BEHARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are three appeals arising out of two cases, Cr. A.200/76 by Behari Lal and Cr. A. 246/76 by Om Prakash arise out of one and the same case. Cr.A.247/76 by Om Prakash appellant arises out of another case under the Arms Act. The prosecution case in the main case being FIR No.212 dt. April 21, 1975 of Police Station Mandir Marg briefly stated is that on April 21, 1975 at about 5.00 PM Praveen Kumar (PW 1) was studying on the lawns of Ravindra Rangshala. He is a student and was preparing for his examinations there. Vijay Kumar (PW 3), another student was also studying at some distance from Praveen Kumar. The three accused namely, Behari Lal, Om Prakash, appellants, and their co-accused Kishan Lal approached Praveen Kumar. Om Prakash asked Praveen Kumar as to what was the time by his watch. This was only a pretext on the part of the accused persons. Immediately thereafter Om Prakash showed a knife to Praveen Kumar and took him to the nearby bushes. All the three accused went at that point. Om Prakash put a knife on the abdomen of Praveen Kumar. Kishan Lal co-accused then removed a sum of Rs. 14/- from the pocket of Praveen Kumar and Om Prakash appellant removed the wrist watch from the person of Praveen Kumar. All the three accused then ran away from there, Praveen Kumar raised an alarm. Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar both then started chasing the three accused persons. After they had been chasing them Om Prakash again showed a knife to Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar and told them not to chase them. Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar were, however, able to apprehend Behari Lal appellant and his co-accused Kishan Lal. Om Prakash, however, managed to escape. Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar were bringing Behari Lal and Kishan Lal to the police station when ASI M.L. Chopra of Police Station Mandir Marg met them. These two accused persons were then taken to the police station. The case was registered on the statement of Praveen Kumar. Praveen Kumar was taken to the police hospital. He was examined there and given medical aid. He was, however, discharged from the hospital on the same day. All the three accused persons were challaned under S.394/397 read with S.34 IPC. During the investigation of the case Om Prakash appellant is alleged to have made a disclosure statement in pursuance of which one spring actuated knife was recovered which was seized by the police in the presence of one Ashok Kumar. Om Prakash appellant was arrested in this case on April 25, 1975. He was separately challaned under S.25 of the Arms Act for his being in possession of that knife. In the main case the wrist watch (Ex. P.6) is alleged to have been recovered in pursuance of his disclosure statement made on April 25, 1975 itself, i.e. on the date of his arrest from one attache case lying at the house of Om Prakash appellant. This wrist watch was identified by Praveen Kumar in the Court as the wrist watch that he was robbed off by the accused persons. A test identification parade for getting Om Prakash appellant identified from Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar PWs was also arranged at the central Jail, Tihar on April 30, 1975. Om Prakash, however, declined to join the same. Praveen Kumar and Vijay Kumar PWs supported the prosecution version. Behari Lal and Om Prakash appellants in their statements under S.313. Cr.P.C. denied the occurrence and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case. Behari Lal and Om Prakash appellants also led some defence evidence to the effect that they were picked up from their houses by the police and were falsely implicated in the case.

(2.) Om Prakash appellant was convicted under S.394/397, IPC. The other two accused, namely, Behari Lal and Kishan Lal were convicted under S.394 read with S.34 IPC by Shri G.R. Luthra, Additional Sessions Judge, as his Lordship then was, by his impugned order dt. May 25, 1976. Om Prakash appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. The other two accused were sentenced to undergo RI for three years each. In the case under the Arms Act Om Prakash appellant was separately convicted under S.25 of the Arms Act by his impugned Judgment dt. May 25, 1976 and he was sentenced to RI for one year. The sentence under the Arms Act was made to run concurrently with the sentence as awarded to the appellant in the main case under S.394/397 read with S.34, IPC.

(3.) I have heard Mr. D.C. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. D.R. Sethi, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and was taken through the record of the case. I shall dispose of all these three appeals by this consolidated judgment.