TRILOK Vs. STATE (NCT) OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24.5.2004, on receipt of information with respect to a theft from House No. 95B, Gali No. 2, Sevasadan Block, Mandawali, Inspector Harish Chander, Additional SHO, Police Station Mandawali reached the aforesaid spot and recorded the statement of the complainant, Smt. Savitri Devi. She told the Investigating Officer that on that day she was present in the house along with her daughter -in -law, Ms. Pratibha. At about 1:30 p.m., she opened the door responding to the door bell. As soon as she opened the door two (2) persons entered the house and inquired about her husband. A third person also entered the house in the meanwhile and bolted the door from inside. One of them put a knife on her temple, whereas the other person caught hold of her and demanded the keys of the safe. When she refused to hand over the keys to them, he pushed her and made her fall, whereupon she handed over the keys to them. Those persons opened the safe and removed the jewellery articles comprising one big gold necklace, one set consisting of a necklace, ring and earrings, one pendent, two chains, three rings (ladies), four rings (gents), two pairs of jumkas, silver ornaments, consisting of tagdi, pyjaeb and bichuwa and cash amounting to Rs. 5,000/ -. They also made her remove her earrings and fled away with the cash as well as jewellery. On alarm being raised by her, the neighbours chased those persons and one of them, whose name was later on known to be Hanif, was apprehended. The aforesaid intruder was handed over to the police officers, when they reached the spot. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant before this Court is one of the three (3) intruders who robbed the complainant of jewellery and cash, etc. The trial court framed charged under Section 412 of IPC and Sections 4 & 25 of Arms Act, whereas Hanif was charged under Sections 397 and 412 IPC besides being charged under Section 392 IPC. One Reshma was charged under Section 412 of IPC. Vide impugned judgment dated 22.8.2009 and Order on Sentence dated 28.8.2009, the appellant was convicted under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and was sentenced to undergo sentence of five (5) years RI and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo RI for three (3) months. Being aggrieved from the conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution examined as many as seventeen (17) witnesses in support of its case, whereas no witness was examined in defence.

(3.) PW 16, Inspector Harish Chandra Yatti, has proved the disclosure statement of the appellant as PW16/H and has stated that pursuant to the disclosure statement, the appellant got recovered a tin of ghee, which was lying in the drawer of the table of his room. On opening the said tin, some articles of jewellery were found lying which were seized by him vide memo Ex. PW11/G, after duly sealing the parcel with the seal HCY. He has identified pair of pyajeb Ex. P1/1, to P1/2, tops Ex. P2, tikka Ex. P3, ring Ex. P4, tagdi Ex. P5, chain Ex. P6, another silver chain Ex. P7, chain silver Ex. P8, pajeb one piece Ex. P9, neth Ex. P10, pajeb one piece Ex. P11, pendant Ex. P12 and some broken pieces of jewellery Ex. P13 (collectively) as the articles of recovered at the instance of the appellant, Trilok.