MOHD DULAL ALIAS FAZAL KARIM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 25th May, 2009 and order on sentence dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant-accused was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 392 IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 397 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 2nd December 2006 the appellant along with two other persons, who could not be arrested by the police, robbed PW?3 Sunil Kumar of Rs. 21,000/- and his wrist watch at the point of knife. After committing robbery all the three persons had managed to run away from the place of incident. On 25th November, 2006 the appellant-accused was arrested in case FIR No. 209/06 registered at Rajinder Nagar Police Station under Section 25 of the Arms Act and while in police custody in that case he made a disclosure statement admitting his involvement in the present incident also. At the time of recording of his disclosure statement he had also claimed that the wrist watch which he was wearing at that time was the robbed watch of PW-3 Sunil Kumar and he gave it to the Investigating Officer of that case under the Arms Act. Since the present incident of robbery had taken place within the jurisdiction of Karol Bagh Police Station necessary information was given about his arrest and the disclosure statement to the Karol Bagh police station. On receipt of that information one police official reached Rajinder Nagar police station and obtained a copy of the disclosure statement made by the appellant-accused. The appellant was then formally arrested in the present case. The Investigating Officer of the present case then got arranged test identification parade in respect of the wrist watch which the appellant was allegedly wearing at the time of his arrest as well as for his own identification by the complainant PW3-Sunil Kumar. In the test identification parades the complainant had correctly identified the appellant to be one of the robbers who had robbed him as also his wrist watch (Ex. P-1).

(3.) On the completion of the usual investigation formalities the police filed a charge sheet in Court against the appellant and in due course the case came to be committed to sessions Court where he was charged under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. Since the appellant had pleaded not guilty to the charge the prosecution was called to adduce evidence in support of its case.