ARJUN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 392 and 394 Indian Penal Code alongwith two others namely Sita Ram and Sharwan Kumar. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. He has also been directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 . In default of payment of fine he has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. The co-accused were also imposed the same sentence.

(2.) By this appeal the appellant is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction 'as well as of the order of sentence. The appellant and two others, Sita Ram and Sharwan Kumar, were tried for offences under Sections 392/394/397 Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the IPC for having committed robbery and also for having caused injuries to one Chottey Lal. After trial the offence under Section 397 Indian Penal Code has not been held to have been proved against any one of the accused. However, as noticed above, they have all been convicted for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 394. According to Chottey Lal, the victim, who has appeared as PW-6, he was accosted by three youngmen at about 9.30 P.M. at a place known as Nabi Karim. He said that at a point of knife, his identity card and 10 to 12 rupees were removed from his pocket by one of the robbers. His wrist watch was removed by another and the third one gave him a knife blow on his buttock to immobilise him. Thereafter the robbers ran away. His case was that there was a police party on patrol duty nearabout the place of incident to whom the matter was reported who chased the robbers and arrested them.

(3.) The finding of the learned trial court is that nothing was recovered from the possession of the appellant herein. From the possession of Sita Ram, the identity card of Chottey Lal, in which the amount of 12 rupees had been kept was recovered and from the possession of Sharwan Kumar, the watch alleged to have been robbed from Chottey Lal was recovered, There is no controversy regarding the identity of the watch as the name of the victim was embossed on its reverse. With the help of the learned counsel for the petitioner I have gone through the evidence recorded. The complainant Chottey Lal was found to have received one knife injury. In his deposition he firstly stated that the injury was given by the appellant herein and then stated that the knife blow was given by Sharwan Kumar. Both these versions were given by him in examination-in-chief itself. He said: