STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. TARVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is filed under Sec. 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') read with Sec. 482 of the Code to impugn the judgment dtd. 25/1/2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment') passed by the court of Sh. M.R. Sethi, ASJ-03, North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial court') whereby the respondent was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 397/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and Sec. 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

(2.) The factual background of the case is that Nitin (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') on 14/6/2016 at about 07:30 pm was going back to his house after playing and reached Basant Chowk, Sultanpuri, Delhi where one boy caught hold of him and tried to snatch his mobile phone. The complainant resisted snatching of mobile and then said boy put a knife on the abdomen of the complainant and snatched his mobile phone make Intex Aqua Power Plus IMEI nos. 911442503949912 and 911442503944920 and ran towards E-Block, Sultanpuri. The complainant went to his house and narrated the entire incident to his cousin namely Amar and also made a call on 100 number. The complainant along with his cousin Amar and 2-3 boys went towards E-Block, Sultanpuri in search of that boy and reached Shani Bazar Road where they apprehended the said boy. The public persons also gathered there. On search, mobile phone of the complainant was recovered from the right pocket of the pant of the boy. HC Maheshwar and Ct. Roshan Lal who were on emergency duty also reached there and the said boy identified as Tarvinder @ Poly (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') along with the mobile phone was handed over to them. SI Amit (hereinafter referred to as 'the Investigating Officer') after receipt of DD no. 73B along with HC Satish also reached there. One buttondar knife was also recovered from right hand side dub of pant of the respondent. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of the complainant and also seized the mobile phone and buttondar knife. Rukka was also prepared and FIR bearing no. 0357/2016 was got registered under Sec. 392/397 IPC and Sec. 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondent was arrested. The Investigating Officer conducted further investigation.

(3.) The appellant/State being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, filed the present appeal and challenged the impugned judgment on the grounds that the impugned judgement is not sustainable and is based on imagination, presumption, conjectures and surmises. The impugned judgment is not based on the factual matrix and law. The trial court has erroneously concluded that the respondent was not guilty of the offences for which he was charged despite ample evidence led by the prosecution. The trial court has failed to appreciate the testimony of the complainant as PW2 who supported the case of the prosecution. Sanction under Sec. 39 of the Arms Act, 1959 was not required to be obtained by the Investigating Officer in the present case. The trial court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution and ignored vital evidence leading to the acquittal of the respondent. The respondent ought to have been convicted. The impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. It was prayed that the impugned judgement be set aside and the respondent be convicted.