Chandra and DW2 Jagga Singh were examined on behalf of the defence. 7. PW1 did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. PW2 is the witness, before whom the looted money was recovered from the possession of accused Vikram Singh. PW3 is the witness before whom the looted money along with Arms was recovered from the possession of the appellants. PW4 is the scribe of the complaint. PW5 is the reporter, who set the criminal law into motion and who was robbed off the valuables by the accused-appellants. PW 6 is a formal witness, who proved chik FIR and extract of G.D. PW7 proved the recovery memo of recovery of cash from the possession of the accused-persons. PW 8 did not support the prosecution story. PW9 proved the charge-sheets submitted against the accused persons. PW10 is the witness of arrest and recovery of incriminating articles from the possession of the accused persons. PW11 is a witness of recovery of valuables from the possession of the appellants. PW12 is a formal witness. PW13 is the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who conducted test identification parade. PW14 was the investigating officer, who conducted investigation at some length. PW15 also conducted the investigation in piecemeal. 8. PW2 to PW15, but for PW8, have supported the prosecution story. The same was appropriately dealt with by learned trial court holding that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellants beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. PW14 was the investigating officer, who conducted investigation at some length. PW15 also conducted the investigation in piecemeal. 8. PW2 to PW15, but for PW8, have supported the prosecution story. The same was appropriately dealt with by learned trial court holding that the prosecution was able to prove the case against the appellants beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt. Nothing is pointed out, during the course of arguments of present criminal appeals, to show as to why the prosecution witnesses should not be believed. 9. DW1 and DW2 made an attempt to bring home the point that the cash thus recovered from the possession of the appellants belonged to them, which plea was accepted by the trial court and therefore, they were acquitted of the charge under Section 411 of IPC. The accused persons were also acquitted of the charges levelled under Section 397 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and Section 411 of IPC. Accused-persons were also exonerated of the charges under Section 397 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 307 IPC read with Sections 147,148 and 149 of IPC. 10. In a nutshell, there is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecution witnesses were telling a lie. They were cross-examined at length, much to the discomfiture of the defence. The quality of evidence rendered by the prosecution is such that this Court is unable to take a view different from what was taken by the trial court. 11. Thus this Court is inclined to hold that the conviction of the appellants is based upon cogent reasons, which are well founded in law. No interference is thus called for in so far as the conviction of the appellants is concerned. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants confined his prayer only to the extent that the sentences awarded to the appellants by the trial court should be reduced. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were sent in judicial detention on 29th January, 2013 and since then they are in jail. He also submitted that the accused-appellants were arrested on 18th November, 2006 and remained in jail for more than six months. It is the sole prayer on their behalf, that the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the minimum. He also submitted that the accused-appellants were arrested on 18th November, 2006 and remained in jail for more than six months. It is the sole prayer on their behalf, that the sentence awarded to the appellants be reduced to the minimum. Learned Deputy Advocate General, on the other hand, submitted that it is a case of direct evidence, in which dare devil robbery took place in the open street, which is a heinous crime and therefore, the appellants do not deserve any leniency. 13. Considering the entire conspectus of things, this Court thinks that a sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment each, along with fine shall serve the ends of justice. Order accordingly. 14. Whereas the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC is affirmed, each of the appellant is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years along with a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Sections 394 IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, each one of the appellants will undergo rigorous imprisonment for further two months. 15. Since the sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 25 Arms Act has become inconsequential, in as much as, the same has been served by the appellants, therefore, no separate order is desired to be passed in respect of the same. 16. Period of detention undergone by the accused-appellants shall be set off against the sentence of imprisonment, which has been modified by this Court. 17. All the criminal appeals thus stand disposed of. 18. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance.