SUBHASH Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant- Subhash impugns judgment dated 06.07.2009 and order on sentence dated 18.07.2009 in Sessions Case No.86/2006 arising out of FIR No. 445/2005 PS Mayur Vihar by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and 25 Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine Rs. 3,000.00 under Section 392 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. He was further sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000.00 under Section 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for five months. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for two years with fine Rs. 2,000.00 under Section 25 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months. All the sentences were directed to operate concurrently.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the accused were that on 16.12.2005 at 06.00 P.M. in front of Block No.18 near Safeda wala park, Trilok Puri accused Subhash along with his associates Rohtash and Nitin (juvenile) committed robbery and deprived Ajay of his wrist watch, purse containing Rs. 677.00 and identity card at the point of knife. The prosecution examined four witnesses. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, Subhash pleaded false implication and stated that he was lifted from his house. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. The incident happened on 16.12.2005 at 06.00 P.M. PW-3 (ASI Kanta Parsad) recorded rukka and lodged First Information Report at 08.00 P.M. after recording complainant's statement (Ex.PW- 2/A). There was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. In his statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the complainant Ajay gave vivid description of the incident and attributed specific role to the each assailant in committing robbery. Since the FIR was lodged promptly without any delay, there was least possibility of false fabrication. While appearing as PW-2 in the Court, the complainant proved the version given to the police at the first instance without any variation. He deposed that on 16.12.2005 at about 06.00 P.M., he was returning to his house after meeting his aunt (bua) and was on foot. When he reached Block No.18 near canal, three persons suddenly came in front of him. Two of them caught hold him and the third showed a knife. He identified Subhash who had the knife and Rohtash who caught hold of his hand. He claimed to identify the third assailant (he is facing trial before the Juvenile Court). PW-2 further deposed that Rohtash snatched his wrist watch make HMT. The third assailant who was not present before the Court took out his valet containing Rs. 677.00 and I card. He raised alarm. Three police officials who were on patrolling duty in the area came and apprehended the assailants after some chase. The robbed articles and the knife were recovered from their possession. He further deposed that the watch was recovered from the possession of Rohtash and the valet was recovered from the juvenile. Knife was recovered from Subhash. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW-2/A. In the cross-examination, he stated that it was dark at that time. The accused came from the front direction. When the accused ran up to the distance of 4- 5 Km. they were apprehended by the police who were in Gypsy. He stated that the papers were prepared at the spot by the police. He denied that he was not robbed or that he named the accused at the instance of the police.