RAMAN 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.

(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.