Full Text
Translation output
"7 $-35 / HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 718/2010
UMESH PANDEY Petitioner Tlirough: Mr.M.M.Khan, Advocate
CRL.REV.P. 718/2010
UMESH PANDEY Petitioner Tlirough: Mr.M.M.Khan, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.
Through: Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
11.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23''^
September, 2010 wherein he has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 458/382/427/392/394/397/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset challenges only charges framed under Sections 392/397 IPC contending that these offences not made out against the Petitioner. According to him no force was used at the time of committing the theft and since there were less than five persons the ingredients of Section 397 IPC are not made out.
The prosecution case in brief as set out in the FIR as the statement of
Dr. Sunil Kumar, is that on 12"' May, 2010 at about 9:30 PM while he was sleeping at his house he heard some noise of 'khat-ldiatahat'. On waking up
Crl.Rev.P.No. 718/2010 Page 1 of3 2011:DHC:19862 he found three boys aged about 20-25 years taking search of his house. On checking he found Rs.24,000/-, two golden rings and three mobile phones missing. When the complainant made noise, one of them pushed him and due to which he got injuries on his left ear, left thumb and on his head.
Thereafter one of the accused persons took out a katta and threatened him that if he made noise any further he would be killed. Thereafter while running away from his house, two of them deflated the tyres of my vehicle
Tata Tavera bearing No. DL-lYB-2723, which was parked outside the road, broke its glasses.
Learned APP on the other hand contends that the charge framed by the learned ASJ is on the basis of evidence available on record and suffers from no infirmity. The Petitioner has used a "Desi Katta" in committing the offence which is a deadly weapon and also threatened the complainant that he would be killed if he raised noise. The present petition is meritless and thus, liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Section 390 IPC defines robbery, when theft is robbery and when extortion is robbery. A perusal of Section shows that theft is robbery if in order to committing of the theft or in committing the theft, or in carrying
Crl.Rev.P.No. 718/2010 Page 2 of3 away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the offender for that end, voluntary causes or attempt to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint etc. The allegations as set out in the FIR depict that while carrying away the stolen property threat and assault was caused.
Thus, a case of robbery is made out against the Petitioner and thus a charge under Section 392 IPG which provides its punishment is coiTect.
Section 397 IPG provides that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or attempts to cause death or
^gjievous hurt to any person the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. A perusal of the statement mentioned above clearly shows that in the present case the assailants used the Desi Katta. The use of katta, while committing robbeiy, attracts Section
11.08.2011 By this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 23''^
September, 2010 wherein he has been charged for the offences punishable under Section 458/382/427/392/394/397/34 IPC.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset challenges only charges framed under Sections 392/397 IPC contending that these offences not made out against the Petitioner. According to him no force was used at the time of committing the theft and since there were less than five persons the ingredients of Section 397 IPC are not made out.
The prosecution case in brief as set out in the FIR as the statement of
Dr. Sunil Kumar, is that on 12"' May, 2010 at about 9:30 PM while he was sleeping at his house he heard some noise of 'khat-ldiatahat'. On waking up
Crl.Rev.P.No. 718/2010 Page 1 of3 2011:DHC:19862 he found three boys aged about 20-25 years taking search of his house. On checking he found Rs.24,000/-, two golden rings and three mobile phones missing. When the complainant made noise, one of them pushed him and due to which he got injuries on his left ear, left thumb and on his head.
Thereafter one of the accused persons took out a katta and threatened him that if he made noise any further he would be killed. Thereafter while running away from his house, two of them deflated the tyres of my vehicle
Tata Tavera bearing No. DL-lYB-2723, which was parked outside the road, broke its glasses.
Learned APP on the other hand contends that the charge framed by the learned ASJ is on the basis of evidence available on record and suffers from no infirmity. The Petitioner has used a "Desi Katta" in committing the offence which is a deadly weapon and also threatened the complainant that he would be killed if he raised noise. The present petition is meritless and thus, liable to be dismissed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Section 390 IPC defines robbery, when theft is robbery and when extortion is robbery. A perusal of Section shows that theft is robbery if in order to committing of the theft or in committing the theft, or in carrying
Crl.Rev.P.No. 718/2010 Page 2 of3 away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, the offender for that end, voluntary causes or attempt to cause any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint etc. The allegations as set out in the FIR depict that while carrying away the stolen property threat and assault was caused.
Thus, a case of robbery is made out against the Petitioner and thus a charge under Section 392 IPG which provides its punishment is coiTect.
Section 397 IPG provides that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender uses any deadly weapon or attempts to cause death or
^gjievous hurt to any person the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. A perusal of the statement mentioned above clearly shows that in the present case the assailants used the Desi Katta. The use of katta, while committing robbeiy, attracts Section
ORDER
397 IPG. I do not fmd any infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Sessions judge. The petition is dismissed. MUKTA GUPTA,J AUGUST 11, 2011 'mr' CrlRev.P.No. 718/2010 Page3 of3
JUDGMENT