SEHZAD @ NADEEM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sehzad @ Nadeem questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 22.04.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.58/2009 arising out of FIR No.88/2009 registered at Police Station Chandni Mahal by which he was convicted under Section 394/398 IPC. By an order dated 24.04.2010 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/- under Section 398 IPC.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.09.2009 at about 11.00 P.M. at shop No.18, DDA Market, Turkman Gate, Delhi, he while armed with a deadly weapon attempted to rob complainant Ikramuddin of Rs. 20,000/- and injured him. The complainant declined to give Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant and raised alarm. The police officials on patrolling duty were able to apprehend and recover a country made pistol with a live cartridge from appellant's possession. First Information Report was lodged after recording Ikramuddin's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) by the Investigating Officer on the night intervening 25-26.09.2009 at 1.10 A.M. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the court. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statement, the appellant denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. He examined DW-1 (Naseem Akhtar) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contention of the parties, the trial court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, the appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Appellant's counsel urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its proper and true perspective and fell in grave error in relying upon the testimony of interested witness with whom a quarrel had taken place and all including the appellant had sustained injuries. The appellant was falsely implicated in connivance with the police by the complainant who lived in his neighbourhood. Counsel pointed out various discrepancies and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. PW-1 (Ikramuddin), complainant, was unable to identify the pistol recovered by the police. PW-3 (Mohd.Imran) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution on vital facts. The weapon of offence was not produced before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate at the time of production of the accused in the court. The MLC does not record the assailant's name. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the trial court has observed demeanor of the witnesses and the accused who was the Bad Character (BC) of the area and was involved in many criminal cases. There are no sound reasons to discard the testimony of the complainant.