ARUN SANGWAN AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeals are directed against the judgment dated 31st August, 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge whereby the appellants Arun Sangwan, Zakir Ali and Mohd. Imran were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and Mohd. Imran was also convicted under Section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 5th September, 2016, Arun Sangwan and Zakir Ali were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and Mohd. Imran sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC.

(2.) Learned Counsel for Mohd. Imran submits that neither the weapon of offence nor the chain was recovered from him. Site plan which was prepared at the instance of Yogesh (PW-1) was disowned by him in his crossexamination and no blood was found at the place of occurrence. The alleged eye witnesses namely Raju (PW-6) and Ram Singh (PW-7), the parking attendants, have turned hostile. Yogesh in his testimony deposes that he knew Imran by name prior to the incident and came to know about Arun Sangwan and Jakir later. The appellant cannot be convicted on the solitary statement of the injured Yogesh which is not of impeccable nature and is not reliable. Earlier complaints against the appellant were neither confronted nor exhibited. No other involvement of the appellant has been proved. No motive has been attributed to the appellant in the FIR. Even as per the case of injured alleged motive if any was to snatch the chain and not to cause injury. Furthermore, no person will snatch the chain of a known person. Offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out as no deadly weapon has been used, nor has the same been recovered.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Zakir Ali submits that he was neither named in the FIR nor known to the injured, though Yogesh deposes that Zakir caught hold of his left hand. Neither the motorcycle was found parked nor any parking receipt was exhibited. No role has been attributed to the appellant. Appellant is not involved in any other offence. There is no description of the appellant in the FIR. No TIP was conducted. Appellant was arrested from his house. It is highly improbable that an accused will remain at his house after committing an offence. Appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case.