MOHAMMAD SHAHID Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by Mohd Shahid (hereinafter described as the appellant) directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 22nd May, 2000 and 24th May, 2000 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of file the appellant was to undergo further simple imprisonment for five months. The facts of the prosecution in brief are that on 1st January, 1999 Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar and Head Constable Surinder heard the noise 'pakro-pakro, loot liya'. On hearing the noise Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar and his members of the police force ran towards that direction. They saw one person coming to their side while running. Sub Inspector apprehended that person with the help of the police staff. On his search a knife was recovered from his right side of the socks and Rs.265/- were recovered from the right pocket of his coat. Sketch of the knife was drawn and it was taken into possession after sealing the same. He also took into possession Rs.265/-.

(2.) Complainant Ghanshyam Awasthi was also available and had made the complaint that he was travelling on bus route no. 429. When he got down at the bus stop of Ashram Chowk he was apprehended by one person who dragged him in the street. That person had taken out a knife from his socks and threatened that if he would raise an alarm he would be killed. He snatched Rs.265/- from him and thereafter had started running. The complainant, had raised an alarm. It is on these broad facts that report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure had been filed against the appellant. The charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

(3.) In support of its case prosecution had examined seven witnesses including the complinant and the members of the police force who had apprehended the appellant. When the said evidence was put to the appellant in his statement under lection 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he denied his involvement in the case and pleaded his innocence. He did not produce any defence.