SHEHZAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based on the testimony of Mohd. Salman Malik (PW-1) and Rehan (PW-2), identification of the appellant by these witnesses and the recovery of the robbed articles i.e. Samsung mobile phones (Ex.P1 and Ex.P3) and a Rs. 100 Note (Ex. P2), Shehzad was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC vide impugned judgment dated 6th October, 2017 and sentenced vide order dated 9th October, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant challenging the conviction contends that the appellant was wrongly accused of armed robbery. Appellant did not use the knife. The defence of the appellant was that there was a scuffle and the same plea has been taken by him in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant has been falsely implicated by Salman (PW-1) and Rehan (PW-2). It is the case of the prosecution that there was a recovery of Rs. 100/-, however, the robbed amount was Rs. 840/- and since the appellant was arrested on spot, prosecution story is highly improbable. Thus the appellant be acquitted. In the alternative it is urged that the appellant be released on the period already undergone.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the appellant robbed Salman (PW-1) and was arrested on the spot. Thus, the appellant has been rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court.