Delhi District Court
State vs Noor Alam @ Sonu on 24 January, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKSHAY SHARMA, JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-02, SOUTH EAST, SAKET
COURTS, DELHI.
FIR No. 583/2013
PS. OIA
U/s.394/411/34 IPC
STATE VS NOOR ALAM
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 27/2/14
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.01.2014
C. NAME OF THE : Vinod Gupta
COMPLAINANT S/o Inder Prasad Gupta
D. NAME OF THE : I.Noor Alam @Sonu,S/o Md. Islam
ACCUSED II. Ajay @ Pappu, S/o Patram
(proceedings abated on 07.10.2016)
E. OFFENCE COMPLAINED
OF : U/s 394/411/34 IPC
F. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
G. FINAL ORDER : Convicted u/s 394/34 IPC
H. DATE OF COMMISSION
OF OFFENCE : 06.11.2013
I. DATE OF FINAL
ARGUMENTS : 05.12.2024
J. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 24.01.2025
BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the instant case as per the charge-sheet are that on 06.11.2013, complainant Vinod Gupta came at police chowkey and explained the incident happened to him, since complainant had sustained injuries, therefore, he was got medically treated vide MLC no.397974/13, and his statement was recorded, in which he stated that he is employed as a Traffic Marshal in Afcon Company, on 06.11.2013, when he was returning back to his home after completion of his duty, he deboarded the bus at Govindpuri Metro Station and was going towards his house in Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:09 +0530 :2: Tehkhand by foot at around 08:30PM. He took a break for urination near DDA Jungle near Kalkaji Depot Gate. While he was urinating 02 boys came from the Jungle and forcefully took out his mobile phone, Indian Bank ATM Card, his ID Card and Rs.700/- from his pockets, further those boys forcefully took him inside the Jungle and give beatings to him. One boy also gave a blow on the head of the complainant by a piece of brick. Complainant stated that he does not remember his phone no. and he can identify both the boys. On the basis of the statement of the complainant and the MLC, present FIR u/s 394/34 Indian Penal Code, ( herein after referred to as IPC) was registered. IO SI Jatan Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of the complainant, supplementary statement of the complainant was also recorded in which he stated that his Indian Bank Passbook was also robbed by those boys. On 08.11.2013, investigation was further entrusted to SI Shiv Ram, on the basis of secret information, both the accused persons were apprehended from Alaknanda Market, both the accused persons were interrogated and arrested. The robbed mobile phone and Rs.350/- were recovered from accused Ajay, and accused Noor Alam got recovered the Indian Bank Passbook from the DDA Jungle, accordingly, Section 411 IPC was added in the present case. TIP application was also moved by the IO, however, both the accused persons refused to get their TIP conducted. Thereafter, the present charge-sheet u/s 394/411/34 IPC was filed.
2. Cognizance was taken in the instant case by the Ld. Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:15 +0530 :3: Predecessor of this court vide order dated 20.01.2014 and after compliance of Section 207 CrPC, charge u/s 394/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons and a separate charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused persons separately regarding the respective recovery affected from them. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges and thereafter, case was listed for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Prosecution in its support examined the following prosecution witnesses:
3.1. PW Sh. Vinod Gupta was examined as PW1, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 06.11.2014, I was returning from my duty in the company i.e M/s P.S.S Security at Jamia Nagar, main road near Escort hospital on foot. When I reached at metro station Chandiwala, Govindpuri in a bus. I alighted from the bus. I was proceedings towards jungle to discharging urine on foot. In the mean time, both the accused persons came there and the accused person namely Ajay @ Pappu caught hold my neck. The other accused persons namely Noor Alam gave a stone blow on my forehead. I sustained injuries on my forehead and blood was oozing from my forehead. Thereafter, the accused Ajay snatched my purse containing Rs. 700/-, Identity card, duty card, ATM card etc. from my back pocket of my pant. The accused Ajay also snatched my mobile phone China made from my right side pocket of my pant. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away from the spot alongwith the said articles. Thereafter, I reached at PP Harkesh Nagar. The accused persons torned my pant. The police officials provided me a pant. Thereafter, the police officials took me to police station OIA. I narrated the above said incident to the police officials. Police officials recorded my statement which is Ex. PW1/A, bear my signature at point A. Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:20 +0530 :4: Thereafter, police officials took me to AIIMS hospital, where I was medically examined vide MLC.
` After three days of the incident the police officials apprehended the accused persons. Police officials informed me regarding the said fact. Police officials called me at PS to identify the said accused persons. I have identified the accused persons in the PS. Police officials told me that the said mobile phone was recovered from the possession of the accused persons and one pass book of Indian bank was also recovered from the accused persons. The police officials told me the said case properties to me and I identified the said case property in the PS. I handed over the mobile box having IMEI no. of the said mobile to the IO. I also told to the IO that the said pass book was also snatched by the accused persons after medical examination. However, I do not remember the name of the accused persons who had snatched the said pass book from my pocket.
I identify both the accused persons present in the court today. I can identify the case properties if shwon to me.
At this stage, MHC(M) produce the case properties in one unsealed envelope. The envelope is opened and case properties i.e pass book of Indian bank, one mobile phone make Monix X291 and an amount of Rs. 350/- (in the denomination of 100X3, 50X1) are taken out. The same are shown to the witness. The witness has correctly identify the case properties i.e said pass book, mobile phone and the said amount. The case properties are Ex. P1 pass book, Ex. P2 mobile phone and Ex. P3 the said amount.
Cross is deferred at the request of the counsel for the accused persons on the ground that he has been recently engaged and therefore, he could not prepare for his cross examination."
3.2. PW Ct. Kapil Kumar, was examined as PW2, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 05.11.2013, I was posted as constable at PP Phase-III, Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:25 +0530 :5: OIA. At around 10.00 pm, complainant Vinod Gupta came at the PP. Complainant Vinod Gupta was wounded at that time. I took the injured to the AIIMS, Trauma Centre. After the medical examination of complainant Vinod Gupta, I received MLC report from the concerned doctor. Thereafter, we returned back at PP. IO SI Jatan Singh recorded the complaint of Vinod Gupta and prepared the rukka and handed over to me. Thereafter, I went to the PS for registration of FIR. After lodging of FIR, I came back at DDA jungle, near Kalkaji Depot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. IO prepared the site plan before me."
3.3. PW ASI Jamnu Ram was examined as PW3, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 08.11.2013, I was posted as constable at PS-OIA. On that day, IO/SI Shiv Ram joined the investigation. I alongwith IO and HC Neeraj went to in front of Shani Mandir, Alaknanda market, for searching the accused and the case property. We apprehended two accused persons namely Pappu and Mohd. Noor Alam from the power shop, Alaknanda market. Both the accused persons were in interrogated. Accused Ajay got recovered a mobile phone make MONIX black colour from right pocket of his pant and Rs.350/- (three currency notes of Rs.100/- and one currency note of Rs.50/-) from back side pocket of his pant. IO had seized the mobile phone and Rs.350/- vide seizure memo vide Ex.PW3/A, bearing my signature at point 'A'. Both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW3/B to Ex.PW3/E, bearing my signature at point 'A'. IO had given accused Ajay in my custody and custody of accused Noor Alam who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) to HC Neeraj. Thereafter, we went to DDA jungle behind Govindpuri bus depot. IO had prepared the pointing out memo at the instance of both the accused persons vide Ex.PW3/F, bearing my signatures at point 'A'. Accused Noor Alam got recovered a passbook of Indian Bank from there and IO had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/G, bearing my signature at point 'A'. Accused persons were got medically examined and sent to the lock up. IO had prepared site plan of recovery of the bank passbook vide Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:30 +0530 :6: Ex.PW3/H, bearing my signature at point 'A'.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, witness has been shown copy of passbook of Vinod Prakash Gupta of Indian Bank, three currency notes of Rs.100 and one currency note of Rs.50/- and photograph of blank colour make MONIX and witness correctly identifies the same. These copies and photographs are exhibited as Ex.P4 (colly.)."
3.4. PW Ct. Vikas, was examined as PW4, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 05.11.2013, I was posted as constable at PP-OIA Phase- III, PS-OIA. On that day my duty hours were from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am as a DD writer. On that day at around 10.05 pm, I recorded DD no. 32PP regarding robbery of mobile phone, Rs. 700/-, ATM Card and ID Card. The copy of the said DD is exhibited as Ex.PW4/A, bearing my signature at point 'A'. Today, I have brought DD register, containing the abovesaid DD in original (OSR).
3.5. PW ASI Neeraj Kumar, was examined as PW5, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 08.11.2013 I was posted as HC at PP-OIE, PS-OIA. On that day I joined the investigation of present case with IO / SI Shivram. On that day I alongwith IO and Ct. Jamnu Ram reached at Alaknanda, Kalkaji where accused Pappu was running a flower shop. Thereafter we apprehended the accused persons namely Ajay @ Pappu and Noor Alam @ Sonu. Thereafter IO interrogated them and conducted their personal search vide memos already Ex. PW3/D and PW3/E bearing my signatures at point-B. During personal search IO got recovered one golden colour chain from the possession of accused Pappu and one ZTE mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Noor Alam.Digitally signed by AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.24 16:26:38 +0530 :7: During personal search IO also got recovered case property i.e. one mobile phone make Monix black colour and Rs. 350/- from the possession of accused Ajay @ Pappu. Thereafter IO seized the same vide memos already Ex. PW3/A bearing my signatures at point-B. Thereafter IO arrested the accused persons vide memo already Ex. PW3/C and PW3/D bearing my signatures at point-B. Thereafter IO prepared pointing out memo of accused persons in my presence already Ex. PW3/F bearing my signatures at point-B. Thereafter IO got recovered the bank passbook of Indian Bank belonging to complainant from DDA Jungle, near Kalkaji Bus Depot at the instance of accused Noor Alam. Thereafter IO seized the same in my presence vide memo already Ex. PW3/G bearing my signatures at point-B. After medical examination accused persons was sent to lockup and case property was deposited at Malkhana. Accused Noor Alam @ Sonu is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness). I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage, MHCM produced the case property in one unsealed envelope. The envelope is opened and ZTE mobile and one golden colour chain is taken out. Same are shown to witness. Witness correctly identifies the same. The same is Ex. P4 and P5.
One mobile phone make Monix black colour, Rs. 350/- and passbook of complainant was released on superdari vide order dt. 17.04.2015 and the same is already Ex. P1 to P3."
3.6. PW Sh. Gaurav Rao, was examined as PW6, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"At this stage, one envelope with the seal of 'GR' is opened with the permission of Court which contains 6 pages regarding TIP proceedings of accused Pappu @Ajay and Mohd. Noor Alam @ Sonu.
On 12.11.2013, the IO of the present case SI Shiv Ram had moved an application before Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, Ld. MM for getting the TIP of accused Mohd. Noor Alam and Ajay @ Pappu conducted which was marked to me as Link MM. The application on record is now Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:43 +0530 :8: Ex. PW6/A. On the same day, the accused Mohd. Noor Alam was produced from judicial custody in muffled face. I asked the accused if he wants to participate in TIP. The accused replied in the negative. I warned the accused that his refusal to take part in TIP proceedings can be used against him during trial and an adverse interference can be drawn. The accused still sticked to his stand that he did not want to take part in TIP for the reason that "I do not want to take part in the TIP proceedings as I was seen by the witness at the spot and I admit my mistake". I recorded the statement of accused to this effect and because of refusal on the part of the accused, the TIP proceedings could not be conducted. The proceedings in this regard qua accused Mohd. Noor Alam on record are now Ex. PW6/B bearing my signature at point-A, B, C, D, E and F. I also appended a certificate to the effect that the above proceedings were true and correct with my signature at point-E. The IO had also moved an application for supply of the copy of TIP proceedings which was allowed by me. The application is now Ex. PW6/C bearing my endorsement and signature at point A."
3.7. PW SI Shivram, No.D-2898, was examined as PW7, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 08.11.2013, the present case file was assigned to me further investigation. I had received secret information on the same date that the suspect of the present case can be apprehended near Shani Mandir, Alaknanda if raid is conducted. Thereafter, I along with Ct. Jamanu and HC Neeraj reached near Shani Mandir, Alaknanda and secret informer pointed towards two boys who were sitting on the flowers shop. Thereafter, both boys were apprehended by us and interrogated them. Both accused persons had disclosed their names as Pappu and Noor Alam. In the cursory search of accused Pappu, a mobile phone make monix and Rs.350/- were recovered and same were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW2/A bearing my signature at point 'C'. Accused Noor Alam had disclosed that he had thrown a passbook of Indian Bank Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:49 +0530 :9: in DDA Jungle in Kalkaji and same was got recovered by him and seized vide seizure already Ex.PW3/G bearing my signature at point C. Both accused persons were arrested and their personal search were conducted vide memos already Ex.PW3/B to Ex.PW3/E bearing my signature at point 'C'. I had also prepared pointing out memo at the instance of both accused vide already Ex.PW3/F bearing my signature at point 'C'. I had also prepared site plan of place of recovery of passbook vide already Ex.PW3/H bearing my signature at point 'B'. I had also recorded their disclosure statement vide memos Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B bearing my signature at point 'A'. After medical examination of accused persons, they were lodged into lock up. Case property was deposited in malkhana. TIP of the accused persons could not get conduct as they had refused for same vide Ex.PW7/C running into four pages. During investigation, I had recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and after completion of investigation, I prepared chargesheet and filed the same in the court for judicial verdict.
I can identify the case property and accused persons if shown to me.
The identity of the case property and accused persons are not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel."
3.8. PW Inspector Jattan Singh, was examined as PW8, his examination in chief is deposed as under:
"On 05.11.2013, I was posted as Chowki Incharge at Police Post OIA, Phase III. On that day, the complainant came present to the Chowki in injured state. He was medically examined at the AIIMS Hospital. Thereafter, his statement was recorded by me vide already Ex. PW-1/A. I made an endorsement over that and prepared rukka vide Ex. PW-8/A signed by me at point A and gave the same to Ct. Kapil for registration of the FIR. Ct. Kapil went to the PS and got the present case registered and returned back to the Chowki along with copy of the FIR and original tehrir. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant, I had prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence is now marked as Ex.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:54 +0530 :10: PW-8/B signed by me at point A at the spot. Thereafter, I recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the relevant witnesses namely Ct. Kuldeep, Ct. Kapil and supplementary statements of the complainant.
On 08.11.2013, upon the orders of the SHO further investigation was marked to SI Shivram. I handed over the file of the present case to SI Shiv Ram. Since accused not arrested by me, I cannot identify him. Case property is already Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 and Ex.P-3."
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
4. After the examination of all the material prosecution witnessed, PE was closed and statement of the accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein accused Noor Alam stated that "It is correct that a fight took place with the complainant, however, we did not commit any robbery, nothing was recoverd from me. I was called by the poolice officials through Ajay and thereafter, implicated in the present case. I have been falsely implicated in the present case." accused preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
DISCUSSION OF LAW, EVIDENCE AND DECISION THEREON.
5. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record carefully. Since accused Ajay @ Pappu has already expired, therefore, the present judgment is qua accused Noor Alam @ Sonu only.
6. The question to be decided in the instant case is that whether Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:26:59 +0530 :11: the prosecution has been able to prove beyond the reasonable doubt the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 394 IPC and Sec 411 IPC for which charges against the accused has been framed. Section 394 IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery, Section 390 IPC provides that theft is robbery when in order to commit theft, or in committing theft, in carrying away or attempting to carry away property by theft, the offender for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause any person, death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint. Robbery is punishable under Section 392 IPC however when hurt is caused by the offender the offence is punishable u/s 394 IPC which entails much graver punishment.
7. Prosecution has asserted that on 08.11.2013 when the complainant i.e PW 01 Vinod Gupta stopped near DDA jungle, near Kalkaji Depot for urination, two boys came, who firstly robbed him of his articles which were mobile phone, ATM card, Indian Bank Passbook & Rs.700/- cash and also voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by a brick in order to commit this robbery, thereafter, the complainant went to Harkesh Nagar, Police Post and narrated the incident to the police officials. The accused persons were apprehended after 03 days on the basis of secret information and a mobile phone was recovered from accused Ajay, whereas accused Noor Alam got recovered the passbook belonging to the complainant.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:27:07 +0530 :12:
8. The prosecution in order to prove it's case has examined the complainant i.e. PW-1, complainant has proved his complaint i.e. EX. PW-1/A which delineates the above mentioned facts, further complainant has categorically stated in his testimony before this court that present accused Noor Alam gave a stone blow on his forehead, complainant sustained injuries on his forehead and blood was oozing from his forehead. Accused Noor Alam was correctly identified by the complainant in the court, moreover, the complainant had correctly identified both the accused persons as well as the recovered case properties before this court during his examination on 15.04.2015. The testimony of the complainant regarding the injuries is corroborated by his MLC no.397974, dated 05.11.2013, in which an abrasion on forehead and laceration right eyebrow is mentioned as particulars of injury. The complainant was duly cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person, however, no such fact or contradiction has surfaced in the cross-examination of the complainant which could falsify the contents of the examination in chief of the complainant. Though the cross- examination indicates that certain facts have been deposed in the examination in chief, which were not present in the initial complaint of the complainant, such as the role of the accused persons and the description of the accused persons. However, those additions in the examination in chief in comparison to the complaint does not create doubt on the testimony of the complainant, rather those facts only complement the testimony of the complainant and strengthens the case of the prosecution.
Digitally
signed by
AKSHAY
AKSHAY SHARMA
SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24
16:27:13
+0530
:13:
9. Further, qua the offence u/s 411 IPC, it is the case of the prosecution that when accused Noor Alam was apprehended on the basis of secret information, he got recovered the bank passbook belonging to the complainant from the place of incident i.e., DDA Jungle, near Kalkaji Bus Depot, the complainant has correctly identified the recovered passbook in the court during his examination in chief.
10. The seizure memo of the recovered pass book has been proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW3/G, PW 3 ASI Jamnu Ram, PW5 ASI Neeraj Kumar and PW 7 SI Shiv Ram has been examined by the prosecution as the witnesses of the said recovery. Both PW3 & PW5, correctly identified the accused Noor Alam, and on the date of examination of PW7, identity of accused Noor Alam was not disputed. The testimony of PW3 & PW5 corroborate in material particular regarding the fact of recovery of the bank passbook from the DDA Jungle. PW7, SI Shiv Ram has also stated in his examination in chief that "accused Noor Alam had disclosed that he had thrown a passbook of Indian Bank in DDA Jungle in Kalkaji and same was got recovered by him and seized vide seizure already Ex.PW3/G."
11. All the PWs of recovery namely, PW3 ASI Jamnu Ram, PW5 ASI Neeraj Kumar and PW7 SI Shiv Ram were cross-examined on behalf of the accused, however, no such contradiction or fact which could lend the factum of recovery doubtful has arisen in the cross-examination.
Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMAAKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.24 16:27:18 +0530 :14: Rather, in the cross-examinations as well, the factum of recovery has been strengthened. PW5 re-affirmed in the cross-examination that they recovered the passbook of victim Vinod at the instance of accused Noor Alam, further, PW 7 SI Shivram has also re-affirmed in his cross- examination that the recovery was effected from the Jungle nearby the place of crime, which is further re-affirmed/corroborated by PW3 in his cross-examination as he stated that "the place of incident and the place of recovery of passbook are nearby". The pointing out memo of the place of incident has also been duly proved by the prosecution as Ex.PW3/F by virtue of the testimonies of PW3, PW5 & PW7.
12. It is also observed by this court that the accused in his statement recorded under 313 CrPC read with S.281 CrPC has admitted that indeed a fight with the complainant took place, though accused denied committing any robbery.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Edmund S. Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya, (2016 (15) SCC 572), while appreciating the evidentiary value of the statement of the accused recorded under section 313 CrPC 1973. Held :
"21. Where the accused gives evasive answers in his cross-examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., an adverse inference can be drawn against him. But such inference cannot be a substitute for the evidence which the Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:27:24 +0530 :15: prosecution must adduce to bring home the offence of the accused. The statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not an evidence. In Balwant vs. State of U.P. (2008) 9 SCC 974, this Court held that conviction of the accused cannot be based merely on his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which cannot be regarded as evidence. It is only the stand or version of the accused by way of explanation explaining the incriminating evidence/circumstances appearing against him. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to other evidence led by the prosecution. Statements made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. must be considered not in isolation but in conjunction with the other prosecution evidence."
14. The admission of the accused regarding a fight with the complainant in his statement u/s 313 CrPC certainly supports the case of the prosecution by strengthening the fact regarding the presence of the accused at the spot, and also the fact regarding inflicting of injuries to the complainant by the accused.
15. The net effect of the above-discussion is that the essential ingredients of the offence u/s 394 IPC are proved by virtue of the testimony of PW1, the accused is also correctly identified by the complainant in the court, and the complainant has specifically deposed regarding causation of injury by a stone blow on his head by accused Noor Alam, it is clearly indicated that the present accused Noor Alam in furtherance of his common intention along with co-accused Ajay Digitally signed by AKSHAY SHARMA AKSHAY Date:
SHARMA 2025.01.24
16:27:29
+0530
:16:
(expired) robbed the complainant of his articles. Further, the factum of recovery of the bank passbook at the instance of accused Noor Alam from DDA Jungle near Kalkaji Depot is also established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution by virtue of the testimonies of PW3, PW5 & PW7.
16. In conclusion, it is stated that since the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused Noor Alam stands convicted for the offence u/s 394 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC, this court is not convicting the accused for the offence u/s 411 IPC as The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in 'Sunil Mashi@ Silly vs State NCT of Delhi' (Criminal appeal no.610/2013 decided on 14.10.2014) held., "As such, the appellant was rightly convicted under Section 379 IPC, however, the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 411 IPC as well. Keeping in view the fact that he has been convicted under Section 379 IPC, there was no justification for convicting him for offence under Section 411 IPC. As such, his conviction under Section 411 IPC is set aside."
17. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in ' Gopi Jaiswal vs State of U.P.' (Criminal appeal no.1899/2009 decided on 8 November, 2011) held, In view of the fact that the appellant Gopi Jaiswal was the Digitally signed by AKSHAY AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.01.24 16:27:34 +0530 :17: real thief, his conviction could only be made under Section 379 IPC. His conviction under Section 411 IPC, in such situation, was not proper. A real thief cannot be a receiver of a stolen property. If a person is the real thief and the stolen property is also recovered from his possession, he should be convicted and sentenced for the offence of theft and as such he cannot be convicted and sentenced under Section 411 IPC.
Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 411 IPC cannot be upheld."
18. Since this court has arrived at a conclusion that the accused Noor Alam was the actual robber/thief in the present case, therefore, the accused is not convicted for being the retainer/ receiver of the stolen bank passbook. Accordingly, this court holds accused Noor Alam guilty and convicts him for the offence u/s 394 IPC R/W Section 34 IPC only.
Pronounced in the open court on 24.01.2025. Judgment contains total 17 pages, each signed by the undersigned.
Digitally signedAKSHAY by AKSHAY SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.01.24 16:27:40 +0530 (AKSHAY SHARMA) MM-02/SE/Saket/ND 24.01.2025