NARESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants- Naresh (A-1) and Mukesh (A-2) challenge judgment dated 29.01.1998 in Sessions Case No. 21/1997 arising out of FIR No. 562/1996 PS Seelampur by which they were held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 393/34 IPC read with Section 398 IPC. They were convicted under Section 25 Arms Act also. Vide order dated 29.01.1998, sentence to under RI for seven years was awarded.

(2.) Allegations against Naresh (A-1), Mukesh (A-2) and Rakesh were that on 20.09.1996 at about 04.10 A.M. G.T.Road, Near Hanuman Mandir, they attempted to rob complainant-Nandu Mehtu. They were armed with deadly weapons at that time. All the three assailants were apprehended and various weapons were recovered from their possession then and there. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. All the three were duly charged and brought to Trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. In their 313 statements, A-1, A-2 and Rakesh 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 perpetrators of the crime and sentenced accordingly. Being aggrieved, A-1 and A-2 have preferred the appeal. It is relevant to note that Rakesh had also preferred the appeal against the impugned judgment and it was dismissed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimony of sole witness PW-1 (Nandu Mehtu) without corroboration. The complainant was unable to specifically depose as to which of the assailants used which weapon. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation. The complainant was not medically examined. Counsel further prayed to modify sentence as the appellants were young boys at the time of incident. Learned APP for the State urged that there are no valid reasons to discard the cogent testimony of the victim who had no prior animosity with the assailants.