MAQSOOD AHMED Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.03.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 71/2009 arising out of FIR No. 671/2006 PS Seelampur by which he was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 01.04.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/- under Section 392 IPC; RI for seven years with fine Rs. 1,500/- under Section 397 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on the night intervening 05/06.11.2006 at around 12.30 (night) at ISBT Road, in front of Shastri Park, the appellant and his associate Sonu Kumar (since dead) in furtherance of common intention robbed the complainant Pappu Kumar Gupta of Rs. 540/- at 'ustra' point. Daily Diary (DD) No. 35A (Mark P-10/A) was recorded at PS Seelampur regarding the incident at 12.50 (night). The investigation was assigned to SI Kamal Singh who went to the spot and lodged First Information Report after recording complainant Pappu Kumar Gupta's statement (Ex.PW- 1/A). Efforts were made to find out the culprits. Further case of the prosecution is that on 06.11.2006, Maqsood Ahmed and Sonu Kumar were apprehended and arrested when they were going on motorcycle No. DL-7S-AX-1342 by PW-8 (Insp. Kishan Lal) and Const.Sanjay who were on patrolling duty. Two knives and an 'ustra' were recovered from their possession. Their involvement emerged in the instant case upon disclosure statements made by them in case FIR No. 389/2006 PS New Usmanpur. Necessary intimation was given to the concerned Investigating Officer of this case. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court. Sonu Kumar expired during trial and proceedings against him were dropped as abated. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish appellant's guilt. In 313 statement, he denied complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is pertinent to mention that complainant Pappu Kumar Gupta expired during trial and his statement could not be proved in the Court. The prosecution examined PW-1 (Mahender Kumar) who was present with the complainant Pappu Kumar Gupta at the time of the occurrence. He deposed that on 06.11.2006 at around 12.30 A.M. when he and Pappu Kumar Gupta were coming on a cycle rickshaw being driven by him, two boys picked up a quarrel with them and gave them beatings. One of the said boys pointed out a 'churra' at him. Thereafter, they robbed Pappu Kumar Gupta of Rs. 540/- consisting of five currency notes of Rs. 100 each and four currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 10. They were on motorcycle and he could note down incomplete number i.e. DL-A-1342. He identified Maqsood Ahmed who had pointed out a 'churra' at him and commanded him not to move. Thereafter, he and his associate robbed Pappu Kumar Gupta. The conviction is based upon the sole testimony of this witness.