VIKASH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant- Vikash challenges judgment dated 27.09.2011 in Sessions Case No.124/2010 arising out of FIR No. 163/2007 PS Welcome, by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394 IPC read with Section 397 IPC. Vide order dated 29.09.2011, sentence for RI seven years with total fine Rs. 10,000/- was imposed.

(2.) ON 06.03.2007, at about 04.00 P.M., at Road No.65, Pilli Mitti, Janta Colony, Delhi, the appellant was beaten by public and his custody was handed over to the police. Allegations against him were that he and his associates Yusuf Ali @ Pakistani (since acquitted) and Yusuf (since dead) committed robbery on the person of complainant- Satya Prakash and deprived him of Nokia phone and cash Rs. 250/-. The appellant also caused injuries to complainant Satya Prakash with knife while committing robbery. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and was in error to convict him with the aid of Section 397 IPC. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent version whether the accused was found in possession of the knife and it was used in committing robbery. Counsel pointed out that PW-5 (Const.Mehfooz Ali) was not sure if the appellant had blood stained knife when his custody was handed over. The complainant is not a reliable witness as his testimony was disbelieved qua co-accused and it resulted in his acquittal. No blood was found on the knife. No independent public witness was associated. Learned APP urged that cogent and reliable testimony of complainant is corroborated by medical evidence.

(3.) 00 P.M. The victim proved the version given to the police at the first instance without variation. He categorically deposed that on 06.03.2007 after alighting from bus on route No.213 at Tentwala School Jafrabad, when he was going to Shivaji Park and reached near Ganda Nala Tentwalal School at 04.00 P.M., the accused and his two associates forcibly stopped him. They attempted to snatch his mobile phone and money. When he resisted, one of them caught hold of him, the other tried to stab him on his neck. He, however, sustained a stab wound on his right cheek. The third assailant removed his mobile phone and Rs. 250/- from the front pocket of his shirt. When he raised alarm, the three assailants started running towards Janta Colony. The appellant was apprehended with knife at the spot. He identified him to be the assailant who inflicted injuries with the knife. He also identified his blood stained shirt Ex.P-2. In the cross- examination the counsel did not put any material question to discard or disbelieve his version. The material facts deposed by him remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. The accused did not deny his apprehension at the spot. He also did not challenge recovery of knife and infliction of injuries to the victim. The complainant was not acquainted with the accused and had no ulterior motive to falsely implicate him in this incident. No prior animosity was assigned to him in the cross- examination. His oral testimony is in consonance with medical evidence. MLC (Ex.PW-6/A) was prepared on 06.03.2007 at 06.20 P.M. when the victim was taken to GTB Hospital by Const.Mehfooz Ali. One incised wound 4 x 0.5 cm was found on his right cheek. PW-6 (Dr.Prashant Nigam) medically examined the victim. The accused did not opt to cross- examine him. It corroborates complainant's version that injuries were inflicted with knife on his right cheek during robbery. Forensic Science Laboratory examination report (Ex.PA) reveals that blood was detected on knife (Ex.P-1) and shirt (Ex.P-2). It further reveals that human blood of 'A' group was found on shirt (Ex.P-2). 4. PW-2 (Const.Pawan Kumar) deposed that the appellant was beaten by public and his custody was handed over. He had a knife Ex.P-1 seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/C. Again, the accused did not cross- examine him. PW-5 (Const.Mehfooz Ali) also deposed about handing over the accused with blood stained button actuated knife. PW-7 (ASI Ali Ahmed) deposed on similar lines. No material discrepancy has emerged in their cross-examination to doubt their version. The accused did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances proved against him. He did not offer any explanation as to how and under what circumstances, he was apprehended at the spot or why he was given beating by the public. Minor contradictions highlighted by counsel are inconsequential. The Court has no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the injured victim. The conviction of the appellant is based upon fair appraisal of evidence and no interference is called for. The prosecution was able to prove that while committing the robbery the appellant used the deadly weapon i.e. knife and caused injuries to the victim. It is noted in the judgment that the appellant was involved in four different FIRs for different offences and had no clear antecedents. On that score, the appellant deserves no leniency to modify order on sentence.