Raj Kumar vs State and Another

Sunil Gaur, J.—The challenge in this appeal, is to the impugned judgment of 15th April 1999, vide which Appellant - Raj Kumar was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 186, 332, 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 25 of the Arms Act and also to the order on sentence of 20th April, 1999, vide which the Appellant/accused had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for an offence punishable u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 397 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine he has been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for eight months. In addition, he has been also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and a fine of Rs. 250/- for an offence punishable u/s 186 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

Appellant - Raj Kumar also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for an offence punishable u/s 332 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight months. For an offence punishable u/s 25 of the Arms Act, Appellant - Raj Kumar has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one years with a fine of Rs. 250/- and in default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, all these substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently and the Appellant - Raj Kumar was given the benefit u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. by the trial court.

In the aforesaid order on sentence, trial court has also ordered that out of the fine, if recovered, a sum of Rs. 1,000/- shall be paid as compensation to Constable Gulab Singh and a sum of Rs. 1,500/- shall be paid to Complainant - Todarmal.

The facts emerging from the record of this case are as follows:

On 27th October 1997, Complainant - Todarmal was robbed by the Appellant/accused, while he was boarded the Bus bearing registration No. DL-1P-0157, plying on route No. 491 from Noida to Nehru Place, New Delhi, to have journey upto Sarai Kale Khan, New Delhi. When the said bus reached Delhi UP Boarder, at about 2.30 pm, one boy, aged 20-25 years, stout built and having wheatish complexion took out a knife while abusing complainant and asked him to hand over his money to them. In the meantime, Appellant/accused''s associates, had removed a sum of Rs. 3,500/- out of the inner pocket of complainant''s wearing pant. During this period, complainant was cordoned by two other boys, who were also having knives in their hands. The Appellant/accused and his associates were being addressed by each other with the names of Babloo, and Raj Kumar who had taken out the knife, while abusing the complainant. The other boy with a smaller height was being addressed as Vicky and the fourth one was being addressed as Javed during the course of their conversation. A hue and cry was raised by the commuters, which invited the attention of passersby and the police. Police Constables chased the said bus in some vehicle and when the said bus reached at the red light near Samachar Apartment, the offenders alighted the bus and started running. They were challenged by the Constables to stop, upon which Appellant - Raj Kumar lifted a stone and threw it on the Constables, which hit against the face of one of them and he fell down. The offenders tried to flee away in a three wheeler scooter towards Chillah Village and were chased by a Constable on a motor cycle. Complainant - Todarmal also alighted from the bus and reached near injured Constable-Gulab Singh. In the meantime, on receipt of DD No. 18 Sub-Inspector Ram Mehar reached the spot and Complainant - Todarmal reported about this crime to him. When statement of complainant was being recorded, Constable Sushil Kumar alongwith the other police officials brought the accused persons there and they were identified by Complainant - Todarmal immediately as the persons who had robbed him. Thereafter, case was registered and investigation was taken up. During the investigation, Babloo and Javed could not be arrested. Both the arrested offenders - Hira Lal and Raj Kumar (Appellant/accused herein) were charged for the offence punishable u/s 392 and 397 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Besides the said charge, a separate charge was framed against Appellant - Raj Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 186 and 332 of the IPC and u/s 25 of the Arms Act.

Trial began with framing of charges u/s 392 & 397 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the offenders - Hira Lal and Raj Kumar (Appellant/accused herein), besides this, a separate charge was framed against Appellant - Raj Kumar for the offence punishable u/s 186 and 332 of the IPC and u/s 25 of the Arms Act, and they did not plead guilty and claimed trial.

To substantiate the charges framed against the Appellant - Raj Kumar, the prosecution got examined eleven witnesses, out of them material witnesses are Complainant - Todarmal (PW-2), Constable Jagbir Singh (PW-4), Constable Gulab Singh (PW-5), Constable Sushil Kumar (PW-8), Sub-Inspector Prem Singh (PW-9) and Sub-Inspector Ram Mehar (PW-11).

Constable Jagbir Singh (PW-4), Constable Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Constable Sushil Kumar (PW-8) are the witnesses who heard the hue and cry of the commuters from the bus No. DL-1P-0517 and they chased the bus on a private vehicle and the assailants alighted from the bus at red light. Constable Sushil Kumar had chased the assailants, over powered two of them and had produced them before the initial Investigating Officer (PW-11). Constable Gulab Singh (PW-5) received injuries on his face and was removed to the hospital by Constable Jagbir Singh (PW-4).

In the case under the Arms Act, Head Constables Satish Chand, Amit Aggarwal and Constable Sushil Kumar have deposed. Sub-Inspector Prem Singh (PW-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case. Sub-Inspector Ram Mehar (PW-11) had conducted the initial investigation of this case.

Before the trial court, the Appellant - Raj Kumar in his statement recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., has denied all the allegations against him. His case was of denial simplicitor. According to him, he had been falsely framed in this case and he claimed himself to be an innocent. In his defence, the Appellant/accused examined Smt. Maya and Smt. Tulsi in his defence.

Upon conclusion of trial, Appellant - Raj Kumar stood convicted and sentenced as indicated above. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and with their assistance, I have gone through the evidence on record.

This is a case of robbery taking place in a running bus on route number 491, near Chilla Village, in Delhi, in broad day light on 27th October, 1997. The victim is a passenger Todarmal (PW-2) and his evidence is of prime importance in this case. As per evidence of this witness (PW-2), Appellant/accused - Raj Kumar had pointed a knife at him and his co-accused Hira Lal had taken away Rs. 35,00/- from his pocket and information regarding this incident was given at Chilla Check Post by one public person, which alerted Constable Gulab Singh (PW-5) and Constable Sushil Kumar (PW-8), who with the help of Constable Jagbir Singh (PW-4) had after a chase, apprehended the Appellant/accused and his co-accused Hira Lal, when they had alighted from the bus at the red light, near Chilla Village. A knife was recovered from Appellant but the robbed amount could not be recovered as it was taken away by co-accused Zahid (Proclaimed Offender). Constable Gulab Singh (PW-5) was injured as Appellant/accused had hit him with stone.

The aforesaid prosecution case is assailed by the defence by contending that the Complainant (PW-2) did not raise any hue and cry and no details of the person who had given information to the police about this incident is forthcoming and there are contradictions inter se the evidence of police witnesses regarding the bus and its driver and passengers being present at the spot, when the Investigating Officer (PW-11) reached there and about Constable Jagbir Singh (PW-4) travelling on foot or on scooter. It is pointed out that the particulars of the vehicle, in which the assailants were chased, is not forthcoming and the prosecution case of the assailants boarding the bus from the front door stands negatived by the Complainant (PW-2), who had stated in his evidence that no passenger had boarded the bus from the front gate. It is pointed out that there is evidence of the mother of the Appellant/accused that he was apprehended from his house and in fact, the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and this conviction on the basis of which inconsistent prosecution evidence, is unwarranted and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and Appellant/accused deserves to be acquitted. Nothing else has been urged on behalf of the Appellant/accused.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the so-called discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case are not of any consequence and the prosecution case is worthy of reliance and the same has been rightly accepted by the trial court and there is no merit in this appeal.

Upon consideration of the rival submissions made, and after having gone through the evidence of the Complainant (PW-2) and the material witnesses, (PW-4), (PW-5) and (PW-8) who had apprehended the Appellant/accused at the spot and had recovered the weapon of offence, i.e., knife from him, I find that the Complainant (PW-2) was taken aback by this incident and he has stated in his evidence that he did not get any opportunity to raise any alarm and he has maintained in his evidence that the assailants had boarded the bus from the front gate. The infirmities pointed out by the defence in prosecution case are inconsequential and have been dealt with by the trial court in the right perspective.

The testimony of the Complainant (PW-2) coupled with the evidence of the police officials (PW-4), (PW-5) and (PW-8) firmly establish the prosecution case against the Appellant/accused. The plea of the Appellant/accused of his false implication in this case after being lifted from his house is not at all plausible and does not appeal to reason. The version of the Complainant (PW-2) receives ample corroboration from the evidence of witnesses (PW-4), (PW-5) and (PW-8), who had apprehended the Appellant/accused alongwith his co-accused Hira Lal at the spot.

Since the conviction of the co-accused HIra Lal was for the offence u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, keeping in view his age and antecedents, he had been granted the benefit of probation in the separate appeal filed by him. Since the Appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code which carries minimum sentence of seven years, therefore, he cannot be treated at par with his co-accused Hira Lal.

In view of the above narration, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the Appellant/accused is well supported by the evidence on record and is hereby upheld.

This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender forthwith before the trial court/successor court to serve out the remainder of the sentence as awarded to him. Trial court be apprised of this order, to ensure compliance of this order.

With aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of.