LAWS(DLH)-2016-12-61

VIKAS Vs. STATE (GNCT OF DELHI)

Decided On December 08, 2016
VIKAS Appellant
V/S
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 12.08.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 160/1/14 arising out of FIR No. 38/2014 u/s 392/397/411 Indian Penal Code PS Model Town whereby the appellant - Vikas was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 397 Indian Penal Code. By an order dated 12.08.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs.2,000.00; default sentence being SI for two months.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 15.01.2014 at about 10:30 p.m. the appellant robbed the complainant - Kamal of his mobile at knife point at Gurmandi, Band Market, Jain Colony. After recording the victim's statement (Ex. PW-4/A), Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The appellant was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him in the Court. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined six witnesses. The incriminating evidence appearing against the appellant was put in 313 Crimial P.C. statement whereby he denied his involvement and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base its conviction on the testimonies of PW-4 (Kamal) and other police witnesses. He urged that the appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of Gaurav and Chotu with whom the appellant had inimical terms. Sec. 397 Penal Code is not attracted as no crime weapon was used. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that no sound reasons exist to disbelieve the testimony of the victim who had no prior animosity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in the crime.