ORDER
Kiran Anand Lall, J.
1. Police Station City, Rohtak sent up Tilak Raj
appellant and one Brij Mohan, to court for trial under
Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
“the Code”), on the allegations that on 14.12.1988 at 6
P.M. they stopped a diary owner, Jai Parkash, on the way
when he was taking milk to Kath Mandi, Rohtak on a cycle.
They asked him to hand over to them whatever he had, after
placing knife at his neck. Thereafter, they took out two
currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each along
with a bill, from his pocket, and fled away. Soon
thereafter, Ran Singh and Siri Bhagwan reached the spot
and chased them but they succeeded in running away. Jai
Parkash lodged report with the police and on the basis
thereof this case was registered. The appellant was
arrested on 22.12.1988. During investigation, he got
recovered one hundred rupee currency note and the bill in
question from under the bushes by the side of railway-line
in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him. The
other accused Brij Mohan was arrested on 30.12.1988. He,
too, got recovered a hundred rupee currency note from his
house in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by
him.
2. After receipt of the case by way of commitment,
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak, tried the
appellant and his accomplice Brij Mohan. On completion
of trial, Brij Mohan was acquitted, while the appellant
was convicted under Section 392 read with Section 397 of
the Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for 7 years, on October 17, 1990.
3. Against the judgment of trial court, the
appellant filed this appeal. As he had not engaged a
counsel, the court provided the assistance of Shri
J.S. Dhillon, Advocate, as Amicus curiae.
4. When the appeal was taken up today for hearing,
none appeared on behalf on the appellant.
5. Shri Yash Pal, learned Assistant Advocate
General, rightly pointed out that the complainant, Jai
Bhagwan, had fully supported the prosecution case before
the learned trial court by giving all the details of the
occurrence including that it was the appellant who had
placed knife at his neck and thereafter the money and
the bill were taken out from his pocket by him (appellant)
and his accomplice. He further pointed out that the
complainant was rightly believed by the learned trial
court as he was an independent person and did not have any
motive to falsely implicate the appellant in this case.
It is further to be found in the judgment under appeal
that P.W. Ran Singh reached the spot and he was told by the
complainant that he had been robbed by two persons at the
point of dagger. Further corroboration of the
prosecution case is forth coming from the testimony of the
investigating officer, Inspector Manohar Lal (PW-6), who
deposed that the appellant got recovered a hundred rupee
currency note and the bill in question (Ex. PE) in
pursuance of a disclosure statement made by him during
investigation, before him.
6. Learned trial court had thus rightly held that
the case against Tilak Raj appellant stood proved beyond
doubt and as the case against the other accused Brij Mohan
was not free doubt in so far as his identity was
concerned, he was acquitted.
7. Thus, finding no merit in the appeal on the
point of conviction the same is dismissed. In so far as
the verdict of sentence is concerned appellant appears to
be a first offender. He was a young man of 24 years of age
at the time of occurrence. He has been suffering the
rigours of criminal trial for the last more than 14 years.
Learned Assistant Advocate General pointed out that he had
remained in custody in this case for a period of two
years. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances,
the sentence awarded to him by the trial court is reduced
to the sentence already undergone by him.