Sanjay v. The State of NCT Delhi

V.K. JAIN, J DECEMBER 21, 2009 RS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON: DECEMBER 18, 2009 PRONOUNCED ON: DECEMBER 21, 2009 + CRL.A. 406/2006 # SANJAY ..... Appellant ! Through: Ms.Anita Abraham, Adv. versus $ THE STATE OF NCT DELHI ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, APP. And + CRL.A. 591/2006 # VICKY ..... Appellant ! Through: Mr. R.S. Gupta, Adv. versus $ STATE ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, APP. * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes : V.K. JAIN, J. 1. These are two appeals against a common judgment dated 13th December, 2005 and Order on Sentence dated 17th December, 2005, whereby the appellants were convicted under section 393 & 394 of IPC read with section 34 thereof and the appellant Sanjay was additionally convicted under section 398/393 of IPC and both of them were sentenced for varying periods. The appellant Sanjay was sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each or to undergo SI for 6 months each in default under section 393/34 and 394/34 of IPC. He was separately sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years under section 398 of IPC. The appellant Vicky was sentenced to undergo RI for 4 years each and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- each or to undergo SI for 6 months each in default under section 393/34 and section 394/34 of IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 23rd October, 2004, at about 5.15 P.M. the complainant Ajay Kumar was going to New Delhi Railway Station on foot. When he reached CF Road, two young boys caught hold of him and asked him to hand over his mobile phone to them. The complainant, however, did not oblige them, whereupon they threatened him with dire consequences and gave fists and slap blows to him and one of them attacked him with a blade. Injuries from blade were caused on his cheeks as well as on the left side of his chest. Two policemen who were going on a motorcycle reached there on hearing the alarm raised by the complainant and apprehended the culprits after a short chase. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant Sanjay is the person who had used the blade for causing the injuries to the complainant, whereas the appellant Vicky is the other person who had accompanied Sanjay and had held the complainant when injuries were caused to him by Sanjay. 3. The complainant came in the witness box as PW 1 and stated that on 23.10.2004, when he reached CF Road at about 5.15 P.M. the appellants suddenly came there and asked him to hand over his mobile to them. When he held on to his mobile they started beating him and one of them caused injuries to him on his face as well as on his chest, with a blade. The other person was holding him at that time. When he raised alarm, police officials, who are passing from there on a motor cycle, overpowered the appellants and arrested them. He identified the appellants as the persons involved in the incident. 4. PW5 Constable Naveen has stated that on 23.10.2004 he, while on patrol, reached police picket at CF Road where Constable Daya Nand and Rohtash Kumar were found sitting and he joined them. On hearing commotion from the side of Connaught Place, they reached near the public lavatories where they saw the appellants Sanjay and Vicky having caught hold of Ajay Kumar. On seeing the police they left him and starting fleeing away. They, however, managed to apprehend both the appellants. At that time Sanjay was holding a surgical blade with some blood stains. Both the appellants were handed over to the Investigating Officer alng with the surgical blade recovered from Sanjay. 5. PW 8 ASI S.P. Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case who went to the spot, arrested the appellants and seized the blade produced by Constable Navin. 6. In their statement under section 313 the appellants de