DEEPAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28.06.2004, the complainant Manoj, who at that time used to work with CMS Security Limited and collect cash from different organizations was robbed of Rs 4,00,000/ - on Press Enclave Road at about 2.00 PM. Two persons travelling on a motorcycle were involved in the robbery. The case of the prosecution is that on 29.06.2004, three persons, travelling in a car, were stopped on suspicious, were interrogated and arrested and pursuant to the disclosure statements made by two of them, namely, Manjit Singh and Naresh Kumar, Rs 10,000/ - were recovered. This is also the case of the prosecution that the third person Rishi Pal took them to his house No.7, Humayunpur and got recovered a raxin bag, containing Rs 30,000/ - and I -card of the complainant Manoj. One bloodstained knife was also alleged to have been recovered at the instance of one of them, namely, Manjit Singh. The number plate of the motorcycle involved in the robbery was alleged to have been recovered from the possession of another accused namely Shiv Shakti and this is also the case of the prosecution that another sum of Rs 10,000/ - was recovered from his house. The prosecution claims that the appellant Deepak Kumar was arrested in another case registered at Police Station New Friends Colony, where, he made a disclosure statement with respect to his involvement in the above -referred case of robbery. He was arrested in this case and the case set out by the prosecution is that he led the police party to house No.7, Humayunpur and got recovered a bag containing Rs 4,00,000/ -. All the accused were charged under Sections 395/397 of IPC.

(2.) VIDE impugned judgment dated 16.01.2010, all the accused except the appellant Deepak were acquitted. The appellant was convicted under Section 411 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs 25,000/ - or to undergo SI for six months in default.

(3.) EVEN otherwise, it would be highly unrealistic to believe that despite the police searching their house and recovery of Rs 30,000/ - on 29.06.2004, the appellant would have kept Rs 4,00,000/ - stolen from the possession of the complainant in that very house and in an unlocked box.