Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajinder Kumar on 28 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
THC, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-008905-2018
SC No. 677/2018
State Vs. Rajinder Kumar
FIR No. 365/2018
U/s. 394/397 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act
PS: Rajouri Garden
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 677/2018
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 28.09.2018
3. Name of the complainant : Ritik
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 17.09.2018
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : (i) Rajinder
Kumar S/o Sh.
Prem Kumar
R/o. E-442, 25 Gaj
TC Camp, Raghubir
Nagar, New Delhi.
6.Offence complained of : U/s. 394/397 IPC
and 25 Arms Act.
7.Offence Charged : Accused charged
U/s. 394/397 and
Section 25 and 27
Arms Act.
8.Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Convicted u/s 394
R/w 397 IPC and
Section 27 Arms Act
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 1/20
10.Date on which Order Reserved : 25.11.2022
11. Date on which Order Announced : 28.11.2022 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case against accused Rajinder is that on 13.06.2018, at about 09:40 PM, near Emergency, GGS Govt. Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, Delhi, he tried to rob complainant/victim Ritik of his bag containing mobile phone and books by voluntarily causing hurt to him with knife and in the process, voluntarily caused a lacerated wound of approximately 3X0.5 cm over left buttock of the injured Ritik with a deadly weapon i.e. button actuated knife. The accused was apprehended at the spot and was charge-
sheeted for the offences U/s. 394/397 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act.
CHARGE:
2. Detailed arguments were heard on charge from Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 05.11.2018, the Court framed charge U/s. 394/397 IPC and Section 25 Arms Act against accused Rajinder Kumar. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial.
3. An additional charge for offence u/s 27 Arms Act was framed vide order dated 18.11.2022 to which also accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 2/20
4. The prosecution led evidence and examined 05 witnesses in all to bring home the charge against the accused.
5. PW2 Ritik is the prime witness of the prosecution case being the victim as well as the complainant and the sole eye-witness of the reported incident. He deposed in consonance with his original complaint/tehrir Ex. PW-2/A. He deposed that in the year 2018, he was studying in class XII and used to go to tuition at E-Block, Tagore Garden, Delhi. On 13.06.2018, at about 09:30 pm, he was coming back to his house from tuition. When he reached Murga Market where it was dark, accused tried to snatch his bag containing books and mobile phone. In this process, a scuffle took place between them. Accused stabbed him twice on the back side of his waist on which he raised alarm but no one came there. The accused again tried to stab him but he pushed him. Public persons gathered and apprehended the accused.
6. He went to Guru Gobind Hospital where he was medically examined and treated and where his injuries were stitched.
Police also arrived at the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW-2/A bearing his signatures at point A. His blood stained pant was taken into possession by the police vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/B bearing his signatures at point A. He was discharged on the same day. Police took him to the PS Rajouri Garden where he identified accused Rajinder Kumar as the assailant who had stabbed him. His bag was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/C. Arrest memo of Accused SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 3/20 Rajinder Kumar and his personal search memo are Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E, both bearing his signatures at point A respectively. The site plan is Ex. PW-2/F bearing his signatures at point A. He identified the case property i.e. the pant he was wearing at the time of incident which is Ex. P-1 and his school bag containing one long notebook which is Ex. P-2.
7. He duly identified the accused as the assailant.
8. PW-2 was duly cross-examined by Ld. LAC for the accused Rajinder Kumar.
9. PW-4 HC Ram Lubhaya is the police witness who had apprehended the accused at the spot while he was trying to escape after the incident. Hedeposed that on 13.06.2018, he along with HC Gurcharanjeet Singh were on patrolling duty and when they reached near Murga Market, Tagore Garden, Delhi, they heard the noise of "Chor chor" and saw that one person was running and public persons were chasing him. They apprehended him i.e. accused Rajinder Kumar. In the meanwhile, injured Ritik also reached the spot. Injured Ritik was bleeding and with the help of public, he was sent to hospital.
10.After some time, SI N.L. Yadav/PW-5 along with Ct. Amit/PW-3 and injured Ritik/PW-2 reached the spot. Upon search of accused, one button accuated knife was recovered from his possession. IO/SI N.L. Yadav/PW-5 prepared the sketch of the knife which is Ex. PW-3/A. Knife was kept in a cloth pullanda, sealed with the seal of NLY and taken into police possession vide seizure memo SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 4/20 Ex. PW-3/B. SI N.L. Yadav prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Amit/PW-3 for registration of FIR. After some time, Ct. Amit/ PW-3 reached back at the spot along with copy of FIR and original rukka. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-2/D and personally searched vide personal search memo Ex. PW-2/E. His disclosure statement Ex. PW-3/C was also recorded by the IO/PW-5. Injured Ritik handed over his blood stained pants and the bag containing one copy to IO/SI N.L. Yadav, who seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 2/B and Ex. PW-2/C.
11.He identified the accused Rajinder Kumar. He was cross- examined on behalf of accused.
12.PW-1 HC Sidheshwar Dubey is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who deposed that on 13.06.2018, at about 09:45 PM, a PCR call was received regarding the incident which was recorded vide DD no. 57A (Ex.PW-1/D) and handed over to SI N.L. Yadav through telephone.
13. On the same day at about 11:10 PM, Ct. Amit/PW-3 came to the PS with the rukka sent by SI N.L. Yadav on the basis of which, he registered the present FIR Ex. PW-1/A and made an endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW-1/B. He also proved the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him in respect of FIR which is Ex. PW-1/C. The rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct. Amit/PW-3 for onward transmission to SI N.L. Yadav/PW-
5.
14. PW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 5/20
15. PW-5 SI N.L. Yadav is the IO of the case and PW-3/Ct. Amit Kumar is the constable who had accompanied the IO during the investigation. Their depositions are in consonance with each other.
16. They deposed that on 13.06.2018, at about 09:45 PM, on receipt of DD no. 57 A, they went to GGS Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, where injured Ritik, who was under
treatment met them in the emergency ward. IO/PW-5 collected his MLC and recorded his statement Ex. PW- 1/A. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW-5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Amit/PW-3 for registration of FIR.
17. Thereafter, they went to the spot i.e. Murga Market, Tagore Garden, where they met HC Ram Lubhaya/PW-4, HC Gurcharan and accused Rajinder Kumar. Injured Ritik identified the accused Rajinder Kumar as the assaulter. Cursory search of accused Rajinder kumar was conducted and one buttondar knife was found from right pocket of his wearing pant. There were blood stains on the knife. IO/PW-5 measured the knife and its total length was found to be 23.3 cm, length of the blade was 9.5 cm and length of the handle was 13.8 cm. He prepared the sketch of the knife Ex. PW-3/A. Knife was put in a cloth pullanda, sealed with the seal of NLY and sealed vide memo Ex. PW-3/B. The accused was arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E. His disclosure statement Ex. PW-2/C was also recorded by IO/ PW-5. He also prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of accused which is Ex. PW-3/D. SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 6/20
18. The blood stained pants of victim Ritik were also converted into a cloth pullanda, sealed with the seal of NLY and seized vide memos Ex. PW-2/B. Victim Ritik also handed over his black colored bag containing one copy which was also sealed with the seal of NLY and seized vide memo Ex. PW-2/C. The seal after use was handed over to Ct. Amit/ PW-3.
19. IO/PW-5 recorded the statements of HC Gurcharan and HC Ram Lubhaya and supplementary statement of Victim Ritik. Accused was got medically examined through Ct. Amit/PW-3. Thereafter, case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was sent to the lockup. After completion of investigation, IO prepared the charge-sheet and filed it in the court.
20.Both these witnesses identified the accused Rajinder Kumar. They also identified the buttondar knife recovered from the accused which is Ex. P-3.
21. Both these witnesses were duly cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel.
22. In addition to the examination of these witnesses, the accused admitted the MLC no. 57906 of injured Ritik prepared by Dr. Shikha, GGS Hospital u/s 294 CrPC vide statement made on his behalf dated 24.10.2019. Accordingly, PW- Dr. Shikha was dropped by Ld. APP for the State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
23. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 7/20 accused and his statement was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC on 20.10.2022. He denied all the incriminating evidence and asserted that he was innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. All the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and have deposed falsely against him. The buttondar knife was planted on him at a subsequent stage. He also stated that his photographs were shown to the victim prior to his identification and accordingly, he had falsley identified him.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
24. The accused did not avail the opportunity to lead evidence in his defence.
25. Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
26. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.
It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
27. In the present case, the accused Rajinder Kumar is SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 8/20 charged with the offence u/s 394 r/w Section 397 IPC, Section 25 Arms Act and Section 27 Arms Act.
28.Section 394 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery.
29.The offence of robbery is defined u/s 390 IPC as per which any kind of theft is robbery if in order to committing of the said theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carrying away property obtained by theft, the offender for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint.
30. The offence of theft is defined u/s 378 IPC as per which whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
31. Thus, theft is the dishonest removal of movable property out of the possession of any person without the consent of that person. To bring home an offense u/s 378 IPC, the prosecution has to prove A) That there was a movable property.
B) That the said movable property was in possession of a person other than the accused.
C) That the accused took it out or moved it out of the possession of the said person.
D) That the accused did it dishonestly i.e. with intention to SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 9/20 cause wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to another. E) That the accused took the movable property or moved it without the consent of the possessor of the same.
32. An analyis of Section 390 IPC would show that in order that theft may constitute robbery, prosecution has to establish that, A) in order to committing of theft; or B) in committing the theft; or C) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
D) The offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by A to C. E) Voluntarily causes or attempt to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
33. In other words, theft would be robbery, if for any of the ends mentioned in A to C above, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
34. Section 394 IPC would be attracted if hurt is caused voluntarily in committing a robbery or in attempting to commit a robbery. Section 394 speaks of two distinct classes of persons i.e. those who actually cause hurt and those who do not but are jointly concerned in the commission of robbery. They may not be concerned in the causing of hurt but they become liable, independently of the knowledge of its likelihood or a reasonable belief in its SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 10/20 probability. The perpetrator of hurt apart, others who are jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such a robbery are constructively liable despite not causing hurt whatsoever to the victim.
35. Section 397 IPC provides that if, at the time of committing robbery, the offender uses any deadly weapon or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than 7 years.
36. Section 397 IPC does not make any act an offence. It only provides minimum punishment for some offences under certain circumstances i.e. when deadly weapon is used or grevious hurt is caused or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt is made. Section 34 or 149 IPC have no application to a case covered by Section 397 IPC. Section 397 IPC cannot be applied constructively and relates only to the offender who actually uses the weapon. Guilt of the accused u/s 397 IPC can be attributed only to that offender who uses deadly weapons or causes grievous hurt to anyone during the course of commission of robbery as Section 397 IPC negates the use of principle of vicarious liability u/s 34 IPC.
37. Section 25 Arms Act provides punishment for possession of any prohibited arms and ammunition.
38. Section 27 Arms Act provides punishment for using arms and ammunition without license or prohibited arms and ammunitions.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 11/20
39. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offenses with which accused has been charged on the facts of the present case.
40. In the present case, the complainant/victim/ PW-2 is the prime witness of the prosecution case as he is the victim as well as the sole eye-witness to the alleged incident. Perusal of his testimony clearly shows that he has duly supported the case of the prosecution and his original complaint Ex. PW-2/A. He has described the incident as it had occurred with him identifying the accused. Nothing material has come on record in his cross-examination because of which he might have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. There are no material contradictions in his examination in chief, original complaint Ex. PW-2/A and his cross-examination.
41. Rather, the court observations made during testimony of PW-2 recorded on 24.10.2019 clearly shows that the complainant/victim, who was merely 18 years of age at the time of deposition and 17 years old at the time of the incident was apparently nervous and showing signs of breaking down. He also informed the court about the threats being given to him by the family members of the accused and after counseling, but still being under fear, his cross-examination could be continued. His testimony recorded on the previous date i.e. 15.07.2019 clearly shows that he correctly identified the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. During his cross-examination recorded on 24.10.2019, he also explained in what manner, he had seen SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 12/20 the face of the accused when while trying to run away, the cloth with which the accused had wrapped his face opened up. He also stated that he had clearly seen the face of the accused from a distance of about 1 meter.
42. As per the deposition of PW-2, Accused Rajinder Kumar tried to snatch his bag containing his books and mobile phone which attempt was resisted by him. The accused stabbed him twice on the back side of his waist. He raised alarm. Accused tried to stab him again but he pushed him away. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended at the spot by public persons.
43. The testimony of PW-2 is duly corroborated with testimony of PW-4 who had apprehended the accused when he was trying to run away after the incident. The MLC of the complainant/victim/PW-2 Ritik duly supports the case of the prosecution as it shows a closed lacerated wound approximately 3X.5 cm over his left buttock. The matter was immediately reported to the Police and he had reached hospital at 10:00 PM with the help of the public persons. His injury has been opined to be simple in nature made with a sharp object. The accused has not disputed the MLC of the complainant bearing no. 57906 dated 13.06.2018 and has rather admitted the same u/s 294 CrPC. Accordingly, there is no doubt that the said injuries were actually sustained by the victim/PW-2 at the time of incident.
44. There are three main arguments addressed by Ld. LAC for accused. I shall be dealing with them one by one.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 13/20 ARGUMENTS QUA IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED:
45. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the identification of the accused by the complainant/ PW-2 in the court for the first time during his examination after almost ten months of the alleged incident without conducting of any TIP during the investigation is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is not the case of the prosecution that complainant was known to the accused. Still, the IO did not make any effort for getting the identification of the accused established during investigation by getting his TIP conducted. Even in the complaint or statement made before IO, the complainant had not given the description of the accused. In these circumstances, the identification of the accused by the complainant/ PW-2 in the Court after almost 10 months of the incident is clearly doubtful and the benefit of this doubt should be given to the accused.
46. Per contra, it is argued by Ld. APP for State that the conducting of the TIP of the accused was not required in the facts of the present case as at the time of arrest of the accused, the complainant/ PW-2 was present at the spot. The arrest memo Ex. PW-2/D is duly witnessed by the complainant/PW-2. In fact, the accused has been apprehended at the spot while he was trying to escape which is evident from the deposition of PW-2 and PW-4. Accordingly, there was no requirement of getting his TIP conducted.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 14/20
47. I have heard the submissions made and carefully perused the record. In the present case, it is evident from the deposition of PW-2 and PW-4 that accused was apprehended immediately after the incident, while he was trying to escape. In such circumstances, there was no requirement of conducting TIP of the accused as he was duly identified by the victim/ PW-2 at the time of his arrest itself. Identification of the accused by the victim can also not be doubted as the victim/ PW-2 had clearly testified during his cross-examination, the manner in which and the distance from which he had seen the accused at the time of incident. Moreover, accused is also duly identified by PW- 4, who had apprehended him while he was trying to escape after the incident. Accused has not come forward with any reason for his false implication in the present case either during cross-examination of PW-2 or in his statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC. He has also not led any defence evidence to prove any enmity between him and the victim because of which he might have been falsely implicated in this case.
48. In these circumstances, I find no reason to doubt the identification of the accused by the victim/complainant Ritik(PW-2).
ARGUMENTS QUA EFFECT OF SHODDY INVESTIGATION REGARDING THE WEAPON OF OFFENCE:
49. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that no investigation has been done by IO for connecting the SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 15/20 allegedly recovered knife from the accused with the injuries on the person of complainant/PW-2. No expert opinion has been obtained in this regard. Even the recovered knife is not identified by the victim/PW-2. Accordingly, it is alleged that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt.
50. This argument of Ld. Defence Counsel does not inspire the confidence of the court as the button actuated knife (Ex. P-3) has been recovered from the possession of the accused immediately after his apprehension while he was trying to run away from the spot. Accordingly, there was no requirement of getting the said knife compared with the injuries on the person of the victim/PW-2 by any expert. Merely because the victim/PW-2 stated that he could not identify the knife with which accused had given him injury, it is not sufficient to doubt his testimony as his MLC clearly records injury by a sharp object. The case of the prosecution is duly proved by the testimony of the injured/PW-2 who has specifically deposed that during attempt to commit robbery, he was stabbed by accused as well as his MLC which shows closed lacerated wound of 3X0.5 cm over the left buttock by a sharp weapon. Accordingly, even without linking of the recovered weapon with the injury sustained by the complainant/PW- 2, the essential ingredients of offences charged against the accused are clearly proved on record.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 16/20 ARGUMENTS QUA ABSENCE OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC WITNESSES:
51. Another limb of argument of Ld. Defence counsel is that there is no independent public witness to the alleged incident and convicting the accused on the sole testimony of the complainant/PW-2 would not be safe.
52. Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. APP for State that the incident had occurred at around 09:40 PM, accordingly, no public witness was present at the spot who could have witnessed the incident. Moreover, seeing such a ghastly incident, even if some of the public persons were present at the spot, they must have escaped from there to save their own lives. Merely because there is no independent public witness to the commission of offence, it is not sufficient to doubt the testimony of complainant/PW-2 who was admittedly unknown to the accused and had no reason for falsely implicating him in the present case. Moreover, prosecution has examined PW-4, who although did not witness the alleged incident but is a relevant witness who had apprehended the accused while he was trying to escape from the spot.
53. I find merit in the submissions made by Ld. APP for State in this regard. The accused has not put forth any reason for his false implication in the present case by the complainant/PW-2. No suggestions in this regard have been given to PW-2 nor any defence in this regard has come on record in the statement of accused recorded under Section 313 CrPC. Absence of public persons at the time SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 17/20 of incident or thereafter during the investigation is understandable considering the odd hours of the incident and the nature of the incident. Merely because any independent public witness has not corroborated the testimony of PW-2, his testimony which is duly supported by his medical documents cannot be discarded as argued by Ld. Defence Counsel. Moreover, the testimony of PW-4 in the present case is very relevant as he had apprehended the accused while he was trying to escape after the commission of the offence, his testimony has withstood the test of cross-examination and duly corroborates the testimony of PW-2. I find no reason to doubt the same.
FINDINGS:
54. Considering the overall evidence on record, I have no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt that on the date of the incident, accused Rajinder Kumar tried to snatch the bag of the complainant/PW-2 containing his books and mobile phone and while doing so, he voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant/PW-2 by a button actuated knife which he was carrying. However, the attempt to commit robbery was resisted by the complainant because of which the offence of robbery could not be completed. The bag of the complainant was not actually robbed by the accused and the record shows that it was seized from the possession of the complainant himself. In the attempt to commit robbery, the accused Rajinder Kumar caused stab injuries SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 18/20 to the complainant with a button actuated knife, thereby committing offence u/s 394 IPC.
55. It is also proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt that at the time of commission of offence, accused Rajinder Kumar had used a deadly weapon button actuated (knife) for causing injury CLW of 3X0.5 cm over left buttock on the person of injured/complainant PW-2. There can be no quarrel that knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of Section 397 IPC. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in State of Maharashtra Vs Vinayak Tuhara Utekar (1997) 2 Crimes 615 (BOM). Accordingly, offence u/s 397 IPC is duly proved against accused Rajinder Kumar beyond any reasonable doubt.
56. As regards offence u/s 27 Arms Act, the prosecution has duly proved on record that the knife used by accused Rajinder Kumar for commission of the offence was prohibited u/s 7 of the Act being a button actuated knife as recovered from the accused at the spot itself. Judicial notice of DAD Notification no. F-13/451/179-(Home General) dated 29.10.1980 in this regard can be taken. Thus, accused is liable for conviction u/s 27 Arms Act as well.
57. As regards offence u/s 25 Arms Act in the facts of the present case, use of button actuated knife by accused Rajinder Kumar presupposes and includes the possession thereof. So, no separate conviction is being recorded u/s 25 Arms Act as accused is convicted u/s 27 Arms Act.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 19/20 CONCLUSION:
58. In view of the reasons and findings given above, accused Rajinder Kumar is convicted for offence u/s 394 r/w Section 397 IPC and Section 27 Arms Act.
59. Be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by SHIVALI Announced in the open court SHIVALI SHARMA Date: SHARMA 2022.11.28 16:23:29 Dated 28.11.2022. +0530 (SHIVALI SHARMA) ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI 28.11.2022.
SC No. 677/2018 State Vs. Rajinder Kumar FIR No. 365/2018 Page no. 20/20