RAJEEV Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been instituted against the judgement of conviction dtd. 7/9/2002 and order on sentence dtd. 19/9/2002 passed by ASJ, New Delhi in the case arising out of FIR No.94/2001 registered under Ss. 392/397/411/34 IPC at P.S-Delhi Cantt. Vide the impugned judgement, the appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 397 IPC and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years. The benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. was also given. During the pendency of present proceedings, the appellant Rajeev @Sonu had expired and his appeal stood abated. As per record, the appeal of co-convict Prakash being Crl Appeal 703/2004 was dismissed on 15/7/2019.

(2.) The facts, in a nutshell, are that on 16/3/2001, the complainant was driving his friend's TSR bearing No. DL1RE 9514. At about 1 am, when the complainant was waiting for passengers near Munirka Road, four accused aged about 18-20 years came and hired the TSR for going to Palam. While three accused sat on the back seat, the fourth sat in front along with the complainant on the driver seat. When he reached Mehram Nagar Road, one of the accused who was sitting in the back seat asked the complainant to stop the TSR on the pretext of easing himself. The said accused put a knife on the neck of the complainant and told him to sit at the back. Thereafter, on reaching a secluded place, all the culprits took the complainant towards a secluded place near Mehram Nagar and made the complainant get down. All the accused were armed with knives. They threatened the complainant and robbed him of Rs.367.00, purse, driving license and a diary. One of the accused, who was thinly built, put tape on complainant's mouth. The other stoutly built accused tied his hands and legs with a rope, whereafter they ran away in the complainant's TSR. Later, on a secret information, four accused namely Rajiv @Sonu, Parkash Bahadur, Manish Kumar and D (a CCL) were apprehended along with the stolen TSR. Charges under Ss. 411/397 read with 34 IPC were framed against the accused persons.

(3.) In trial, a total of 6 witnesses were cited by the prosecution to prove its case. The complainant namely Jagdish Mehto was examined as PW5. Santosh Kumar Bansal, the owner of the said TSR was examined as PW4. The other witnesses were formal in nature, who deposed relating to various aspects of investigation. On the other hand, the accused persons, in their statement recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. claimed innocence and false implication.