ARIF AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals filed by Mohd. Arif and Mohd. Noor. Mohd. Arif is a convict under Sec. 397 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. His nominal roll has been requisitioned. It reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of about 5 years and 6 months including remission. His jail conduct is satisfactory. The second appellant namely Mohd. Noor is a convict under Sec. 392 of the IPC. He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. His nominal roll reflects that as on date, he has undergone incarceration of 2 years and almost 3 months including remission. His jail conduct is also satisfactory. The version of the prosecution was unfolded in the testimony of the complainant (Dinesh). He was examined as PW -4. He has deposed that on the fateful day i.e. on 01.06.2011 at about 08:30 to 08:45 PM when he was returning from his work and alighted at Punjabi Bagh power house, he took lift in auto No. 8231 in which two persons were already there as also the driver of the auto. When they reached near Britannia bridge, one of the person namely Mohd. Arif put a knife on his neck and snatched his Samsung mobile; accused Azim took Rs. 480/ -. He was thrown out of the auto. He informed the police who were nearby. Accused persons were apprehended after chasing the TSR. This witness was subject to a lengthy cross -examination. He admitted that the knife which was taken out by Mohd. Arif was in the pocket of the pant worn by him. It was not a buttondar knife; it was a simple knife. When he had sat in the TSR, it was moving slowly. The mobile had been purchased by him 8 months ago and this had been recovered from the accused Mohd. Arif. He had also been robbed of Rs. 480/ - which had subsequently been recovered from the third accused Mohd. Azim. This Court has been informed that Mohd. Azim has undergone incarceration imposed upon him. As such he has not filed any appeal. PW -4 was categorical on the identification. Submission being that he had identified the accused persons at the spot itself as the TSR had been apprehended by the police party who had chased the TSR and caught them near the Britannia bridge.

(2.) The knife was seized vide memo Ex. PW -3/B and it sketch (Ex. PW -3/A) was prepared. The Investigating Officer SI Radhey Shyam was examined as PW -7. He had been accompanied by HC Ram Rattan (PW -3) and constable Tej Pal (PW -6). PW -3 and PW -6 had also signed Ex. PW -3/A and Ex. PW -3/B.

(3.) On the basis of the aforenoted evidence which had been collected by the prosecution, the accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.