ARJUN @ CHANGA Vs. THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present Revision Petition has been preferred to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 18.03.2016 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. No.07/2016 whereby the conviction by a judgment dated 24.09.2015 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate was upheld.

(2.) Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 23.02012 at around 07.30 p.m., the petitioner in furtherance of common intention with his associate - Ritesh snatched a purse containing cash Rs. 3,000.00, voter ID card and other documents from the complainant and fled the spot. On raising alarm by the complainant, the petitioner and his associate were apprehended near the spot. The Investigating Officer after recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. The snatched articles were recovered from Ritesh's possession. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and his associate in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses. In 313 Cr.PC. statement, the petitioner denied his involvement and pleaded false implication in the crime. He opted not to lead any evidence in defence. The Trial resulted in conviction under Sec. 379/34 IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo SI for three years with fine Rs. 10,000.00; default sentence being SI for six months. In Crl.A. No.07/2016 the Appellate Court upheld the conviction by a judgment dated 18.03.2016 and modified sentence to SI for two years with fine Rs. 10,000.00. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner. It is relevant to note that co-convict - Ritesh has not challenged the impugned judgment.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Petitioner's counsel urged that material discrepancies and infirmities in prosecution's case have been overlooked by the Courts below. Material witness PW-Nawab Singh was not produced for examination. The prosecution witnesses have given divergent and conflicting statements regarding the 'spot' where the occurrence allegedly took place. Learned APP urged that there are no sound reasons to disbelieve the complainant who was a victim at the petitioner's hands.