SHEIKH MUNNA @ MUNNA SHEIKH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sheikh Munna @ Munna Sheikh (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 07.07.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.57/2011 arising out of FIR No.64/2011 registered at Police Station N.D.R.S. by which he was convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 09.07.2012, he was directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years with fine Rs. 50,000/- under Section 394 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 397 IPC.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.03.2011 at about 04.00 P.M. under a pucca flyover in front of platform No.8/9 of New Delhi Railway Station, he with his associates Saddam and Bhura (not arrested) in furtherance of common intention robbed Smt.Asha Rani of her gold chain and caused injuries to her husband B.Udayraj with surgical blade. Daily Diary (DD) No.19A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at Police Station N.D.R.S. at 05.28 P.M. on getting information that an army man has been stabbed with knife. The investigation was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar who with Ct.Bheem Singh went to LNJP hospital and collected the MLC of B.Udayraj. Asha Rani (PW-2) recorded her statement (Ex.PW-2/A). The Investigating Officer made endorsement (Ex.PW-6/A) and lodged First Information Report. Attempts were made to find out the culprits but in vain. On 17.10.2011 Sheikh Munna @ Munna Sheikh was arrested in case FIR No.252/2011 under Section 307/34 IPC and his involvement surfaced in the disclosure statement (Ex.PW-5/C). He declined to participate in Test Identification Proceedings. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses conversant with the facts and after completion of investigation filed a charge-sheet in the court. The appellant was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove the charges. In his 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication due to refusal to do cleaning work in the police station. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the offences mentioned previously and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, he has filed the present appeal.

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The appellant did not join TIP as his photo was shown to the complainant. Appellant's identification by PWs-2 and 3 after a gap of about seven months is highly doubtful. No weapon of offence and robbed article was recovered from the appellant's possession or at his instance. The Trial Court did not pay attention to the discrepancies emerging in the evidence about the exact number of assailants. PWs have given divergent versions and have made improvements. It is also not certain whether the weapon used was a razor or knife. Identification by photograph is not valid. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound reasons to discard the testimony of victim and her husband who was injured at the time of committing robbery. Minor discrepancies highlighted by the appellant's counsel are not fatal.