KAYUM ALIAS SUNIL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kayum @ Sunil (A-1), Deepak @ Raghubir @ Kallu (A-2) and Bhola (A-3) challenge a judgment dated 24.12.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 93/2006 arising out of FIR No. 113/2006 PS DBG Road by which A-1 was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and A-2 and A-3 were convicted under Section 392 IPC. By an order dated 04.01.2011, they all were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/- each.

(2.) Allegations against A-1 to A-3 were that on 12.04.2006 at about 06.40 A.M. at DBG Road, they committed robbery of one gold chain, wrist watch, mobile phone make Nokia and cash Rs. 1,300/- belonging to Vishnu Kumar Bansal at the point of knives while he was travelling in a private bus No. DL-1PB-5088. Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording his statement (Ex.PW-2/A). On 27.04.2006, A-1 and A-2 were arrested in case FIR No.132/2006 PS DBG Road. Their involvement in this case surfaced during their confessional statements recorded therein. On 11.05.2006, A-3 was arrested. Pursuant to the appellants' disclosure statements, robbed articles were recovered. The applications were moved for conducting Test Identification Proceedings. A-2 was identified while A-1 and A-3 declined to participate in the TIP Proceedings. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against A-1 to A-3 for committing offence under Section 392/397/411/34 IPC. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. In their 313 statement, they denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held A-1 to A-3 perpetrators of the crime as mentioned previously and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) During the course of arguments, on instructions, counsel for the appellants stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 392 IPC and accept it. They however, strongly contended that Section 397 IPC was not attracted and conviction thereunder was unsustainable. Prayer was made to release them as they are in incarceration for more than three years.