RAKESH @ BENGALI Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakesh @ Bengali (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 07.03.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.113/2010 arising out of FIR No.281/2007 by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 01.04.2011 he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 2,000/-.

(2.) Daily Diary (DD) No.24 PP Inder Lok (Ex.PW4/A) was recorded at 10.35 P.M. on getting information that PCR had caught hold an individual with a knife. The investigation was assigned to ASI Ram Kishan who with Ct.Chand Singh went to the spot. Rakesh @ Bengali was produced along with khukhri by PCR officers to the Investigating Officer and was arrested. During the course of investigation, his associates Shahbuddin @ Shahabu @ Sonu Khan, Deepak @ Khubi and Sonu @ Tamatar were apprehended and arrested. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court against Rakesh @ Bengali, Shahbuddin @ Shahabu @ Sonu Khan and Sonu @ Tamatar. Deepak @ Khubi was juvenile and was sent before Juvenile Justice Board for trial. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses in all. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held all of them guilty for committing offence under Section 392/34 IPC. In addition, the appellant was convicted with the aid of Section 397 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 2,000/-. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Number of prosecution witnesses examined turned hostile and did not support the prosecution initially. When they were cross-examined by Additional Public Prosecutor and specific suggestions were put to them, they admitted the facts. The vital contradictions and discrepancies in their statements have been ignored without valid reasons. The Investigating Officer did not move application for conducting TIP proceedings to establish the identity of the actual assailants. The recovery of 'khukhri' from appellant's possession is highly doubtful as the dimensions of the 'khukhri' showed that it was not possible to keep it in the pocket. The Investigating Officer was not examined. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that PW-1 (the victim) did not have any animosity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in this case. There are no sound reasons to disbelieve and discard his natural version.