LALA RAM @ VISHAL @ KALEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LALA Ram @ Vishal @ Kaley (A-1), Prakash @ Om Prakash (A-2), Sunil @ Suraj (A-3) and Satish were arrested in case FIR No.433/2008 registered at Police Station Model Town and sent for trial for committing offences under Sections 392/397/411 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act on the allegations that on 23.12.2008 at around 01.45 P.M. they robbed Ashwani Kumar Rattan of Rs.33,500/- when he was travelling in bus bearing Registration No.DL-1P-7720. The assailants were armed with knives and used them to commit robbery. They were apprehended from inside the bus after Sushil Kumar (PW-2), driver, stopped it near a PCR vehicle. The investigation was taken over by PW-5 (SI Richhpal Singh). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The assailants were arrested. Cash and knives were recovered from their possession and seized vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/F to Ex.PW1/I and Ex.PW1/H. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in the court. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. In their 313 statement the appellants pleaded false implication and took the defence that they were lifted from their respective houses. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment dated 01.12.2010 in Sessions Case No.1009/2009 convicted all of them under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC and 25 Arms Act. By an order dated 09.12.2010, they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for eight years with total fine Rs.4,000/- each. Being aggrieved, A-1 to A-3 have challenged their conviction and preferred the appeals.

(2.) APPELLANTS ' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. PW-2 (Sushil Kumar) and PW-3 (Monu), driver and helper in the bus completely turned hostile and did not implicate the appellants. Complainant-Ashwani Kumar Rattan (PW-1) was not sure about the identity of the appellants and did not identify them with 'certainty' in the court. The prosecution witnesses have given conflicting statements about the total number of knives recovered from the possession of the appellants. In DD No.47B (Ex.PW7/A) it is recorded that only two knives were recovered from the four assailants. Learned APP urged that all the culprits were apprehended at the spot with knives in their possession. Robbed cash was also recovered from them. There are no sound reasons to discard the cogent testimony of the victim.

(3.) FIRST Information Report was lodged by ASI Richhpal Singh after recording the complainant-Ashwani Kumar Rattan's statement. He disclosed to the police that when he was travelling in the bus, he was surrounded by four assailants who had knives in their hands. They robbed Rs.33,500/- at the point of knives. When the bus reached near telephone exchange, he raised alarm and asked the driver to stop the bus near a PCR vehicle. The four assailants whose names were ascertained Lala Ram @ Vishal @ Kaley, Prakash @ Om Prakash, Sunil @ Suraj and Satish were apprehended inside the bus with the assistance of driver, conductor and other public persons. The knives were also recovered from the possession with cash Rs.33,500/-. The occurrence took place at about 01.45 P.M. The information about the incident was recorded at Police Station Model Town at 02.00 P.M. vide DD No.47B. The investigating officer after recording the statement of the complainant prepared rukka (Ex.PW-4/B) and lodged the First Information Report at about 04.35 P.M. It reveals that there was no delay in lodging the report with the police. There was least possibility to falsely rope in the appellants in this short duration. The complainant was not having acquaintance with them to falsely implicate them by name in his statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Being a victim he was not expected to allow the real culprits to go scot free. While appearing as PW-1 he proved the version given to the police at the first instance without major variation. He gave graphic detail as to how and under what circumstances he was robbed by the assailants in the bus. He was certain that the assailants were apprehended from inside the bus by PCR officials. He was specific that after alighting from the bus, he told the PCR officials that the robbers were still inside the bus and had pointed at the accused persons to the officials of Police Station Model Town and their names were ascertained as Satish, Prakash, Lal chand and one other whose name he did not know. In his examination-in-chief recorded on 24.09.2009, he recollected the name of the fourth accused as Sunil@Suraj. After seeing the accused in the court he deposed that they appeared 'similar' to the individuals who committed robbery. Counsel emphasised that the witness was not sure about the identity of the actual culprits. It is true that in his court statement the complainant did not identify the assailants with 'certainty'. It is, however, to be taken note that his statement was recorded after a considerable lapse of time on 4.6.2009 and 24.09.2009. At the same time, he did not give clean chit to the accused persons and was fair enough to testify that their appearance was similar/akin to the assailants who robbed him. PW-6 (Head Constable Majid Khan), Incharge PCR van was categorical in his statement to identify the appellants who were apprehended from inside the bus and cash of Rs.33,500/- was recovered from one of them. They were also found in possession of open knives which were seized from their possession. He deposed that all the accused persons in the court were apprehended by them. The robbed cash and knife was also recovered from A-2. Names of the other assailants were revealed as Lala Ram @ Vishal @ Kaley, Sunil @ Suraj and Satish. After apprehension of the accused persons their arrest memos and personal search memos were prepared. The accused persons have not denied their signatures on these memos. It stands established beyond doubt that the accused persons were apprehend at the spot at the time and place recorded in the memos. It falsifies their plea that they were lifted from their respective houses and implicated in this case. They did not examine any witness in defence including their family members to substantiate their plea.