AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Akil Kureshi, J.—Appellant is the original accused. He was, by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.2.2004, passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 19/92, convicted for offences u/s 452 387 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to RI for one year for offence u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code and for 7 years for offence u/s 398 of the Indian Penal Code and no separate sentence u/s 397 of the IPC was passed.
As per charge, Ex.1, it was alleged against the appellant that on 27.9.91 at 7 ''O clock in the morning, he had entered the house of the complainant Chandrikaben with an intention to commit robbery with an open knife and caused injuries to the complainant on her hand and on her nose.
Complainant Chandrikaben, PW-6 was examined at Ex.27. In her deposition, she stated that on the date of the incident, her husband had gone out for a morning walk keeping the door of the house ajar. She had got up at about 6.30 to 6.45 in the morning and had gone inside the kitchen to prepare tea. Shortly thereafter, one person entered the house through the door and bolted the door from inside. He had worn a cap on his head and his face was covered with a handkerchief. He had rushed with a knife and when the witness asked him as to who he was, he raised the knife for giving a blow which the witness had caught with her right hand causing injuries on her hand. When her grip loosened, the assailant gave another blow on her nose with a knife. The appellant, thereafter got scared and started running away. He went out of the house through the back-door. She thereupon started shouting for help. During the scuffle, the handkerchief had fallen down from the face of the assailant and she found his face familiar. Upon hearing her shouts, her neighbour Natubhai Soni and his wife came. At that time, a city bus also arrived. Its driver, conductor and passengers got down and caught hold of the appellant who was hiding in the bushes in a nearby plot. She had gone to the police to lodge the complaint and presented the handkerchief to the police. The police seized the cap which the assailant was wearing and the knife which he was holding when he was caught.
In cross-examination, though she agreed that she had not stated in the complaint that the handkerchief had fallen down, she however stated that in her further statement, she had so stated.
Natvarlal Soni, PW-2, who was examined at Ex.17, was a neighbour of the complainant. He had reached the spot upon hearing shouts. Before the court, he stated that on the date of the incident, at about 7 ''O clock in the morning when he was taking a walk outside his house, he heard shouts for help from the house of the complainant. When he rushed to the spot, he saw that the complainant was coming out of the house bleeding. One person wearing a monkey cap was running away from the house. He was also wearing a muffler on his neck. Complainant Chandrikaben told him that the person who just ran away had assaulted her. He thereupon stopped a bus from which driver, conductor and passengers got down and nabbed one person from the bushes near one plot situated close-by.
In addition to these two important witnesses, prosecution has also examined Dr. Prafulchandra Maniar, PW-3, Ex.18, Dr. Kakubhai Vekaria, PW-4, Ex.20, Dr. Ratilal Thakkar, PW-5. Ex.24. These were the doctors who had at different points of time treated Chandrikaben for the injuries that she received. It is not necessary to go into the details of their depositions. Suffice to say that Chandrikaben''s claim of having received injuries through knife stand corroborated through the testimonies of these doctors. Chandrikaben had received multiple injuries particularly on her hand as well as on her nose.
The prosecution also drew panchnama of the scene of the incident as well as arrest panchnama of the appellant and panchnama of having seized the muddamal articles, including knife, cap which the appellant was allegedly wearing at the time of incident and the handkerchief which the complainant presented before the police suggesting that the appellant had covered his face with the handkerchief which had fallen down at the time of scuffle.
From the evidence on record, it can be seen that so far as the alleged incident is concerned and particularly the manner in which it was stated to have happened, there could be hardly any doubt. PW-6, Chandrikaben had narrated the incident of being alone at home in the morning of the incident. Her husband having left for morning walk leaving the door of the house ajar, one unknown person covering his face and head entered the house, locked the door from inside and upon being challenged started assaulting the lady with his knife. The complainant received several injuries including on her hand and her nose. She was treated by different doctors whose evidence corroborated the testimony of the complainant.
PW-2, Natwarbhai Soni also substantially corroborated the version given by the complainant. Upon hearing shouts for help when he was taking walk in the morning outside his house he had rushed to the house of the complainant. He stated that the complainant was coming out of the house bleeding. He also saw an unknown person trying to escape. Immediately, thereupon he stopped a bus. Driver, conductor and passengers of the bus joined in the search for the assailant and soon caught him from the nearby plot where he was hiding behind bushes.
The version of these two witnesses stand corroborated by the seizure of handkerchief which the complainant presented before the police and the knife found on the person of the appellant and other attending circumstances, such as, injuries received by the complainant and the nabbing of the appellant close to the scene of incident shortly after the occurrence of the incident. The complainant had also occasion to see his face and his identification, therefore, shortly after the incident should pose no difficulty. Additionally, it has also come on record that the appellant was residing close to the house of the complainant. Her impression that the face of the appellant seemed familiar, therefore, cannot be lightly discarded.
With respect to the guilt of the appellant and his involvement in the incident I have little doubt in my mind. It is true that there are certain minor contradictions in the version of the complainant as compared to that given by PW-2 Natwarbhai Soni. However, when such incident takes place, in the heat of the moment, the versions given by witnesses may sometimes differ marginally in exact details of the evidence. However, I do not find that there are such material contradictions which would completely demolish the prosecution theory.
Learned advocate for the appellant vehemently submitted that from the terrace of the house of the complainant, some articles such as empty liquor bottle, a bottle of perfume and used packet of bread were found suggesting some other persons might have consumed liquor on the terrace at night and might have entered the house in the morning upon availability of opportunity. However, this itself is not in my view sufficient to absolve the appellant against other overwhelming evidence noted herein-above.
Question, however is what offence did the appellant commit. As noted, he was found guilty of offence under Sections 452 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code makes house trespass with preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person or for wrongful restraining any person or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years.
The appellant had entered the house of the complainant with knife, had bolted the door from inside and also caused injuries to the complainant. Thus all ingredients of Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code stood established. His conviction under the said section therefore needs to be upheld.
In so far as Sections 397 and 398 are concerned, different consideration would apply. Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code makes punishable any robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Section 398 of the IPC punishes attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon. Thus in both cases, it is basically necessary that the person has either committed robbery or dacoity or had attempted to commit such offence. In the present case, as already noted, evidence of the complainant suggests that the appellant entered the house, locked the door from inside and without any further ado rushed to her with a knife and when challenged he raised the knife for giving a blow. The complainant held the knife and resisted the attempt. In the ensuing scuffle, she received injuries, upon which the appellant ran away from the spot. At no stage, there was any demand, attempt or act of either taking any valuables, articles or money from the house. Under the circumstances, it cannot be stated that the ingredients for offence u/s 397 and 398 were established.
In the result, I find that the conviction and sentence u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code is required to be confirmed. However, conviction and sentence under Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code needs to be set aside.
In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction and sentence u/s 452 of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed. Conviction and sentence under Sections 397 and 398 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. The appellant has spent more than one year in jail. Sentence u/s 452 of the IPC was for a period of one year. It is therefore, not necessary for the appellant to serve out rest of the sentence. Bail bond therefore is cancelled. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.