SAMMI & ANR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners Sammi and Ved Parkash @ Lekhu were convicted under Section 392/34 IPC by a judgment dated 22.03.2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate (Central), Tis Hazari and were awarded RI for three years each. It is relevant to note that Subhash-petitioners' associate was also convicted by the said judgment. It is unclear if he has filed any revision petition. The petitioners challenged their conviction and sentence in Crl.A.No.62/2014 which was dismissed by an order dated 20.08.2014. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, the allegations against the petitioners and their associate Subhash were that on 10.05.2009 at around 10.45 p.m., at DBG Road in front to Today Hotel, they in furtherance of their common intention, robbed complainant Vinod Kumar of his mobile after putting him in fear. On 10.05.2009 when Vinod Kumar and his friend Raju were coming to their house after finishing work and reached near Today Hotel at around 10.45 p.m., three boys came and intentionally pushed them.

(3.) The instant case was lodged on the complaint of complainant Vinod Kumar (Ex.PW-1/A) in which he gave detailed account of the occurrence. He gave vivid description as to how and under what circumstances, he was robbed of his mobile make Sony Ericsion. He also disclosed that the assailants Shammi and Subhash were apprehended near the spot and their associate Ved Parkash @ Lekhu succeeded to flee the spot. In his Court statement as PW-1, Vinod Kumar proved the version given to the police at the first instance without any variation. He identified the assailants in the court and attributed specific role to each of them in depriving him of his mobile while using criminal force. PW-3 (Raju) who had accompanied the complainant corroborated his version in its entirety and implicated the assailants including the petitioners to be the perpetrators of the crime. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no material infirmities could be extracted in their cross-examination. No sound reasons exist to disbelieve the statements of the victim and his associate as they were not acquainted with the petitioners prior to the incident. They did not nurture any grievance or ill-will to falsely rope them in the incident. The mobile phone snatched was recovered at the spot and was duly identified by the complainant. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below are based upon fair appreciation of the evidence. No infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out.