MANGLU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manglu (A-1), Tara Chand (A-2) and Rajesh Shukla (A-3) impugn their conviction and sentence in Sessions Case No.139/1997 arising out of FIR No.569/1994 registered at Police Station Shakarpur by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 394/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 30.11.1994 at about 07:30 P.M. at School Block, near Tyagi Hotel, they in furtherance of common intention committed robbery on the person of complainantRaj Kumar at the point of knife and deprived him of Rs. 10,000/-. It was also alleged that while committing robbery, they caused injuries with deadly weapon i.e.knife and iron punch to Raj Kumar. During the course of investigation, statement of the victim was recorded. At first instance he was admitted in Walia Nursing Home and shifted to JPN hospital later on. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused were arrested and their disclosure statements were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused. They were duly charged and brought to book. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C.statements, the accused pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Constable Om Parkash), DW-2 (Sunil Kumar) and DW-3 (HC Sri Niwas) stepped in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the contentions of the parties, by the impugned judgment, the appellants were convicted and sentenced. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and erred to base conviction on the sole testimony of complainant-Raj Kumar. PW- 13 (Yogeshwar Tyagi) an alleged eye witness did not corroborate the complainant's version. PW-1 (Kirpi Dev), victim's mother, did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. No weapon was recovered from the accused's possession. Robbed cash was not found in possession of any accused. Counsel further emphasized that the prosecution did not adduce cogent evidence to prove if any 'deadly' weapon was used in the commission of offence. Conviction under Section 397 IPC cannot be sustained. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the complainant (Raj Kumar), an injured witness, has no ulterior motive to falsely implicate the accused. Non-recovery of crime weapon is not fatal.