(1.) THOUGH this appeal purports to have been filed by two appellants namely Raju and Pardeep, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant states that in fact the appeal has been filed only by appellant Raju and the Vakalatnama filed along with the appeal has also been executed only by him. Accordingly, this has been considered as an appeal filed only by appellant Raju. On 26.02.2008, at about 11.38 PM, the Police Control Room was informed by a person that three persons had committed robbery of a mobile phone, purse, ring and cash amounting to Rs 450/ - from the informant and the robbers had run towards Kushak Road. The aforesaid information when given to the Police Station Swaroop Nagar by the Police Control Room was recorded there vide DD No. 20A, which was given to SI Ravinder Singh for investigation. Constable Anand No. 631/OD, who was on patrol, was also informed and directed to reach the spot.
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as set out in the chargesheet, is that when the Investigating Officer reached the spot, Constable Anand and the complainant Gurmeet Singh met him there and produced two persons, namely, the appellant Raju and his co -accused Pradeep along with the articles including a mobile phone and a purse and a knife alleged to have been recovered from the accused persons.
(3.) VIDE impugned judgment dated 28.8.2012 and order on sentence dated 31.8.2012, the appellant was convicted under Sections 392 and 397 of IPC as well as under Section 27 of Arms Act. He was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - or to undergo SI for three months in default under Section 392/34 of IPC. He was separately sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - or to undergo SI for three months in default in Section 397 of IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for five and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - or to undergo SI for three months in default under Section 27 of Arms Act. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.