VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 15.7.2006 affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant, for commission of offences under Sections 356/411 IPC, and directing him to undergo R.I. for six months and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (under Section 411 IPC) and R.I. for three months under Section 356 IPC. The court had also directed the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution version was that on 30.5.2000, the complainant Sunita Kapoor while returning from school on foot was accosted by a scooterist with pillion rider; the registration number of the Scooter was 2386. It was alleged that the pillion rider snatched her gold chain and the culprits fled from the spot. The prosecution version was further that the complainant raised an alarm; the police reached there within half an hour. It was alleged that the complainant identified Narender Kumar, the pillion rider as the person who had snatched the chain; she also identified the chain. The prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of the complainant (PW-1), a public witness Vinod Joshi (PW-2) and Anil Pathak (PW-7), a Constable. On the basis of evidence led and the material produced the trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner. His appeal was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) Ms. Priyanka Aggarwal, learned counsel submitted that the identity of the petitioner was not established. She relied upon the testimony of PW-1. It was contended that the complainant/witness at one stage in her examination-in- chief stated that she had identified the accused who had snatched the chain but subsequently in the course of the cross-examination deposed that the accused were not shown to her and that she was also unable to see the face of the driver as he was wearing a helmet. It was further contended that lone public witness Vinod Joshi candidly mentioned that he was unable to identify the accused/petitioner.