MAINUDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dtd. 23/2/2018 convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Ss. 392 read with 397 IPC and Sec. 25 of the Arms Act and the order on sentence dtd. 28/2/2018 whereby he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of ?2000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offences punishable under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 397 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and a fine of ?1000/- in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 month for offence punishable under Sec. 25(1B)(b) Arms Act.

(2.) Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant states that there are material discrepancies in the statements of the victim. In her deposition she neither gave the date of incident and even the time of incident was also incorrect. Though the victim stated that her statement was recorded at the Police Station, however the Police Officer stated that her statement was recorded at the spot and then the rukka was sent. No document showing the ownership of the chain was exhibited by the prosecution. Further, the original chain was also not produced in the Court as the complainant stated that she had taken loan after pledging the same. There was no identification mark on the same and since it was an ordinary chain, complainant could not have identified that the same belonged to her. Even the photograph produced in the Court does not show that the same chain was broken and hence the allegation that the chain was snatched by breaking is falsified. Despite number of people being present at the spot, no public witness was joined with the investigation. No finding has been returned by the learned Trial Court that the weapon of offence was a deadly weapon. In her deposition the complainant stated that the knife was not visible and hence offence under Sec. 397 IPC is not made out. Even if an offence under Sec. 392 IPC is made out, the appellant having undergone nearly 6 years imprisonment including remissions, thus he be released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Countering the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP for the State submits that the complainant clearly stated that the appellant put the knife on her neck by one hand and by the other he snatched the chain. There were marks of injuries on her neck. Further, the appellant was apprehended at the spot few meters away from the incident of snatching by the Police Officers who were on patrolling duty. Hence appellant cannot claim that the chain recovered does not belong to the complainant because no documents of the ownership have been produced nor any identification mark of the same has been given. The knife was also recovered on the spot from the appellant which is a deadly weapon in view of the total length of knife being 24 cms with pointed edges. Further, from the photographs of the chain it is found that it has broken at one point which supports the version of the complainant. The sentence of imprisonment for a period of 7 years being the minimum prescribed under Sec. 397 IPC, no case for reduction of the sentence is made out. Further, as per the nominal roll, the appellant is involved in similar other cases. The appellant's antecedents not being clean, he is not entitled to any leniency.