Md. Shahnawaz v. State GNCT

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant seeks to assail the judgment dated 06.12.2021, whereby the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences under Section 392/34 read with Section 411 IPC and the order of sentence dated 14.01.2022, whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC, with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, on failure to pay which, he was to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 411 IPC.

2. The facts as recorded in the impugned judgment by the Trial Court are extracted hereunder: ASWAL “The FIR was registered on the statement Ex. PW1/A of complainant Dilip Rastogi PW[1] as per which he was running a shop by the name of M/s Charu Creations at Chandni Chowk, Delhi. On 13.05.2019 at about 9.30 pm he was going home from his shop on his scooty. When he reached near Lalita Park Police Booth, two boys over took him on a grey coloured scooty and stopped in front of his scooty. They brandish a knife and robbed the complainant of his purse containing Rs.1,500/- in cash and his Aadhar Card. When these boys started to flee, the complainant managed to catch hold of the T-shirt of the boy sitting as pillion rider while the other boy driving the scooty managed to flee. Upon hearing the alarm of the complainant, people nearby came to the spot and apprehended that boy and started beating him. Just then two police persons came out of whom one was Rambir Malik and the other Satish Kumar who freed that boy from the crowd and upon questioning, the boy disclosed his name as Shahnawaz and the name of the boy who fled from the spot as Sharik”

3. Vide order dated 17.07.2019, charges were framed against the appellant for the offences under Section 392/34 and 411 IPC, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined the complainant Mr. Dilip Rastogi as PW[1]. Ct. Satish and HC Rambir Malik who went to the spot after the appellant was apprehended by public were examined as PW[3] and PW[4] respectively. SI Satish Kumar, the I.O. in present case was examined as PW[5]. Dr. Rabindra Kumar, CMO, Dr. Hedgwar Arogya Sansthan who proved the MLC of the appellant was examined as PW[6]. The rest of the witnesses were formal in nature and deposed as to the various aspects of investigation. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant claimed false implication and stated that a quarrel had taken place between him and members of public. He did not lead any evidence in his defence.

4. The complainant, PW[1] deposed that on 13.05.2019 when he was coming back to his house from his shop on his scooty around 9.30 P.M., two boys came from behind on a grey coloured scooty and blocked his path. The pillion rider i.e. the appellant, brandished a knife and snatched his purse containing Rs. 1500/-. Though he caught the appellant by his T-shirt, the scooty driver managed to flee. PW[3] and PW[4] came to the spot and freed the appellant who was being beaten by the public. He further deposed that his purse as well as his Aadhar card were recovered from the appellant. He correctly identified the appellant in Court. Nothing came out in his crossexamination which would shake the veracity of his testimony.

5. PW[3] and PW[4] who were on patrolling duty and reached the spot on witnessing the commotion deposed on similar lines. They stated that the complainant met them and informed that the appellant and his associate had robbed him of his purse. They further deposed that the custody of the appellant was handed over to the IO/PW[5] who made the recovery of the wallet of the complainant.

6. The complainant PW[1] has been consistent as to his version of the incident. He correctly identified the appellant in Court. PW[3] and PW[4] have also deposed as to the presence of the appellant on the spot. PW[5] has deposed as to the recovery of the wallet from the appellant. Though there was some contradiction as to the role of the appellant, since, the chargesheet stated that it was the co-accused Md. Sharik who used the knife at the time of the incident, the complainant deposed it to be the appellant. The Trial Court did not find this contradiction fatal to the prosecution case. It is noted that since the appellant took the stand that a quarrel had taken place in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, he himself admitted to his presence on ASWAL the spot. The complainant’s deposition that the appellant was given beatings was corroborated by the MLC of the appellant exhibited as Ex.PW6/A which records injuries over the left eye. Thus the offence under Section 392/34/411 IPC was held to be established.

7. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant who has been produced by Jail Warden Anil through VC from Central Jail-13, Mandoli, states that the appellant, being fully aware of the consequences, does not wish to challenge his conviction under the aforesaid Sections; however he prays that the sentence awarded to him be modified to the period already undergone by him.

8. Even otherwise, this Court, based on the materials produced and keeping in mind that the appellant stood duly identified by the complainant and the police witnesses being PW[3], PW[4], PW[5] and considering that he was apprehended from the spot and the complainant’s wallet was recovered from him, concurs with the finding of the Trial Court and finds that no ground to interefere with the same are made out. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant qua the offences under Section 392/34/411 IPC is upheld.

9. Learned APP for the State, while referring to the nominal roll dated 28.07.2025, submits that the appellant is also stated to be involved in 6 other cases out of which he is has not been enlarged on bail in the case arising out of FIR no. 177/2015 registered under Sections 397/392/411/34 IPC at PS Anand Vihar, Delhi.

10. The latest nominal roll on record indicates that the appellant has undergone 2 years 9 months and 15 days in custody as on 28.07.2025. He has also earned remission of 4 months and 8 days. He is working as a ‘Sahayak’ and his jail conduct for the last one year is stated to be ASWAL satisfactory. The appellant is aged around 33 years, fifth class pass and used to earn his livelihood as a vegetable seller. He is also stated to have a wife and a daughter aged about 7 years who are fully dependent on him.

11. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the judgment on conviction is upheld. However, the order on sentence of the appellant is modified to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is however maintained as it is. In case of non-payment, the appellant shall undergo the default sentence.

12. The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in above terms.

13. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court as well as to the concerned Jail Superintendent.

MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE) AUGUST 12, 2025 ga (corrected & released on 18.08.2025) ASWAL