SUMIT AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 23.08.2013 & 26.08.2013 respectively wherein the appellant Deep Singh stands convicted under Section 397 read with Sections 32/43 of the IPC. Maximum sentence awarded to him is RI 7years for his conviction under Section 397 of the IPC. For his second conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. Nominal roll of the appellant reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of 3 years and 10 months. The second convict Sumit has been convicted under Section 392/34 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 6 months. His nominal roll has been requisitioned. This reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of 3 years.

(2.) The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the complainant Rashik (PW-4). His version was to the effect that he is a resident of A Block, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. He was working as a barber in Apex Parlour, Kalyan Puri. On 16.12.2010 at about 10:15 pm while he was returning home and reached near park at Khichripur, three boys caught him from behind; one of them (later on identified as Deep Singh) showed him a knife and took out his purse and mobile phone of Tata make. The accused started running after robbing the complainant. The complainant was able to apprehend one of the three persons whose person was revealed as the appellant Deep Singh. Further version of the complainant was that Deep Singh was the person who had branded the knife. PCR van came. His statement (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded. Investigation was set into motion. In the course of investigation, the prosecution had examined 5 witnesses of whom the complainant (pW-4) was the star witness and his version as recorded in the complaint was reiterated on oath in Court.

(3.) He was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but he did not deter from his stand. His version being reiterated to the effect that three persons had robbed him one of whom had branded the knife and that person was Deep Singh. Deep Singh was apprehended by the complainant and handed over to the police. However no knife was recovered from Deep Singh. The disclosure statement of Deep Singh was recorded by the Investigating Officer SI Rahul Kumar (PW-5). Pursuant to the disclosure statement of accused Deep Singh, the role of the second accused namely Sumit surfaced. Appellant Sumit inspite of search could not be arrested. He had surrendered on 03.01.2011 in the Karkardooma Court. Accused Sumit was arrested. He made a disclosure statement but no recovery could be effected from him. He was subjected to TIP but he refused TIP and in the TIP proceedings (Ex.PW-3/B), the ground for refusal to join TIP was that his photograph had been shown in the police station Kalyan Puri between 09:00 to 10:00 pm by 2-3 police persons on 03.01.2011.