AMAR SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal has been directed against judgment dated 03.09.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as 'the trial Court'), whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code (in short, 'IPC') while he has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 397 and 411 IPC, as extracted hereinbelow: - Offence under Section Sentence awarded Under Sections 392 and 394 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/ - and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count for the offences under sections 392 and 394 IPC.

(2.) BOTH the sentences shall run concurrently The facts as culled out from the judgment of the trial Court are that Mrs. Rinku Chaudhary wife of Shri Namit Chaudhary (PW1) was staying with her parents in Sector 43 -B, Chandigarh. On 07.01.2012, at about 7.30 pm, she had gone inside a park in Sector 43 -B, Chandigarh, for a stroll. She was talking to her friend on mobile phone when she was hit from behind with something like a stone. She fell down and the assailant caught hold her feet and dragged her in the park. He snatched the mobile phone (Blackberry 9300 of black colour). The assailant again tried to hit the victim with a stone, but she managed to save herself. The assailant statedly had worn jacket of brown colour, grey colour trousers, was clean shaven young boy of twenty years with wheatish complexion. The assailant ran away after snatching the mobile phone, which had SIM bearing No. 9855301479. ASI Surinder Gautam along with police officials reached the spot. Statement of the complainant was recorded, on the basis whereof, a formal FIR was registered.

(3.) DURING the naka laid by the police, the accused was apprehended on the identification by the complainant. On search, mobile phone belonging to the complainant was recovered from jacket worn by the accused, which was taken in police possession vide recovery memo. Ex. PB. The accused disclosed his particulars and confessed his involvement in the crime. The disclosure statement made by the accused Ex.PD was recorded. The accused got recovered the stone in pursuance of his disclosure statement, which was taken in police possession. On completion of investigation, challan was presented in the Court for trial. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence under Section 397 IPC is exclusively triable by the said Court. The accused was charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 392, 394, 397 and 411 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.