1 IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGEVIICUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTHEAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI: [CASE NUMBER] Unique Case ID No. 02402R0168662010 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY], R/o H. No. 1356, Gali No. 45, Jafrabad, Delhi. FIR No. 85/2010 PS Jafrabad U/[SECTION] [ACT] Date of Institution : 07.08.2010 Date of reserving the Judgment : 18.12.2010 Date of pronouncement : 22.12.2010. J U D G E M E N T :
Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 03.04.2010, on receipt of DD no. 17A, [ENTITY] along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached in front of [ENTITY], Janta Pulia, Road no.66. On reaching there, he came to know that injured has been removed to GTB hospital by PCR officials. After leaving Ct. [ENTITY] at the spot, [ENTITY] went to GTB hospital and he collected the MLC of injured [ENTITY]. He recorded statement of complainant [ENTITY] wherein he disclosed about attempt to commit robbery by one person by showing chura to him and when he 2 resisted that person inflicted chura blow on his left hand. As a result of which, he sustained injuries. Somebody informed the police and police reached at the spot and took him to hospital. In the hospital itself, the person who attempted to commit robbery was brought and he identified him to be the same person who attempted to commit robbery and on inquiry his name came to be known as [ENTITY]. On the basis of this statement, case u/[SECTION] [ACT] was registered. During the course of investigation it transpired that [ENTITY] was already arrested in case FIR no. 86/10 u/[SECTION] [ACT] and he had made a disclosure statement pertaining to this case and other cases. He was formally arrested in this case. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted u/[SECTION] [ACT].
2. Charge for offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused to which accused plead not guilty and claimed trail.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined [ENTITY] (PW1), [ENTITY] (PW2), Dr. [ENTITY] (PW3), [ENTITY] (PW4), [ENTITY] (PW5), ASI [ENTITY] (PW6), [ENTITY] (PW7), Dr. [ENTITY] (PW8) and Dr. [ENTITY] (PW9) in the case.
4. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused, he was examined u/[SECTION] [ACT]. He had denied all allegations leveled against him. His case has been of denial simplicitor. He claims himself to be innocent. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
5. PW1 [ENTITY] joined the investigation with ASI [ENTITY] 3 pertaining to case FIR no. 86/10 and has deposed that after this accused was arrested in FIR No. 86/10, he was taken to GTB hospital for medical examination. At that time [ENTITY] met him. One [ENTITY] was admitted in the hospital, he was having a knife injury on his hand. [ENTITY] was recording the statement of injured [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] identified the accused to be the same person who had tried to snatch his mobile phone and purse at 4th pusta, 66 foota road, at about 9.00 pm after showing the knife and when he resisted the accused caused him knife injury on his left hand.
PW2 [ENTITY] is the author of FIR. He is the complainant, as such his testimony will be discussed in detail later on.
PW3 Dr. [ENTITY] examined the xray report of left arm of injured [ENTITY] and opined that no obvious gross bone injury was seen and she gave her detailed report Ex.PW3/A. PW4 [ENTITY] was working as Duty Officer from 4.00 pm to 12.00 midnight on 03.04.2010. On receipt of DD No. 17A from wireless operator regarding stabbing of a boy in front of Tent Wala School, Jafrabad road and blood was oozing out, he recorded DD No. 17A Ex.PW4/A and handed over the copy of the said DD to [ENTITY] who left the police station wih Ct. [ENTITY]. He further recorded FIR No. 85/10 u/[SECTION] [ACT] on 04.04.2010 at about 12.35 pm on receipt of rukka sent by [ENTITY] and brought by Ct. [ENTITY]. He proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW4/B. 4 PW 5 [ENTITY] went to the spot along with [ENTITY] where they came to know that injured has been removed to GTB hospital by PCR official. After leaving Ct. [ENTITY] at the spot to safeguard the site, [ENTITY] went to GTB hospital. After returning to the spot [ENTITY] handed over Ct. [ENTITY] a rukka which was taken by him to police station for getting the case registered. Thereafter, in the police station ASI [ENTITY] produced the accused who was arrested by him in FIR No. 86/10. Thereafter, the accused was arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A, his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW5/B, pointing out memo vide Ex.PW5/C was prepared at his instance.
PW6 ASI [ENTITY] had deposed about the proceedings which was conducted by him in case FIR No. 86/10 whereby the present accused was arrested on the complaint made by [ENTITY] regarding commission of robbery of Rs. 100/ on the point of knife.
PW7 [ENTITY] is the Investigating Officer of the case. He has deposed that in the intervening night of 03/04.04.2010, he was posted at PS Jafrabad. On that day, on receipt of DD no. 17A Ex.PW4/A, he along with Ct. [ENTITY] went to the spot i.e. In front of [ENTITY], Janta Pulia, Road no.66. On reaching there, they came to know that injured has been removed to GTB hospital by the PCR officials. He instructed Ct. [ENTITY] to remain at the spot to safeguard the site and went to GTB hospital where complainant [ENTITY] was admitted. He collected 5 MLC of injured [ENTITY] on which doctor had opined him fit for statement. Mean while, [ENTITY] along with accused came to GTB hospital and accused was identified by the complainant to be the same person who had caused injuries on his left hand while trying to rob his purse and mobile phone. He recorded statement of [ENTITY] Ex.PW2/A on which he made his endorsement Ex.PW7/A. Complainant [ENTITY] produced one blood stained pant and shirt which was worn by him at the time of incident. The same was kept by him in a white polythene and it was sealed with the seal of SB and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. He prepared site plan Ex.PW7/B. Thereafter, they came back to police station where ASI [ENTITY] produced disclosure statement Ex.PW7/C in which accused disclosed regarding his involvement in the present case. He also produced copy of sketch of the knife Ex.PW7/D, seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW7/E. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW5/B. He arrested the accused vide arrest memo E.xPW5/A, pointing out memo Ex.PW5/C was prepared at his instance.
PW8 Dr. [ENTITY] examined the MLC of injured [ENTITY], xray report as well as clinical record and opined the nature of injury to be simple in nature and made his endorsement Ex.PW8/A in this regard.
PW9 Dr. [ENTITY] has proved the MLC of injured [ENTITY] Ex.PW9/A prepared by Dr. [ENTITY] who has left the services of hospital.
6. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], ld. Public Prosecutor for the 6 [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, Amicus Curie for the accused and have carefully perused the record.
7. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused that there is solitary testimony of the complainant. There is no independent witness of the occurrence. Even rickshaw puller has not been examined by the prosecution. As such, prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, it was submitted by ld. Public Prosecutor that even if the complainant is the solitary witness, that itself is no ground for discrediting his testimony, in as much as, he had no reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case with whom he was not having any enmity. Moreover, besides the fact that complainant himself is the victim, he also sustained injury and as such, injured and his testimony finds corroboration from medical evidence. Under these circumstances, it was submitted that prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused is liable to be convicted of the offence alleged against him.
9. I have given my considerable thoughts to respective submissions of the ld. Counsels for the parties and have carefully perused the record.
10. Prosecution machinery in the instant case was set in motion on receipt of DD no. 17A Ex.PW4/A by HC [ENTITY] on which he along with Ct. [ENTITY] went to the spot in front of [ENTITY], Janta Pulia, Road no. 66 where it 7 was revealed that injured has been removed to GTB hospital by PCR. Thereafter, [ENTITY] went to GTB hospital, he collected the MLC of injured [ENTITY] in which he was opined to be fit for statement. [ENTITY] recorded statement of [ENTITY] Ex.PW2/A. He made his endorsement Ex.PW7/A and sent the same through Ct. [ENTITY] to Police station for getting the case registered. The accused was brought to the hospital by [ENTITY] when he was arrested in FIR No. 86/10 and thereupon the injured [ENTITY] identified him to be the same person who attempted to commit robbery and on his resistance caused injuries by a knife on his left hand. Thereupon, accused was arrested in this case also.
11. The most material witness is the PW2 [ENTITY], complainant itself. This witness has unfolded that in the year 2010, he was working as Carpenter and was working in a house situated at Kardampuri. Sometimes, he used to stay where he was working and sometimes he used to come to the house of his bua's daughter who was residing at Jafrabad. On 03.04.2010 at about 8.00 pm, after finishing his work at Kardampuri, he was going to his bua's daughter's house situated at Jafrabad by a rickshaw via road no. 66. At about 9.00 pm, he reached in front of [ENTITY]. Accused got stopped his rickshaw and showed him a sharp edged knife and asked him to hand over his purse and mobile phone to him. He told the accused that the mobile phone is cheaper one and what would he do, on this accused told him that he would give threats to someone by his mobile phone. When he objected to the same accused gave a knife blow on his left arm, as a result of which he sustained injuries 8 and blood started oozing out from his left arm. Someone called the police. Police reached the spot and took him to hospital. After sometime, accused was also brought by the police. He identified him to be the same person who caused him injuries and asked him to hand over his mobile phone and purse. His statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police. He handed over his pant and shirt which were having blood stains to the police which were taken into possession by the police after sealing the same vide seizure memo E.xPW2/B. Accused caused him injuries by a knife when he did not hand over his mobile phone and purse to him. He identified his shirt and pant having blood stains which are Ex.P1 (collectively) to be the same which he was wearing at the time of incident. He also identified the knife Ex.P2 to be the same with which accused caused him injuries. He further went on stating that he was working as a carpenter and due to the injuries inflicted by the accused on his left hand, now his left hand is not working properly and he is not able to do daily work by his left hand due to injuries and is unable to earn his livelihood as he was working as a carpenter.
12. Testimony of this witness has been assailed by ld. Defence counsel on the ground that there is no independent witness. The rickshaw puller in which this witness was traveling has not been examined by the prosecution. As regards, the rickshaw puller is concerned it has come in the testimony of the [ENTITY] that when he reached at the spot, he did not found any rickshaw present at the spot. He tried to locate the rickshaw puller as well as rickshaw in which the complainant was travelling but could not locate the same. Although the witness admitted the 9 presence of public persons at the spot and existence of residential houses but according to him none agreed to join. It is common experience that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. There is general apathy and indifference on the part of the public to join such proceedings. Dealing with the contention, regarding nonexamination of independent witnesses Hon'ble Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT], Appabhai and another Vs. [ENTITY] of Gujarat (para Nos. 11 & 12) had held as under:
11. In the light of these principles, we may now consider the first contention of appellants. The contention relates to the failure of the prosecution to examine this contention but did not find any infirmity in the investigation. It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.
The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of 10 independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused The prosecution case cannot be doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore, reject the first contention urged for the appellants.
13. This position of law was reiterated in Aslam and others (Mohd). vs. [ENTITY], 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133, wherein it was observed by Hon'ble High Court that reluctance of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be recognized. It cannot be disputed that public does not want to get dragged in police and criminal cases and wants to avoid them, because of long drawn trials and unnecessary harassment. Similar view was taken in Manish vs. [ENTITY], 2000 VIII AD (SC) 29 and in A. Bhai vs. [ENTITY], AIR 1989 SC 696, where it was held that Court cannot be oblivious to the reluctance of the common man to join such raiding parties organized by the police, lest they are compelled to attend police station and Courts umpteen times at the cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate benefit.
Under these circumstances, even if there is no independent witness of the incident, that itself is not sufficient to discard the testimony of the complainant.
14. As regard further submission of the ld. Defence counsel that there is solitary testimony of this witness and it is unsafe to convict the accused on such 11 solitary testimony, this submission again is devoid of merits. The question, whether a conviction can be based on the solitary evidence, arose before Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court a number of times. As far back in the year, 1957, Hon'ble Supreme Court in [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] of Madras, AIR 1957 SC 614 observed as under : "On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the [ACT], the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established : (1) As a general rule, a Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, Courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes."
It was further observed that [SECTION] of the [ACT] has categorically laid it down that "no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be 12 required for the proof of any fact." The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognized in [SECTION]. The section enshrines the well recognized maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. The matter thus depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. Hence, it is sound and well established rule of law that Court is concerned with quality and not with quantity of evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. In this case, the Court divided the nature of witnesses in three categories. First, wholly reliable, second is wholly unreliable and third category is of neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the case of first two categories, it was held that they pose little difficulty to the Court to come to a conclusion. But in the third category of witness, corroboration is required. The relevant portion was quoted as under in Kunju @ Balachandran vs. [ENTITY] of Tamil Nadu, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1804 : "Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well established rule of law that the 13 Court is concerned with the quality, and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely :
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
In the first category of proof, the Court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicious or interestedness, incompetence or subordination. In the second category, the Court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the Court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if Courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subordination of witnesses."
15. [ENTITY] (supra) was subsequently relied upon in Jagdish Prasad vs. [ENTITY] of M.P., AIR 1994 SC 1251, wherein it was held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But, if there are doubts about the testimony, the Courts 14 will insist for corroboration. This position was further highlighted in Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. [ENTITY] of Maharasthra, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1023; Kunju @ Balachandran vs. [ENTITY] of Tamil Nadur, 2008 Cr.L.J. 1804; Benjamin vs. [ENTITY], 2008 Cr.L.J. 1806; Mohan Singh and another vs. [ENTITY] of M.P., AIR 1999 SC 883; and Sunil Kumar vs. [ENTITY] Govt. of NCT, Delhi, 2003 (II) SCC 367.
16. In view of foregoing discussions, even if the case of prosecution is based on the solitary testimony of complainant himself, that itself is not sufficient to discredit his testimony.
17. A perusal of testimony of [ENTITY] goes to show that he has given a vivid picture of the entire incident by deposing that when he reached near [ENTITY] on a rickshaw, accused stopped the rickshaw and after showing him a sharp edged knife asked him to hand over his purse and mobile phone to him. When he protested then accused gave knife blow on his left hand. As a result of which blood started oozing out from his left arm. Despite crossexamination by the ld. defence counsel, his testimony could not be shaken in cross examination. It is pertinent to note that accused is not alleging any enmity, illwill or grudge against the complainant and as such he has no axe to grind to implicate him falsely in this case. Moreover, occular testimony of this witness finds substantial corroboration from medical evidence. It has come on record that somebody informed the police. Police reached the spot and took him to GTB hospital where he was given medical treatment by Dr. [ENTITY] who prepared his MLC Ex.PW9/A. Dr. [ENTITY] has since left the hospital, as such, Dr. [ENTITY] 15 Kumar, CMO, GTB hospital appeared to depose that as per MLC Ex.PW9/A, on 03.04.2010, one [ENTITY] was brought by ASI [ENTITY] of PCR with alleged history of assault at 9.00 pm. As per record, there was incised wound on left arm on the person of [ENTITY]. Thus, testimony of [ENTITY] finds substantial corroboration from medical evidence. Even his blood stained clothes were taken into possession. Moreover, there are catena of decisions of the effect that testimony of injured witness stands on higher pedestal, than any other witness.
18. In [ENTITY] of Gujrat vs. Bharwada Jakshibhai Nagribhai, 1990 Cr.L.J. 2531, it was observed that for appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses, the Court should bear in mind that : (1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted. (2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence.
(5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to 16 minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation. (6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
After recapitulating number of cases in the case of Appabhai vs. [ENTITY] of Gujrat, [PRECEDENT] : (1988 Cr.L.J. 848), Hon'ble Supreme Court has succinctly dealt with this aspect. Hon'ble Court has held that the injured witness should be considered to be the best eyewitness to the incident and the discrepancy in his evidence which does not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded.
19. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it becomes clear that testimony of complainant deserves great credence, inasmuch as, he is the victim and also sustained injuries at the hands of accused. His presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. He has no reason to omit the real culprit and implicate accused falsely in this case. He stood the test of crossexamination. His testimony is reliable, truthful and inspires full confidence. Moreover, ocular testimony 17 of this witness finds substantial corroboration from medical record.
20. The accused claims his false implication in this case, however he is not alleging any enmity, illwill or grudge either against the complainant or against the police officials for which reason he would be falsely implicated by the police officials at the instance of complainant. Under these circumstances, it stands proved that on 03.04.2010 accused attempted to commit robbery by asking [ENTITY] to hand over his purse and mobile phone to him after showing a sharp edged knife.
21. As stated above, as per the testimony of [ENTITY], accused attempted to commit robbery at the point of knife. Needless to say, knife is a deadly weapon. The same was used by accused in commission of offence of robbery. The word "uses" in [SECTION] [ACT] came up for clarification before Hon'ble Apex Court in [PRECEDENT], wherein it was observed as under : " [SECTION] uses the expression "armed with any deadly weapon" and the minimum punishment provided therein is also 7 years if at the time of attempting to commit robbery the offender is armed with any deadly weapon. This has created an anomaly. It is unreasonable to thing that if the offender who merely attempted to commit robbery but did not succeed in committing it attracts the minimum punishment of 7 years under [SECTION], if he is merely armed with any deadly weapon, while an offender so armed will not incur the liability of the minimum punishment under [SECTION] if he succeeded in committing the robbery. But then, what was the purport behind 18 the use of the different words by the legislature in two sections, viz "Uses" in [SECTION] and "is armed" in [SECTION]. In our judgement the anomaly is resolved if the two terms are given the identical meaning. There seems to be a reasonable explanation for the use of the two different expressions in the sections. When the offence of robbery is committed by an offender being armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in his mind, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadly weapon in the commission of the robbery. On the other hand, if an offender was armed with a deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit a robbery, then the weapon was not put to any fruitful use because it would have been of use only when the offender succeeded in committing the robbery."
It was further held that carrying a deadly weapon open to the view of victim is sufficient to frighten or terrorize them. However, any overact such as brandishing knife and causing hurt with it is not necessary to bring the offender within the ambit of [SECTION] [ACT].
Aforesaid authority was further reiterated in 2004 AIR (SC) 1253, Ashfaq vs. [ENTITY], where it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, what is essential to satisfy the word "uses" for the purposes of [SECTION] [ACT] is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of victim and no that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, 19 stabbing, shooting, as the case may be.
22. In view of these authoritative pronouncements, it becomes clear that accused was armed with deadly weapon at the time of attempting to commit robbery and when he resisted then accused gave knife blow on his left arm, as a result of which he sustained injuries and blood started oozing out from his hand for which he was given medical treatment. Although injuries were opined to be simple in nature by Dr. [ENTITY] but that itself is not fatal, in as much as, since the accused was armed with knife that was sufficient to cause terror in the mind of complainant and in fact even actual causing of hurt was not necessary but in the instant case, as per MLC Ex.PW9/A, there was incised wound on left arm of [ENTITY]. In [ENTITY] also injuries caused to the complainant were simple and no grievous injuries as defined in [SECTION] [ACT] were caused. While Hon'ble High Court observed that since hurt was caused to the complainant while committing robbery, [SECTION] comes into play and the accused was convicted of the said offence. In the instant case also simple injuries were caused on the person of [ENTITY] by the accused while attempting to commit robbery.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that on 03.04.2010 at about 9.00 pm, accused attempted to commit robbery of purse and mobile phone from complainant [ENTITY] and he voluntarily caused hurt to him and at that time accused was armed with deadly weapon i.e. Chura. As such all the essential ingredients of section 394 20 and [SECTION] [ACT] are established. Accordingly, I hold that prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for offences punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. As such accused is held guilty and convicted for the said offence.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) On this 22nd day of December, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
21 IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGEVIICUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTHEAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
Unique Case ID No. 02402R0168662010 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] S/o [ENTITY], R/o H.No. 1356, Gali No.45, Jafrabad, Delhi.
PS Jafrabad U/[SECTION] [ACT].
Date of Institution : 07.08.2010 Date of reserving the Judgement : 22.12.2010 Date of Pronouncement : 23.12.2010 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE : Leniency in punishment has been claimed by [ENTITY], Advocate, for convict [ENTITY], pleading that he is a young boy, aged about 22 years. He is the only bread earner to support his family. He was facing trial in one other case, which has since been decided. Sh. [ENTITY] also submits that keeping in view young age of convict, he may be dealt leniently as his whole career is ahead.
2. On the other hand, ld. Prosecutor submits that [SECTION] [ACT] does not permit any leniency as no discretion is vested with the Court to impose a sentence less than prescribed in the section.
3. Submissions made by the ld. Prosecutor has force, inasmuch as, perusal of [SECTION] [ACT] goes to show that sentence prescribed is 7 years. This section in mandatory terms provides that punishment "shall not be less than 7 years". That being so, no discretion is vested with the Court to impose sentence less than prescribed sentence. Even otherwise, the convict does not deserve any leniency, inasmuch as, record reveals that on the same day, that is, on 03.04.2010 convict had also committed robbery for which FIR No. 86/10 was registered against him. As such for offence u/[SECTION] [ACT], convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/. In default of payment of fine, he would further undergo RI three months. For offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT], he is sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years.
4. Substantive sentences awarded to convict shall run concurrently. He shall get the benefit of period already undergone in detention during investigation and trial of the case. A copy of the judgement and order on sentence be supplied to him free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) On this 23rd day of December, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.