SARFU Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants- Sarfu @ Govinda (A-1) and Ramraj @ Rajesh @ Sagar (A-2) challenge judgment dated 04.08.2000 in Sessions Case No. 146/1998 arising out of FIR No. 532/1998, PS OKhla Industrial Area by which they were convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 2,000/- each.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 01.08.1998 at 07.40 P.M. at Service road joining D- block of Okhla Industrial Area to Anandmayi Road, near Water Tank, they and their associates Amar Kumar Gupta, Khem Chand @ Sonu, Dharamvir @ Dharma and Raj Kumar @ Raju hatched conspiracy to commit decoity and pursuant to that robbed Ravinder Chaudhary of cash Rs. 86,000/- and in the process injured him. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Jagdish) and DW-2 (HC Ramesh Chand) were examined in defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, convicted A-1, A-2, Amar Kumar Gupta and Dharamvir @ Dharma for committing offence under Section 394/34 IPC. Khem Chand @ Sonu and Raj Kumar @ Raju were acquitted of the charges. Being aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 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 without any valid reasons ignored the vital discrepancies and lacunae in the prosecution's case. There was no cogent evidence to establish that the victim Ravinder Chaudhary had obtained Rs. 86,000/- from his employer as full and final settlement that day. The prosecution did not examine the cashier who handed over Rs. 86,000/- to the complainant. The vouchers on record do not contain the signatures of the concerned cashier. It is doubtful if the complainant was having Rs. 86,000/- in his possession at the time of incident. Counsel further contended that the complainant was unable to identify the currency notes recovered by the police. The appellants justified to decline Test Identification Parade as the complainant was associated during investigation and the accused were shown to him. The appellants' defence that false implication due to revenge was not given weightage by the Trial Court. Learned APP urged that there are no valid reasons to discard the statement of the victim who had no animosity with the accused to falsely implicate them.