VICKY @ VIKAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by a judgment dated 19.07.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.58/2011 arising out of FIR No.67/2011 registered at Police Station Swaroop Nagar by which the appellants Vicky @ Vikas (A -1) and Yamin @ Sohail (A -2) were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 392 read with Section 394 IPC and A -2 was further convicted with the aid of Section 397 IPC, they have filed the instant appeals. By an order dated 28.07.2012, A -1 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs.10,000/ - and A -2 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine Rs.10,000/ -.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case, as reflected in the charge - sheet, was that on 28.04.2011 at about 10.25 p.m. near Swaroop Nagar underpass, service road (adjoining Nala), the appellants committed robbery upon Israr and deprived him of Rs.2,700/ - and mobile by inflicting injuries by a knife on his body. The incident was reported vide DD No.34A (Ex.PW - 23/A) at 11.27 p.m. on 28.04.2011 at Police Station Swaroop Nagar. The investigation was assigned to SI Jagdeep Singh who with Ct.Sukhbir went to the spot. After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW -3/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report. The victim was taken for medical examination. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were subsequently arrested and certain recoveries were effected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellants in the Court. To establish its case, the prosecution examined twenty -five witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They examined DW -1 (Abdulla) and DW -2 (Aurangzeb) in defence. 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. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No recovery was effected from the accused persons. Since there was dark at the spot, it was highly improbable for the victim to identify the assailants. Moreover, the appellants were shown to the complainant before moving an application for conducting Test Identification Proceedings. Crime weapon could not be recovered. No independent public witnesses were associated at any stage of investigation. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the testimony of the victim.