KAILASH MEHTO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the judgment dated 04.04.2019, passed by Learned District and Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 392/394/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant also impugns the order dated 12.04.2019, whereby he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC; Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the IPC; and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 397 of the IPC. All the sentences were to be served concurrently.

(2.) The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with a case arising from FIR No. 1189/2015, registered with P.S. Shalimar Bagh on 08.10.2015. According to the Complainant (Wali Mohammad - PW3), he used to sell rat killer medicine in Azad Pur Mandi. He stated that on 08.10.2015, after selling rat killer medicine in Azad Pur Mandi, he went to sell the same in the Jhuggies situated at Kela Godam. And, at about 2:15 PM, he was he was attacked by three boys. One of those three boys caught hold of him, while the second boy took out a knife from his pocket and attacked him with that knife. In order to save himself, the Complainant raised his right hand and the knife struck his hand. Thereafter, the said boy also attacked him with the knife on his left hip. The third assailant forcibly took out Rs.4000-5000/- from his front pocket. The Complainant stated that he raised an alarm, however, two boys managed to escape from the spot but the third one was apprehended by the public. He stated that somebody informed the police about the incident and he was taken to the Hospital by the PCR van. The name of the assailant, who was caught, was later on revealed as Kailash Mehto (the appellant herein). The Complainant further claimed in his statement to the police that he could identify the assailants, if they appeared before him. He further stated that PCR van took him to the hospital.

(3.) In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. The appellant also examined two witnesses for the defence. The Trial Court evaluated the evidence available and had found the appellant guilty of the offences for which he was charged.