KAMAL Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeals the Appellants lay a challenge to the judgment dated 15th December, 2009 whereby they have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 394/34 IPC and the order dated 19th December, 2009 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that the alleged Complainant PW1 Aleyamma neither gives the name nor the description of the accused in her statement. She did not lodge the First Information immediately after the incident, though she is allegedly a victim. She further states that after the incident she came to her house and after about an hour she received a phone call from Church whereafter she went to the Police Station. It is contended that PW1 does not say about the presence of PW3 Christy John. Further, also PW3 Christy John does not say that he called the PW1. Though the Appellants were allegedly apprehended at the spot soon after the incident but the FIR was registered belatedly after a period of six hours. No request for TIP was made nor was it conducted. The TSR has neither been exhibited nor proved. There are contradictions in regard to the time of PW1 reaching the place. Moreover, the accused persons were made to sit unmuffled when they were got identified by PW1. Furthermore no TIP of the allegedly robbed chain was conducted. PW1 simply walks into the Police Station and identifies the same. The recovery of the knife is also shrouded in mystery. It is stated that the knife was handed -over in the hospital and thus memo of knife was prepared later on, which fact has been denied by PW1. The TSR has not been exhibited and proved by either of the eye -witnesses and exhibiting of TSR by one Chandeshwar Sahu is meaningless exercise.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.