JOGINDER Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated 25.02.2013 and order on sentence dated 28.02.2013 in Sessions Case no. 30/10 arising out of FIR No. 47/10 under Section 392/397/34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act of Police Station Ashok Vihar whereby the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of four (4) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was go undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the prosecution case is that on 26.02.2010, on receipt of DD No. 24A, ASI Bhagat Singh along with Constable Nihal Singh reached at the spot at Ring Road, Shalimar Bagh red light, in front of "All Heavens Restaurant" and found one motorcycle bearing number DL4SBH -5187 make Pulsar and one Hyundai i10 car bearing no. DL8CS 8112. Complainant Vijay Shankar also met the police and gave his statement to the police as to how he was robbed of the briefcase containing Rs. 20,000/ - belonging to his employer and his own money of Rs. 9500/ - approximately. This statement of the complainant resulted in registration of an FIR. Crime team was called at the spot. Spot was got photographed. The motorcycle and Hyundai i10 car found at the spot were taken into possessions. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 10.05.2010, ASI Rakesh Kumar from Special Cell, North gave information vide DD No. 40B that the accused/appellant Joginder @ Tiger, Manoj, Narender @ Lathia and Mohd. Shakil were arrested in case FIR No. 25/10 under Section 25 of Arms Act and under Section 411 of IPC Police Station Special Cell and they had also given disclosure regarding case FIR No. 47/2010. Thereafter all the accused were arrested on 20.05.2010 and all of them were identified by the complainant during test identification proceedings. After completion of investigation, charge -sheet was submitted against them.

(3.) IN order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 20 witnesses. All the accused denied the allegations made against them when all the incriminating was put to them while recording their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They examined four witnesses in support of their defence. Vide impugned judgment and order on sentence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced, as mentioned hereinabove.