PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pramod Kumar (A-1) and Kamal (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 28.02.2000 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.138/91, 45/92 & 146/91 arising out of FIR No.149/91 registered at Police Station Badarpur by which A-1 and A-2 were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 397/392/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act and under Section 392/34 IPC respectively. By an order dated 29.02.2000, A-1 and A-2 were awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 6,000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 3,000/- respectively. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under:-

(2.) On 28.05.1991 Narinder Singh was robbed of a purse containing Rs. 142/-, DTC all-route pass, HMT watch and some papers at about 11.30 P.M. at knife point when he was travelling in TSR No.DL-IR- 2454 driven by A-2. A-1 and Kanta Giri @ Kanti Giri (since expired) who were made to sit in the said TSR with active connivance of A-2 robbed the complainant. After the incident, the complainant was thrown/pushed out of the TSR and the assailants fled the spot. A police Gypsy happened to reach after about 5/10 minutes and the complainant narrated the incident to police officials on patrolling duty who were able to apprehend the assailants at some distance at his pointing out and recover robbed articles, TSR and knives from their possession. The Investigating Officer recorded Narinder Singh's statement (Ex.PW-3/A) and lodged First Information Report by making endorsement (Ex.PW4/F) thereon. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation the assailants were charge-sheeted and brought to trial. The prosecution examined four witnesses to establish the appellants' guilt. In their 313 statements they pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction of the appellants for offences mentioned previously. Proceedings against Kanta Giri @ Kanti Giri were dropped as abated due to his death.

(3.) I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. In their 313 statements, the appellants admitted their presence in the TSR on the date and time disclosed by the complainant. They also admitted their apprehension by the police soon after the occurrence. They pleaded that an altercation/quarrel had taken place with the complainant over sharing of fare. It did not find favour and was outrightly rejected by the Trial Court with cogent reasons. The assailants were named at the first instance by the complainant in the statement (Ex.PW-3/A) and role played by each of them was described with detailed account. The assailants were apprehended by the police on the pointing out of the complainant soon after the incident and the robbed articles were recovered from their possession. The First Information Report was lodged at 12.30 A.M. promptly without delay after the occurrence at 11.30 P.M. FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. Early reporting of the occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of the version. In the case of Jail Prakash Singh v.State of Bihar & Anr., 2012 CrLJ 2101 the Supreme Court held:-