Deepak v. State

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

RESERVED ON : 2^nd FEBRUARY, 2017 DECIDED ON : 6^th FEBRUARY, 2017 + CRL.A.406/2014 DEEPAK ..... Appellant Through : Mr.Habibur Rahman, Advocate. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP. AND + CRL.A.404/2014 AJIT @ BABU @ GANJA ..... Appellant Through : Ms.Manika Tripathy Pandey, Advocate. versus STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through : Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The instant appeals have been filed by the appellants – Deepak (A-1) and Ajit @ Babu @ Ganja (A-2) to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 19.09.2013 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge

Crl.A.406/2014 & connected matter. Page 1 of 7

in Sessions Case No.23/2012 arising out of FIR No.31/2012 PS Vivek Vihar whereby A-1 was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/34, 397 & 411 IPC and A-2 was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/34 & 411 IPC. By an order dated 21.09.2013, the appellants were awarded various prison terms with fine. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as disclosed in the chargesheet was that on 21.02.2012 at about 04.45 p.m. at ITI Mor, Deer Park, Vivek Vihar, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention robbed the complainant – Ankit Mathur and deprived him of cash `800/- and two rings. The appellants were arrested at the spot on raising alarm by the complainant. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. Articles recovered from the appellants’ possession were seized vide seizure memos. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the appellants in the Court. The prosecution examined five witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement the appellants denied their involvement and pleaded false implication. The Trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been preferred. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. The occurrence took place on 21.02.2012 at around 04.45 p.m. when the complainant – Ankit Mathur had left his house to go to a nearby barber shop on foot for hair cut. When he reached at the corner of ITI mor, Deer Park, he was surrounded by the appellants and was forced on the point of surgical blade to go along with them at Deer Park where he was robbed of his valuable articles. The appellants were arrested near the spot