PAPPAN KASANA Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 02.04.2011 in Sessions Case No.38/2009 arising out of FIR No.876/2004 PS Sangam Vihar by which the appellant- Pappan Kasana was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 394/34IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for six months. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Allegations against the accused were that on 25.11.2004 at about 11.30 P.M. near Karnni Singh shooting range gate towards Sangam Vihar he with co-accused Nasruddin @ Bhura, Sanjay @ Naresh and Mahipal Singh (PO) committed robbery and deprived complainant Ranvir Singh of Rs. 8,000/-, wrist watch make Titan, mobile phone (Nokia). They also caused injuries with sharp object to Ranvir Singh while committing robbery. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded innocence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held the accused and his associates guilty and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the accused has preferred the appeal.

(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the sole testimony of the complainant-Ranvir Singh. He categorically admitted that it was dark at the spot. The Test Identification Parade was conducted on 09.02.2005 after a gap of six weeks from the date of incident. Nothing was recovered at the instance of the accused. He was arrested in case FIR No.78/2005 and was falsely implicated in this case on the basis of disclosure statement recorded therein. There are major contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution failed to explain about fourth suspect Mahipal Singh. Learned APP urged that the testimony of the complainant who is an injured witness inspires implicit confidence and there are no good reasons to disbelieve him. The accused was identified in Test Identification Proceedings as well as in the Court.