MANOJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Manoj languishes in jail because vide verdict dated November 19, 2014, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 380/452/398 IPC. Charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act, 1959, he has been acquitted of the two. The reason is that the prosecution has not proved the notifications concerning knives and daggers, possession whereof would be an offence. The offence under Section 411 IPC probably has not been held to be made out by the learned Trial Judge because the stolen property was recovered at the spot itself. I find there is no discussion in the impugned judgment concerning the offences punishable under Section 411 IPC and the Arms Act, but the reason for not convicting the appellant appear to be as aforenoted.

(2.) Vide order on sentence dated November 21, 2014, for the offence punishable under Section 398 IPC, Manoj has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.1,000/ -; in default to undergo SI for 7 days. For the offence punishable under Section 380 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/ -; in default to undergo SI for 7 days. For the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/ -; in default to undergo SI for 7 days.

(3.) It was 12:00 noon. The date was March 12, 2014. Shiv Kumar PW -7 reached his shop at Main Market, Sant Nagar, from where he used to sell hardware and paint. He saw the gate of his godown broken and appellant removing an iron frame and a flex board, which was fixed outside the godown. The iron pipe on which the board was fixed had been removed. Shiv Kumar stopped the appellant who took out a knife and demanded money. Shiv Kumar became nervous and raised an alarm. Appellant ran. Public gathered. The appellant was apprehended at the spot.