AMAR KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAM Raj @ Rajesh @ Sagar; Amar Kumar Gupta (A -1); Khem Chand @ Sonu; Sarfu @ Govinda; Dharamvir @ Dharma (A -2) and Raj Kumar @ Raju were arrested in case FIR No. 532/98 PS Okhla Industrial Area and sent for trial for committing offences under Sections 394/34, 120 -B and 411 IPC, on the allegations that on 01.08.1998 at 07.40 P.M. at Service road, D - block, near Water Tank, Okhla Industrial Area, they hatched criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity and pursuant to that conspiracy, robbed Ravinder Chaudhary of cash Rs. 86,000/ - after inflicting injuries to 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 dated 04.08.2000 in Sessions Case No. 146/98 convicted A -1, A -2, Ram Raj @ Rajesh @ Sagar and Sarfu @ Govinda under Sections 394/34 IPC. Khem Chand @ Sonu and Raj Kumar @ Raju were acquitted of the charges. It is apt to note that the State did not challenge their acquittal. It is further relevant to note that Sarfu @ Govinda and Ram Raj @ Rajesh @ Sagar had preferred Crl.A.Nos. 557/2000 and 558/2000 before this Court which were disposed of on 26th April, 2013.

(2.) I have heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and Mr.R.D.Rana, Advocate, Counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. During the course of arguments, appellants counsel emphasized to take lenient view and modify the sentence order as the A -1 and A -2 had already remained in custody for about three years and have clean antecedents. The crime weapon was not recovered and the recovery of the robbed cash is suspicious. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no valid reasons to discard the victims statement who had no prior animosity with the accused to falsely implicate them.

(3.) NO infirmity has emerged in the testimony of the complainant to disbelieve or discard the version narrated by him and the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy.