Rahul v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
High Court of Delhi allowed appeals by Anand and Rahul against conviction and sentence for robbery. Court upheld conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC, finding evidence reliable. Conviction for attempted theft under Section 397 IPC against Anand could not be upheld due to lack of State leave to appeal.
What did the court decide?
Appeals dismissed; conviction upheld except attempted theft charge against Anand; bail cancelled; surrender to custody directed.
What the court decided
| * IN THE HIGH |
COURT OF DE | LHI AT NEW DELHI |
|---|---|---|
| % | R D |
eserved on: 29thApril, 2019 ecided on: 1stJuly, 2019 |
| + | CRL.A. 1064/201 | 7 |
| ANAND | Represented by: | ..... Appellant Ms. Sunita Arora, Advocate |
| STATE | versus Represented by: |
..... Respondent Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Prempal Singh, PS Seelampur |
| + | CRL.A. 389/2018 | |
| RAHUL STATE |
Represented by: versus Represented by: |
..... Appellant Mr. Kartickay Mathur and Mr. Sanket Gupta, Advocates ..... Respondent Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for the State with SI Prempal Singh, PS Seelampur |
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
- Anand and Rahul challenge the impugned judgment dated 10th October 2017 convicting them for offences punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and the order on sentence dated 12th October 2017 directing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default whereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each.
Crl.A.1064/2017 & Crl.A.389/2018
Page 1 of 6
- Assailing the sentence, Learned Counsel for Anand prays that Anand be released on the period already undergone.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to set aside conviction and sentence for robbery punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC.
Whether to include appellant Anand in conviction for attempting theft under Section 397 IPC.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
ANAND
- appellant
RAHUL
- respondent
STATE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court