DANNE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 8 th May, 2000 convicting him for offence punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and order dated 10 th May, 2000 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of '5000/- under Section 392 and 7 years and a fine of '2000/- under Section 394/397 IPC.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case registered on the complaint on PW4 Brij Pal is that on 21 st August, 1998 at about 11:15 p.m. at night when he reached near public school on 66 feet Road, Jafrabad on his bicycle, three boys came on foot and stopped him by showing the knife and gave him beatings. One of the boys tried to snatch '3750/- which he had kept in his front inside pocket of his pant and when he resisted, the other person gave knife blow on his left hand wrist and the first one snatched the amount and all of them ran away. He made a phone call to the police on 100 number on which the PCR van came and removed him to GTB Hospital. He stated that he could identify the accused if produced. As per the MLC, the doctor opined that the nature of injury was simple and caused by sharp weapon. The Appellant was arrested in FIR No. 361/1998 by the Crime Branch where he disclosed his involvement in the present case. The disclosure statement was handed over to the investigating officer of this case who arrested him in the present case. Similarly, co-accused Mohd. Anwar was arrested in another case and he also made a disclosure of his involvement in the present case. The Appellant and the co-convict Mohd. Anwar refused the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) on the ground that they had been shown to the witnesses. After examination of the prosecution witnesses and the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Appellant was convicted as above. Co-convict Mohd. Anwar was convicted for offence under Section 392/394/34 IPC and awarded a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years for offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC. He had filed Crl. Appeal No. 588/2000 which has been disposed by this Court vide order dated 19 th November, 2005 wherein his sentence was modified to period already undergone as he had undergone more than 6 years and 5 months imprisonment.

(3.) The contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellant are that the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. The disclosure made in the other case is not admissible in this case as there is no recovery pursuant to the disclosure. No knife or cash has been recovered. Moreover, the case of the prosecution was that there were three boys however only two have been arrested and convicted. The T.I.P. was refused because the Appellant was shown to the witnesses thus no adverse inference can be drawn against the Appellant on that count.