Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 967 (DEL)

Sher Singh @ Sheru v. State NCT of Delhi

2014-03-21

S.P.GARG

body2014
Judgment S.P. Garg, J. 1. Sher Singh @ Sheru (A-1), Harish @ Bunty (A-2) and Vinod @ Ajay (A-3) impugn a judgment dated 09.08.2011 in Sessions Case No. 25/10 arising out of FIR No. 63/10 PS Bharat Nagar by which they were held perpetrator of the crime under Sections 392/34 IPC. A-3 in addition was convicted with the aid of Section 397. By an order on sentence dated 11.08.2011, A-1 and A-2 were awarded RI for five years with fine Rs.2,000/- and A-3 was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 3,000/-. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 05.03.2010 at about 03.30 P.M. near gate of Ismail Khan park, GTK road, Delhi, they in furtherance of common intention committed robbery and deprived complainant – Brij Mohan of a purse containing Rs. 100/- and documents; cash Rs. 5,600/-. A-3 was armed with a ‘churi’ at the time of commission of robbery. Daily Diary (DD) No. 23A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at PS Bharat Nagar at about 04.08 P.M. on getting information of the incident. The investigation was marked to HC Sudhir who went to the spot and lodged First Information Report after recording complainant – Brij Mohan’s statement (Ex.PW-2/A). The complainant was able to apprehend A-1 at the spot after some chase; A-2 and A-3 succeeded to flee the spot. They were subsequently arrested pursuant to A-1’s disclosure statement; a knife was recovered at A-3’s instance; Rs. 400/- were recovered from A-2’s possession. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. 3. During hearing of the appeals, appellants’ counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted to not challenge their conviction under Section 392/34 IPC. Their only plea was to modify the sentence order as the appellants have remained in custody for substantial period. It is further argued that Section 397 IPC is not attracted as the prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt if any ‘deadly’ weapon was used at the time of committing robbery. 4. Their only plea was to modify the sentence order as the appellants have remained in custody for substantial period. It is further argued that Section 397 IPC is not attracted as the prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt if any ‘deadly’ weapon was used at the time of committing robbery. 4. Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court under Section 392/34 IPC in view of the clinching evidence of PW-2 (Brij Mohan) coupled with recovery of the robbed / stolen articles, their conviction under Section 392/34 IPC is affirmed. A-3 has been awarded punishment with the aid of Section 397 IPC as he allegedly used a knife at the time of committing robbery. Daily Diary (DD) No. 23A (Ex.PW-1/A) recorded on the basis of the information given by the complainant does not record use of any weapon by the assailants. When the Investigating Officer went to the spot, the complainant handed over him A-1’s custody. He was not in possession of any knife that time. The crime weapon i.e. knife (Ex.P-6) is alleged to have been recovered pursuant to A-3’s disclosure statement. However, prosecution witnesses have given divergent and conflicting version in this regard. The complainant – Brij Mohan in the examination-in-chief identified A-3 to be the assailant who used the knife and it was recovered at his instance after his arrest. However, in the cross-examination, he gave entirely contradictory version and stated that the knife was recovered by A-1 near railway lines. The prosecution did not seek necessary clarification. It is unclear at whose instance the crime weapon was recovered. PW-2 (Brij Mohan) was unable to give the measurement of the knife used in the incident. Admittedly, no injuries were caused to the complainant with any weapon. It is not clear which of the assailant was in possession of a deadly weapon at the time of incident. If knife (Ex.P-6) was recovered at A-1’s instance, it is difficult to believe that it was used by A-3. No independent public witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery of knife. In the statement (Ex.PW-2/A), complainant did not give description of the assailant who used the knife at the time of occurrence. If knife (Ex.P-6) was recovered at A-1’s instance, it is difficult to believe that it was used by A-3. No independent public witness was associated at the time of alleged recovery of knife. In the statement (Ex.PW-2/A), complainant did not give description of the assailant who used the knife at the time of occurrence. A-3’s conviction with the aid of Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained as the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that it was A- 3 who was in possession of a deadly weapon and it was used by him. Resultantly, while maintaining conviction under Section 392/34 IPC, conviction with the aid of Section 397 IPC is set aside. 5. A-1’s nominal roll dated 03.08.2013 reveals that he suffered custody in this case for three years, four months and twenty three days besides remission for seven months and eleven days as on 30.07.2013. The unexpired portion was only eleven months and twenty six days on that date. He was granted suspension of sentence by an order dated 29.08.2013. He is a first offender and is not involved in any other criminal case; his overall jail conduct was satisfactory. A-2’s nominal roll dated 29.11.2011 shows that he remained in custody for one year, eight months and twenty three days besides remission for twenty seven days as on 28.11.2011. His substantive sentence was suspended by an order dated 12.12.2011 where it was noted that he had already undergone nearly two years out of the total sentence of five years. He is not involved in any other criminal case and his overall jail conduct was satisfactory. A-3’s nominal roll dated 31.10.2013 demonstrates that he has suffered custody in this case for three years, seven months and twenty four days besides remission for eight months and twenty six days as on 31.10.2013 before enlargement on bail by an order dated 21.11.2013. He is also not a previous convict and has clean antecedents. 6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the period already undergone in custody by the appellants in this case is taken as their substantive sentence. 7. Appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. 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.