SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Criminal Appeal No.641/2014, the appellant Sunil Kumar impugns a judgment dated 15.02.2014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.08/2013 arising out FIR No.223/2012 registered at Police Station Ashok Vihar whereby he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Sec. 392 read with Sec. 397 IPC. By an order dated 26.02.2014, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000.00.

(2.) By another judgment dated 15.02014 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.122/2013 arising out of FIR No.220/2012 registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar, the appellant was held guilty for committing offence under Sec. 25 Arms Act and Criminal Appeal No.647/2014 has been filed to challenge it. By an order dated 26.02014, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for three years with fine Rs. 5,000.00. Sentences in both the FIRs were to run consecutively.

(3.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheets were that on 08.09.2012 at about 9.15 a.m. at Ring Road, Richi Rich Banquet Hall, towards Prembari Bridge, Ashok Vihar, the appellant in furtherance of common intention with his associate Sonu @ Kalia (since acquitted) robbed the complainant Praveen Parashar of Rs. 21,000/ and a gold chain. The appellant used deadly weapon i.e. country made pistol at the time of commission of robbery. Rajender Kumar @ Kallan (since acquitted) was charged for commission of offence under Sec. 413 Penal Code for receiving and retaining stolen property i.e. gold chain belonging to the complainant Praveen Parashar. Information regarding the incident was conveyed to the police and DD No.09 (Ex.PW-1/A) came to be recorded at Police Post W.P.I.A. at around 9.40 a.m. The investigation was assigned to SI Ved Prakash who after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-11/A) lodged First Information Report. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Efforts were made to find out the assailants but in vain. The victim was taken to Police Station where he was shown dossiers/photographs of various criminals of the area. The complainant was able to identify one of the assailants i.e. the appellant.