MUNNA KHAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Munna Khan impugns the judgment dated 26.10.2009 in S.C. No.76/2008 by which he was convicted under Section 393/398 IPC and by an order on sentence dated 28.10.2009 sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default SI for fifteen days under Section 393 IPC and RI for seven years under Section 398 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution examined PW-1 Ranjit (the complainant) and PW-2 Kamal Raj (his neighbour). Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are police witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded false implication and stated that he was a rickshaw-puller. On the day of incident, when he was taking rest after taking the passenger from New Delhi, at the spot, 4/5 boys were chased by the people. Due to misunderstanding, he was apprehended being one of them.

(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that material discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses were ignored by the Trial Court. Delay in lodging the First Information Report has not been explained. Since the complainant had prepared the complaint before the arrival of the police, there was no occasion to send the rukka at 07.45 A.M. after two hours. Statements of the witnesses are inconsistent as to where the statement of PW-2 (Kamal Raj) was recorded i.e. at the spot or the police station. The weapon used i.e. iron rod was not 'deadly' to attract Section 398 IPC. The prosecution witnesses have given divergent version about the number of assailants. The arrest memo does not show the time when the appellant was arrested. Seizure memo Ex.PW-1/A contains the number of the First Information Report indicating that it was prepared after the registration of the case.