RAKESH @ NIPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rakesh @ Nipal, Sonu @ Chhotu and Raman @ Firoz, the three appellants were sent for trial and a charge for having, in furtherance of a common intention, robbed Bal Mukund of a mobile phone at 8:35 PM on January 31, 2013 at District Park, Pitampura, Delhi and in the robbery using deadly weapons to assault him i.e. for offences punishable under Section 392/394/397/34 IPC was framed against the three; and vide impugned judgment dated January 03, 2014 whereas Rakesh and Raman have been convicted for offences under Section 392/394 IPC, Sonu has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 394/397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated January 13, 2014 all of them have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 7 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/ -; in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 7 days.

(2.) The conviction has been sustained on the findings: - That the identity of the accused Rakesh @ Nipal, Sonu @ Chhotu and Raman @ Firoz stands established and proved. That on January 31, 2013 at about 8.30 P.M. the victim Kumar Bal Mukund had, as usual gone for a walk at District Park, Pitampura when suddenly the accused Rakesh @ Nipal, Raman @ Firoz and Sonu @ Chhotu came from behind the bushes. That the accused Rakesh asked the victim Bal Mukund the time which he (victim) ignored but accused Rakesh again asked victim the time and also abused the victim who scolded Rakesh on his behaviour. That the accused Raman was having a knife while the accused Sonu was having a danda. That the accused Raman attacked and assaulted the victim with said danda on his right arm and thereafter the accused Rakesh exhorted Raman and Sonu to kill and throw him (victim) there itself and thereafter they continued giving beatings to the victim with danda, kicks and fists blows. That the victim requested the accused persons for mercy saying that he was newly married having a minor child of six months but they did not pay any heed to his requests and continuously attacked on him with kicks, fists and with dandas. That the accused persons also intended to attack the victim with a knife after covering his face with the cap of jacket which he was wearing at that time. That thereafter the accused persons removed the belongings of the victim including his mobile phone make Alkatel of black colour having IMEI No.860350011854187 and 860350011854195 (Ex.P1) and thereafter they went away while threatening the victim by saying 'Seedha chala ja, agar peeche muda to chaku maar ke gad denge'. That the victim who was badly injured, somehow managed to reach his house and made a call to a 100 number pursuant to which the police came and took him to the Munni Maya Ram Hospital and thereafter was shifted to Max Hospital where his statement was recorded by the police. That the injuries inflicted by the accused persons on the person of the victim Bal Mukund have been opined to be as 'grievous' in nature. That the apprehension and the arrest of all three accused stand established and proved in accordance with law. That the recovery of the stolen mobile i.e. having double SIM with mobile Nos.9718006817 and 8447744049 IMEI No.860350011854187 and 860350011854195 from the possession of accused Raman @ Firoz stands established and proved and duly identified by the victim in the Court.

(3.) It strikes the reader at the outset that if it has been held that the prosecution has proved that Raman was having a knife and Sonu was having a danda and further having proved that Raman assaulted the victim with a danda, it does not stand to reason that whereas Sonu has been held guilty for the aggravated form of robbery i.e. under Section 397 IPC but Raman has been convicted for robbery i.e. offence under Section 392 IPC.