Rohit @ Pappu And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan

Appellants have filed this appeal challenging the impugned judgment/order dated 27.9.2017 whereby they were convicted and sentenced as under:-

U/s. 395 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for ten years, to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

U/s. 397 IPC: Imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.10000/- each and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 8.10.2000 at about 8.00 PM complainant Yogesh Kumar Vijay alongwith his wife and two sons were taking meals at their residence. 4/5 persons armed with weapons entered their house and tied their hands and feet and made them sit in a room. The said accused threatened them at gun point and by pointing knife that they were to stay in the house during the night and would leave the house before 5.00 AM. Accused told them that they had just committed a murder. Thereafter, the accused demanded jewelry and cash from the complainant and they collected costly articles from their house and left at 5.00 AM on 9.10.2000. After breaking the door, complainant came out of the room at about 6.30 AM and found that their Car and Scooter were missing. Complainant also supplied the list of stolen articles from his house.

On the basis of report Exhibit-P.1 lodged by the complainant, formal FIR Exhibit-P.8 bearing No.240 dated 9.10.2000 was recorded at Police Station Shipra Path, Jaipur under Sections 395, 397 IPC.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against co-accused Manoj Kumar. So far as present appellants are concerned, investigation qua them was kept pending. Accused Manoj Kumar was convicted and sentenced by the trial court vide judgment/order dated 17.12.2002 under Sections 395, 397 IPC. In an appeal filed by co-accused Manoj Kumar before this court, his conviction, as ordered by the trial court, was maintained vide order dated 3.4.2006 (certified copy placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellants) and his sentence was reduced from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

Appellants were arrested on 13.2.2013 and 15.2.2013 respectively and challan was presented against them after completion of investigation.

Charges were framed against the appellants under Sections 395, 397 IPC by the trial court.

Appellants did not plead guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 29 witnesses during trial.

Appellants when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., prayed that they were innocent and had been falsely involved in the case.

Appellants appeared in the witness box in their defence.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants have been falsely involved in this case as they were in custody in another case. It was not believable that the witnesses PW.1 Yogesh Kumar Vijay and PW.21 Kiran Vijay could have identified the appellants in an identification parade after thirteen years of the incident. Physiognomy of the appellants was not disclosed in the FIR.

Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal.

Complainant Yogesh Kumar Vijay while appearing in the witness box as PW.1 has deposed as per the contents of the FIR. Statement of complainant is corroborated by his wife Kiran Vijay PW.21, sons PW.4 Yoki Vijay and PW.28 Shonil Vijay with regard to the manner of incident.

During investigation of the case, test identification parade of the appellants was conducted. As per Exhibit-P.7, appellants had been duly identified by the complainant PW.1 Yogesh Kumar Vijay in an identification parade. As per Exhibit-P.26 appellants were duly identified by PW.21 Kiran Vijay in an identification parade.

PW.15 Tulika Saini, Sub Divisional Magistrate, proved the test identification parade reports Exhibit-P.7 and Exhibits-P.26 conducted by her with regard to the appellants.

PW.19A Samaydeen Khan has also deposed that the appellants were produced before Tulika Saini, Sub Divisional Magistrate, for identification parade.

Appellant Rohit @ Pappu while appearing in the witness box as DW.1 deposed that he was confined in Jail since 22.4.2001. He had been kept in the Jail alongwith other prisoners. In his crossexamination he admitted that two cases were pending against him in the State of Uttar Pradesh and one case was pending against him at Surat and one case was pending against him at Buland Shahar.

Appellant Dheeri Singh while appearing in the witness box as DW.2 deposed that he was confined in Mathura Jail when he was arrested in the present case. His face was not covered by Rajasthan Police at the time of his arrest. He had been shown to a lady and a man in the office of C.I., who had later identified him in an identification parade.

Appellants were duly identified by PW.1 Yogesh Kumar Vijay, PW.21 Kiran Vijay, PW.4 Yoki Vijay and PW.28 Shonil Vijay, during trial. Statements of said witnesses with regard to identification of appellants and their involvement in the crime inspire confidence. Complainant as well as his family members had no ill-will or enmity against the appellants to have falsely involved them in this case.

Thus, in the present case, appellants have been duly identified in an identification parade conducted during investigation of the case by the complainant as well as his wife who were present in the house at the time of incident.

Complainant as well as his wife were duly cross-examined at length by the defence counsel, but their statements with regard to identification of the appellants could not be shaken. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, statements of DW.1 and DW.2 fail to rebut the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding identification of the appellants and their involvement in the crime. Therefore, participation of the appellants in the crime stands duly established by the prosecution.

Co-accused Manoj Kumar was arrested on 15.11.2000 and he faced the trial and was convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Sections 395, 397 IPC and his conviction was upheld by this court in an appeal filed by him. However, sentence of coaccused Manoj Kumar was reduced by this court vide order dated 3.4.2006 from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

Hence, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellants, as ordered by the trial court, is liable to be maintained.

Accordingly, conviction of appellants under Sections 395, 397 IPC, as ordered by the trial court vide judgment dated 27.9.2017, is upheld. Sentence of the appellants under Section 395 IPC, as ordered by the trial court, is maintained. However, sentence of imprisonment for life awarded by the trial court under Section 397 IPC is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. Sentence qua fine under Section 397 IPC, as ordered by the trial court, is maintained.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.