NANHEY LAL Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 17.11.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec. 392 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C.), and order on sentence dated 18.11.2000, whereby the appellant had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years with a fine of Rs.2,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(2.) The factual matrix that emerges from the record is that on 06.01.1992, an information was received in police control room from one Rakesh Aggarwal that four men committed robbery in his house. Inspector Prakash Chand reached the spot and complainant - Rakesh Aggarwal narrated the incident saying/stating/explaining that when he opened the door at the bell, one boy of 18-19 years produced a box of sweets as having been sent by Guptaji of Shahdara. In the meanwhile three persons appeared and pointed a revolver and a knife, he was also hit on the face and pushed. Thereafter he was taken inside the room and was tied with an iron wire. As stated by the complainant, they enquired of him about the keys for the jewellery and also threatened to kill him. It is further submitted that he gave keys and those persons got the almirah opened and removed jewellery and other valuables from the almirah. His servant Ram Kishore also reached the spot. Description of the four persons was also given by the complainant.

(3.) After registration of the case, two accused persons - Raju Maity and Surender Pal were arrested on 27.01.1992 and on search, certain jewellery articles were recovered from them. Subsequently, upon their disclosures, other accused Rajender Pratap alongwith the appellant - Nanhey Lal were arrested. All the four accused persons were identified by wife of the complainant to be the persons who removed the articles on 06.01.1992. Appellant was charged under Sec. 392/397 IPC.