TINKU @ RINKU @ VIJAY @ VICKY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, Tinku @ Rinku @ Vijay @ Vicky challenges the impugned judgment dated 4th August, 2017 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 392/397 IPC in FIR No. 186/2015 registered at PS Kalyanpuri and the order on sentence of the even date directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the mobile phone recovered has not been proved to be that of the complainant Deepak Gupta as the photocopy of the receipt/bill is in the name of Manisha Gupta. The person from Flipkart from where the mobile phone had been purchased has not been examined as a witness. The appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case as there was an argument between the appellant and Deepak Gupta when the appellant objected to his driver urinating in the public place.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the conviction of the appellant is rightly based on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 which are consistent. Furthermore, both these witnesses have identified the appellant in the TIP proceedings as well as in Court. Recovery has been effected on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant.