HASIN @ CHIGU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants Hasin @ Chugu (A-1) and Neeraj (A-2) impugn a judgment dated 5.8.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.36/13 arising out of FIR No.117/12 registered at Police Station Hazarat Nizamuddin by which A-1 under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 397/34 Penal Code and A-2 under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 394/34 Penal Code were convicted, they have preferred the instant appeals. By an order dated 14.08.2014, A-1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000.00 A-2 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 10,000.00.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that on 06.04.2012 at about 10.45 p.m. near MCD Park, Rain Basara, Hazrat Nizamuddin, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention with their associate Naseem @ Bhura (since expired) committed robbery upon Sajid and deprived him of Rs. 20,000.00 and gold chain. 'Grievous' injuries were also inflicted at the time of commission of the said offence. Daily Diary (DD) No. 26B (Ex.PW-12/DA) came into existence on 06.04.2012 at around 11.02 p.m. about a quarrel at Alvi Chowk, Nizamuddin. The investigation was assigned to SI Veer Singh who along with Ct. Arvind went to the spot. After recording victim-Sajid's statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The complainant was medically examined. During investigation, the appellants were arrested and certain recoveries were effected at their instance. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been filed.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellants' counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. Material inconsistencies and infirmities in the statements of the prosecution witnesses were ignored without cogent reasons. PW-5 (Ajmal) and PW-10 (Dharmender) did not support the prosecution case and completely exonerated the appellants. It was a case of quarrel over parking of A-2's Scorpio at the place of occurrence. The complainant could not identify the crime weapon and currency notes allegedly recovered in this case. The prosecution has given different 'timings' of incident. No scratch was found on the complainant's neck at the time of alleged snatching of the gold chain. It is unbelievable that both the appellants would made available themselves at the place of occurrence for arrest after so many days. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the complainant has fully supported the prosecution and no sound reasons prevail to disbelieve his testimony.