LAWS(DLH)-2011-7-215

DINESH KUMAR ALIAS DINU Vs. STATE

Decided On July 11, 2011
DINESH KUMAR ALIAS DINU Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals impugn a common judgment dated 1st July, 2010 convicting the Appellant Dinesh Kumar, in Criminal Appeal No. 929/2010, Sandeep in Criminal Appeal No. 242/2011 and Rajeev Kumar and Praveen Kumar in Criminal Appeal No. 1336/2010 for offences punishable under Sections 392/411 IPC, besides convicting Appellant Praveen Kumar for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and 25 Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 14th July, 2010 inter alia directing Appellants Dinesh Kumar, Rajeev and Sandeep to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC and three years for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and Appellant Praveen to Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years for offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC and three years for offence under Section 411 IPC. The Appellants Praveen, Rajeev and Sandeep have also been directed to undergo sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case in nutshell is that on 5th December, 2004 at about 3.30 P.M. the Appellants committed robbery of 23 mobile phones, several dummy phones and about Rs. 80,000/- to Rs. 90,000/- at the shop No.23 ,,Mobile India at NWA Club Road, Punjabi Bagh and also gold chain and purse belonging to Sanjeev Kumar and Navneet Kaur. THEy also extended threats to Sanjeev Kumar and his assistant Navneet Kaur with pistols and restrained them by pushing them inside the cabin and tied them with rope to facilitate the commission of robbery and thereafter escaped from the spot. On registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out. On 18th December, 2004 Dinesh Kumar and Rajeev were arrested from Madipur crossing and from them mobile phones and one country made pistol of .12 bore was recovered from Appellant Rajeev. THE Appellant Dinesh Kumar was found in possession of one mobile phone make Nokia along with a charger, booklet and cardboard box which had allegedly been robbed from the shop and it was also disclosed that on 10th December, 2004 he had sold one mobile phone model No. 6610 with IMEI No.315350404912887 belonging to one Gaurav Kakkar PW4 stolen from the shop of the Sanjeev to PW5 Neeraj Sachdeva at his shop in MCD Market, Karol Bagh. THE Appellant Dinesh Kumar further got recovered five mobile phones make Nokia from his house at Village Budhpur, District Baghpat, U.P. THEreafter they led the police party to Karol Bagh at Shop No. 140, MCD Market and identified Neeraj Sachdeva to be the On 22nd person to whom the mobile phone was sold by the accused. December, 2004 the Appellant Sandeep and Praveen were arrested from Gate of ISBT Kashmere Gate and a country made pistol with one live cartridge was at the instance of Appellant Sandeep. On the disclosure of co-accused Praveen country made pistol was recovered from Shakarpur Railway Crossing near safeda tree by digging out the earth. On 23rd December, 2006 Sandeep and Praveen led the policy party at sugarcane field at Village Budhpur, District Baghpat, U.P. and got recovered a bag containing 19 dummy phones, one booklet of Nokia 3105 along with other documents. On 25th December, 2004 accused Dinesh Kumar made a supplementary disclosure and at his instance, 5 mobile phones were recovered from his house at Village Budhpur, District Baghpat. During the TIP the Appellant and Sandeep was duly identified by Ms. Navneet Kaur PW3 whereas the other Appellants refused to participate in the TIP. After the charge sheet, trial was conducted and the Appellants were convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellants Rajeev and Praveen reiterate the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellants Sandeep and Dinesh. It is further contended that the Appellant Praveen cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. In the alternative, he further contends that Appellants have been in custody for more than six years four months and thus they be released on the period already undergone.