SURENDER @ SONU Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surender @ Sonu and Nisar @ Pahari @ Shamshad Ahmed challenge the impugned judgment dated 1st February, 2016 convicting them for offences punishable under Sections 392/394/397/307/34 and Section 25/27 Arms Act and the order on sentence dated 4th February, 2016 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC read with Section 397 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for offence punishable under Section 394/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month each, for offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each, for offence punishable under Section 27 Arms Act.

(2.) Assailing the conviction, Learned Counsel for Surender @ Sonu submitted that the appellant was not named in the FIR. No description of the appellant was mentioned in the rukka even though the complainant Renu Tayal knew him from before since he had worked in her house. The appellant refused for TIP since he was already shown to the witness. It was urged that first time identification in court is not sufficient to arrive at the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was actual offender. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court reported as Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 11 SCC 565, State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sayyad Siraj Mohammad and Others., (2009) 13 SCC 417 and decision of this Court in Crl.LP. 400 of 2010 titled as GNCTD v. Rama Shankar Pandey & Another. No CCTV footage of the area/locality was produced. Even if the case of the prosecution is accepted, the present case falls under Section 307/34 IPC and not under 392/397 IPC as child who received injury was not aimed at and allegations of robbery have not been proved since there was no recovery of the currency or the looted gold bangles. Children of the complainant Renu Tayal who were present in the house at the time of the incident have not been examined as witnesses. The knife could not be connected with the crime. The pistol was neither recovered at the instance of the appellant nor from his possession.

(3.) Learned Counsel for Nisar @ Pahari, adopting arguments of learned counsel for Surender, further submits that the fine amount imposed on the appellant should be waived.