KADIR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on sentence, both dated 21st December, 2000, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 115/1994, by virtue of which the appellant herein had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment, under Section 392 IPC for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, is that four accused persons, namely, Afzal, Kadir, Rahis and Mehboob, allegedly robbed the complainant Sunil Gauba of his bag and wrist watch on 14th May, 1992 at about 10:15 pm. A deadly weapon was alleged to have been used by the accused persons in committing the offence of robbery. Accordingly, the accused persons were charged with offences punishable under Section 392 of the IPC as well as Section 397 IPC. In support of its case, prosecution examined fourteen (14) witnesses. No evidence was led by the defence. The principal witness of the prosecution is the complainant, who has deposed that on 14th May, 1992 he was coming from Faridabad to Delhi by bus and he got down at Inter State Bus Terminal (I.S.B.T.) at about 9.00 - 9.15 pm. From I.S.B.T, he took a bus for Silam Pur and got down at the bus stand Silam Pur around 10.15 pm. While he was walking via jhuggis towards the railway line, and as he was crossing the railway line, 2 -3 boys came in front of him. One of the boys caught hold of his collar and made him sit whereas another boy snatched his bag containing Rs. 3750/ -, visiting cards, spectacles and some bills. The third person put a knife on his neck. His wrist watch HMT make was also snatched from him. He pointed out towards the appellant as the person who snatched his bag. He also identified accused Mehboob as the one who caught his neck. The complainant then corrected himself and deposed that appellant, Kadir had placed knife on his neck and also snatched the bag while accused Rahis had caught hold of him. Thereafter, all the four escaped. The complainant after being robbed off his belongings, went to the police station, Gandhi Nagar and lodged a report which is Ex.PW -7/A. On the next day, he along with I.O. and 2 -3 constables went to the railway lines where the incident had taken place and at his instance accused Afzal was apprehended. On 16th May, 1992 appellant Kadir was arrested while he was carrying the bag of the complainant which was snatched at the time of the robbery. The bag was seized by the police which contained visiting cards and some bills but the money was not there. After 4 -5 months, accused Mehboob and Rahis were arrested. The complainant identified his bag as Ex.P1 and the spectacles as Ex.P3, several visiting cards collectively as Ex.P -10.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, Kadir, submitted that the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of the statement of the complainant while, admittedly, the incident took place at about 10.15 pm and there was not enough light for the complainant to have identified the appellant. It is further submitted that there were no public witnesses at the time of arrest of the appellant and it is highly improbable that two days after the incident the appellant would be carrying the snatched bag which allegedly is sought to have been recovered from him. Even otherwise, besides the bag, no recovery of money has been made from the appellant and the appellant has been falsely implicated in the matter.