VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinod Kumar (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 27.11.1999 in Sessions Case No.74/1995 arising out of FIR No.189/1992 registered at Police Station Shahdara by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 397 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. By an order dated 29.11.1999 he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 397 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for two years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 27 Arms Act. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant-Vinod were that on 03.06.1992 at about 12.10 P.M. at House No.1/7060A, Gali No.5, Vishnu Park, Shivaji Park, Delhi, he and his associates Naresh Sharma and Pappu committed robbery using deadly weapons and deprived inmates of golden ornaments and cash Rs. 20,000/-. After the robbery, the assailants attempted to flee the spot but two of them i.e.Vinod Kumar and Naresh Sharma were apprehended after chase and recover weapons used in the incident and robbed articles. Pappu succeeded to escape. The police machinery was set in motion after recording Sanjeev Walia's statement (Ex.PW-5/A). The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. During investigation, attempts were made to find out Pappu's whereabouts. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the court against Vinod Kumar and Naresh Sharma. The Trial Court separated Naresh Sharma's trial due to non-production from Lucknow Jail. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to substantiate the charges against Vinod. In his 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication after he was lifted from bus stand Seelam Pur at 09.00 P.M. on 02.06.1992. On appreciation of the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held Vinod Kumar perpetrator of the crime mentioned previously. It is relevant to note that subsequently the proceedings against Naresh Sharma were dropped as abated due to his death.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell in grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses. PW-8- Sandeep Walia's statement was not recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during investigation. PW-2 (Smt.Pushpa) gave inconsistent version regarding use and recovery of pistol by the appellant at the time of committing robbery. The prosecution was unable to establish use of deadly weapon to sustain the conviction under Section 397 IPC. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the Trial Court has appreciated the statements of the victims with proper reasons and there are not good grounds to interfere in the impugned judgment.