TEJ SINGH @ GOLDY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment of conviction dated 20.09.2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 397/34 of Penal Code and order on sentence dated 21.09.2000, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Sec. 397/34 IPC.

(2.) The facts of the case, as enumerated from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge are that on 003.1997 at about 11.45 pm at Ring Road, Opposite ARSD College, complainant Ashwini Kumar was going in his maruti Zen Car No. DL2 CG 6259, white colour, to his house. He is alleged to have crossed the roundabout at Dhaula Kuan. In the meantime, one Maruti Car came in, wherein three boys were allegedly sitting. The boys made a signal towards the complainant so as to convey that there was something wrong with his car. The complainant allegedly stopped his car opposite ARSD College and got down from it to check if there was any defect. When he was walking around the car to check it, all the boys who were sitting in the car and who had given the signal, came and parked their vehicle in front of his car. One of the boys came to him and showed a revolver to him. That boy thereafter sat in the Maruti Zen of the complainant and drove away the same. One of the boys who was sitting in another car came on to the driver is seat of that car and drove away. Complainant allegedly lodged a report with the police subsequently.

(3.) During the course of investigation, the car in this case was recovered by Police Station Nangloi in an absconded condition. Appellant - Tej Singh this case was arrested by the police in another case. Police applied for holding TIP of the appellant and during the identification proceedings, the complainant identified the appellant, however other accused could not be identified by the complainant and therefore the challan was filed by the police against the appellant alone.