MANOJ SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Manoj Singh has been convicted for the offence of robbery punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code by an Additional Sessions judge, Delhi vide judgment dated 22. 01. 1999 in Sessions Case no. 118/98 and this appeal has been filed impugning its correctness as also the sentence awarded to the appellant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that on 18. 04. 1998 at about 4. 30 a. m. the complainant Sushila Gupta ( PW-2) left her house to board a bus for haridwar. When she reached near D. D. A. park, School Block, Shakarpur the appellant herein suddenly came there and stood in front of her and asked her to remove earrings and also demanded whatever money she had at that time failing which he threatened to kill her with the knife which he was holding in his hand. PW-2 handed over her earrings to the appellant who then fled away from there. The police registered an FIR under Section 392 IPC on the basis of statement of the complainant Sushila Gupta some time after the incident same day. The appellant was thereafter arrested by PW-7 SI Virender Kadian on 19. 5. 1998 on the basis of information given by some police informer and on the pointing of appellant?s brother and after his arrest he got recovered the robbed earrings of the complainant and a dagger which he claimed to have used at the time of robbing PW-2. A test identification parade was got arranged by the police to get the appellant identified from the victim but he refused to participate in the test identification parade which was fixed before a Metropolitan Magistrate, shri Gurvinder Pal Singh (PW-10 ).

(3.) AFTER completion of the investigation the police filed charge-sheet under Sections 392/397/411 IPC and also under Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act against the appellant in the Court of the concerned Magistrate and in due course the case was committed to the Court of Session. The appellant was then charged and tried for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 IPC and also under sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The learned trial Court upon an analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution held the appellant guilty for the offence of robbery and the minimum sentence of imprisonment provided under Section 397 IPC was awarded to the appellant since it was also accepted that he had robbed the complainant by showing her a knife. The trial Court, however, acquitted him of the charge under the Arms Act on the ground that it had not been established that the dagger got recovered by the appellant was the same which he had used at the time of committing robbery.