DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal seeks to challenge the judgment dated 26. 10. 1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge, New Delhi whereby the appellant dharain Singh and one Suraj were convicted under Sections 392/397/34 IPC and the appellant Dharam Singh was also convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act. As far as the co-accused Suraj is concerned, he had also challenged that judgment of conviction by filing a separate appeal (being Cri. A No. 260/2001), but at the time of hearing of the appeal the challenge against the conviction was not pressed and only submission was made on the point of sentence. That appeal was disposed of on 9. 5. 2001 by maintaining his conviction, but the sentence of imprisonment was reduced from 7 years to 5 years and the fine of Rs. 2,000 was reduced to Rs. 500. .

(2.) APPELLANT and his co-accused were prosecuted for their having robbed one pappu, PW4 of Rs. 200 on 21. 7. 1997 at about 10. 30 p. m. While robbing the complainant pappu, the present appellant had allegedly shown a knife to him while his co-accused suraj had taken out Rs. 200 from his pocket. The complainant raised an alarm upon which some public persons gathered there and on seeing' them the two accused persons tried to run away but only the appellant-accused Dharam Singh could succeed in running away while his co-accused Suraj was apprehended by the public persons. In the meantime, somebody had informed police control room and police reached the spot and custody of Suraj was handed over to police as also the amount Rs. 200 which had already been recovered from accused Suraj which he was still holding in his hand. On the basis of complaint Exhibit PW4/a of pappu a case under Sections 392/397/34 IPC was registered vide FIR No. 465/97 at Police station Kalyanpuri within whose jurisdiction the place of occurrence fell. In the complaint Exhibit PW 4/a the complainant narrated as to how he was robbed by two persons. He had also claimed that when the two robbers were talking to each other, suraj was referring to his colleague as dharam @ Pappu. The complainant claimed that he would identify the associate of Suraj on seeing him. The police, however, could not apprehend the present appellant for more than three months after the incident.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that on 8. 11:1997 the complainant Pappu spotted appellant Dharam Singh @ Pappu sitting in some park and then he went to the police station Kalyanpuri and informed the police about the presence of the appellant-accused dharam Singh in the park. Accordingly, pw6 Constable Pramod Kumar and PW 7 asi Sobran Singh went along with the complainant to a park near Chand Cinema and there on the pointing out of the complainant, the appellant-accused Dharam Singh was apprehended. Further case of the prosecution is that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by Dharam Singh he got recovered one knife PW6/c which he claimed to have been used at the time of commission of crime.