Anil S/o Lilachand Sarjare V. St. of Maharastra,47
About 11 p.m, the complainant Imran Khan, was returning home and he was stopped by four persons on a motorcycle who demanded his mobile phone. When he refused to part with it, one of the robber dealt him a knife-blow on his abdomen. Imran Khan raised an alarm which caught the attention of passers by. Imran Khan succeeded in catching hold of one of the culprits but the others fled away. Police arrived on spot and interrogated 1st accused and through investigation they also found 2nd accused and seized motor bicycle and knife. One day the accused also travelling on bicycle and he also caught by police and arrested.
47 2012 Indlaw MUM 36; 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2197
Trail Court examined 12 witnesses and convicted 1st accused under sec. 397 r/w 34 and 307 r/w 34 of IPC for seven years imprisonment and 2 other accused people were acquitted due to lack of evidence.
By appeal to the High court of Bombay,
The appellant-accused was convicted for an offence punishable under S.394 r/w S.34 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-(Rs. Five Hundred Only), in default of which he was to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
Rajesh @ Rajbir v. State48 on 11 March, 2010
The brief facts of this case are as follows the complainant filed a complaint alleging that while he was boarding a bus to go someplace that day, he was surrounded by 3-4 boys who started manhandling him and that one of them removed Rs. 5,300 /- which he was carrying in the pocket of his pant. When the complainant tried to hold his hand to stop him, the boy handed over the money to his associate. One of the removed the complainant’s purse which was kept in his hip pocket. The boy, who the complainant had dragged out, then pulled out a knife and gave a blow to the complainant’s left knee, as a result of which he fell down. The complainant, despite being injured, managed to catch one of them. He was also dealt a knife blow on his back by one of the boy’s other companions. In the that situation PCR officials who had witnessed the incident from the other side of the road came to the complainant’s aid.
Seeing this, the other boys ran away. The person, whom the complainant Vedpal had apprehended is the appellant Rajesh. He was identified as the person who had dealt a knife blow to the complainant’s knee and a knife and some of the complainant’s money were recovered from him. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its case, including the PCR officials and the driver and conductor of the bus, while the defence examined none.
The trial court, after considering the evidence, convicted the appellant under S. 394 r/w S.
397 of the IPC. The appellant was awarded the minimum prescribed punishment of seven years for his offence of robbery. The appellant has challenged his conviction by the Trial Court through this appeal case. The contentions of the appellant are mainly based on two grounds, which are highlighted below.
48 2014 (1) ACC 359
Held: SENTENCING The High Court of Delhi dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence of the Trial Court in sentencing him to the minimum prescribed punishment of seven years imprisonment. It also upheld the fine imposed on the accused by the Trial Court. However, on default of the payment of the fine, the High Court reduced his sentence to 15 days rigorous imprisonment instead of three months as was declared by the Trial Court.
State of Karnataka v. David Rozario,49
The deceased had three children who reside abroad. She was staying alone in her house in the evening of the incident . A maid-servant Tayarmma was working in her house and also worked in the house of Mrs. Joyce, wife of Holmes. The maid servant as usual served coffee to the deceased and went out for work. Around 8pm she was return for serving tea to the deceased .When she was near the house of the deceased, she saw the electric lights in the house of the deceased were burning, and also noticed that the front door of the house was closed. While the back door was open she entered the house of the deceased through back door and came to the hall, where she saw the deceased sitting on a chair with blood all over the body. The deceased had sustained head injury, which was bleeding. The maid servant ran out screaming to the house of Mrs. Joyce and brought her husband along with her to the house of deceased. They also called some another person. They took the deceased in injured condition to the Nursing Home of Bikram Chand. Since the deceased had sustained injuries on the head, in spite of treatment she could not regain consciousness and passed away around mid-night. Police was informed and First information report was accordingly recorded and investigation was undertaken. On the day of incident information was gathered by the Investigating Officer about one tape recorder which was missing from the house of the deceased. The tape recorder was of foreign make. It came to light that the said tape recorder was gifted by her daughter to the deceased. Some days after the date of the incident the accused persons were arrested in another case of theft of a T.V. set. Accused No. 2 led the Investigating Officer and others to a shop where Dilip Ghodke, the owner of the shop was asked to bring the tape recorder which accused had sold to him, after redeeming the same from the pawn broker Mohammed Ilyas. Relevant pawn ticket receipts were seized by the Investigating Officer. On the basis of the information given by the accused persons recovery was made of the weapon i.e. an Iron Rod.
49 2002 Cri LJ 4127.
Held:The Additional Sessions Judge on the basis of evidence on record found the accused appellants guilty under Section 302 r/w Section 34 and Section 392 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, 1860. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years respectively for the aforesaid two offences. But, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court set aside the conviction and State filed an appeal in the Supreme Court to set aside the decision of respective High Court.
In Phool Kumar. v. Delhi Administration 50case,
it was observed as follows: “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."