SURESH Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant had been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 452 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code('IPC' for short) and Section 27 of the Arms Act by the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment dated 13th May, 2000 and vide order dated 27th May, 2000 he had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years u/s 397 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month u/s 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one month u/s 27 of the Arms Act. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal had been filed.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the conviction of the appellant are that on 23.11.98 a telephonic information was received from someone at police post Nehru Place that at the main gate of MTNL one boy had been apprehended by the public with a knife and quarrel was going on. That information, Ex. PW1/A, was entered in the Daily Diary maintained at the police station as DD No.24 and the matter was entrusted to Sub-Inspector Lokesh Kumar(PW-6) and he then went to the spot where he found that accused appellant Suresh had been apprehended by the public and he had been beaten by the public on account of which he had sustained injuries also on his person. At that time the accused appellant was holding one purse in one hand and a buttondaar knife in other hand. PW-1 Smt. Nirmala gave her statement, Ex-PW1/A to the following effect:-

(3.) THOUGH the accused appellant had, in the grounds of appeal, challenged his conviction in respect of all the three offences but at the time of hearing of the appeal his learned counsel Mr. A.J.Bhambani had given up the challenge to the conviction under Sections 452 and 392 IPC and had confined his submissions to pursuade this Court that Section 397 IPC, which provides for minimum sentence of seven years imprisonment in the event of any accused being held guilty of using a deadly weapon while committing robbery, was not attracted. Mr. Bhambani very fairly submitted that on the basis of the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 there was little scope for interference in this appeal as far as the offences under Sections 452 and 392 IPC are concerned.