Delhi District Court
State vs . Ziyauddin @ Zugnu on 8 February, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SMT. ASHA MENON:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.216:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI
SC NO: 56/2012
FIR NO: 66/2012
PS CHANDANI MAHAL
U/s 392/397/411 IPC
STATE vs. ZIYAUDDIN @ ZUGNU
JUDGMENT
1 Sl. No. of the Case 56/12
2 Date of Committal to Sessions 6.8.2012 3 Name of the complainant Shamshad S/o Abdul Shadiq 4 Date of commission of offence 30.4.2012
5 Name of accused, parentage and Ziyauddin @ Zugnu S/o Islamuddin
address R/o House No. 1208, Rakab Ganj,
Delhi . Age: 30 yrs
6 Offence complained of U/s 392/397/411 IPC
7 Offence charged of U/s 392/397/411 IPC
8 Plea of guilty Pleaded not guilty
9 Final order Convicted U/s 392 r/w 411 IPC
10 Date on which order reserved 1.2.13
11 Date on which order announced 4.2.13
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The accused Ziyauddin @ Zugnu was charged U/s 392/397/411 IPC on the complaint of Shamshad. The allegations are that when Shamshad was present at shop No.1230 , Rakabganj, Delhi on 30.4.12 at about 6.00pm, accused Ziyauddin @ Zugnu had come to the shop and had placed a Page 1 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 2 surgical blade at the neck of the complainant Shamshad and demanded him to open the cash box. Under threat Shamshad opened the cash box and accused Ziyauddin @ Zugnu removed Rs.2300/ kept in the cash box and ran away from the shop.
2. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him and the prosecution examined complainant Shamshad as PW1, HC Sanjay Kumar as PW2, Mohd. Wasim as PW3 , Ct. Raj Pal as PW4 and SI Balwant Singh as PW5.
3. The statement of the accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has mentioned that he was a drug addict and was taking smack in front of the shop of Shamshad and it was for that reason that Shamshad had implicated him in this case. No evidence in defence has been led.
4. I have perused the record and I have heard the argument of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State and Ld.Amicu Curaie Sh. Mohd. Shamim Advocate for accused . I have also carefully perused the entire record.
5. Ld. Amicus Curaie has submitted that the prosecution's case was doubtful and that PW1 could not be believed. It is stated that despite the alleged incident having occurred, PW1 had not called the police and according to the PW3 , the owner of the shop, PW1 had nothing to do with the cash box. It is also submitted that the circumstances of apprehension of the Page 2 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 3 accused was also doubtful.
6. On the other hand Ld. Addl. PP for state has submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused.
7. PW1 has deposed that he knew the accused from before the incident. In cross examination he has also admitted that he has no enemity with the accused. Therefore, there appears to be no reason why PW1 would have deposed falsely that the accused had come to the shop and had taken the surgical blade from his pocket and placed the same on his throat and looted a sum of Rs.2300/ from the cash box. PW3 , owner of the shop , has confirmed that when he came to the shop at about 6.30pm , soon after the incident had taken place , the PW1 had informed him about the robbery and thereafter the police had been informed. The following day when PW5 SI Balwant and PW4 Ct. Rajpal received secret information that the accused was available at the park near LNJP Jhuggi, they had called PW1 and it was on the identification of PW1 that the accused who was sleeping in the park was apprehended. After PW5 had apprehended the accused and had interrogated him, he had taken the his search of the accused and had recovered and seized the surgical blade as well as a sum of Rs.1950/ from the accused. The accused has not been able to explain how this sum of money was recovered from his possession. According to the accused he Page 3 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 4 was lifted from his house and nothing was recovered from his possession. However, no evidence has been produced by him to prove that he was lifted from his home. Infact no such suggestion was put to the IO that he had picked up the accused from his house.
8. In the face of the credible evidence that has been brought on record by the prosecution in the form of testimonies of PW1 Shamshad, PW3 Wasim and PW5 SI Balwant Singh, the prosecution has been able to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that on 30.4.12 at about 6.30pm the accused had come to the shop No.1230 and after placing a surgical blade on the neck of the PW1, looted Rs.2300/ from of the cash box of the shop part of which, amounting to Rs.1950/ was found on his person on the following day on 1.5.2012. The prosecution has therefore successfully proved the commission of offence punishable U/s 392IPC r/w Section 411 IPC.
9. However, as regards the offence U/s 397 IPC , the prosecution has not been able to establish that the surgical blade is in the nature of a deadly weapon. The surgical weapon was used to put of the fear of death or hurt upon PW1 Shamshad in order to commit theft of Rs.2300/ found in the cash box. However, the surgical blade is not a lethal weapon . I am therefore of the considered view that no offence U/s 397 IPC namely use of deadly weapon at the time of committing robbery, is made out against Page 4 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 5 the accused. The accused is accordingly acquitted U/s 397 IPC.
10.Accused is thus found guilty of the commission of an offence punishabledx U/s 392 r/w 411 IPC and convicted accordingly. Accused is entitled to be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open
Court on : 4/2/13 ( ASHA MENON)
Addl. Sessions Judge02
Central : Delhi
Page 5 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 6 IN THE COURT OF SMT. ASHA MENON:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.216:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI SC NO: 56/2012 FIR NO: 66/2012 PS CHANDANI MAHAL U/s 392 r/w411 IPC STATE vs. ZIYAUDDIN @ ZUGNU 08.02.2013 ORDER ON SENTENCE Pr: Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State Convict is produced from J/c Ld. Counsel Sh. Mohd. Shamim, Advocate Amicus Curiae for accused I have heard submissions of Ld. Counsel for the accused. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the accused has a family and this was only an aberration. Hence it is prayed that lenient view be taken.
However Ld. Addl. PP for State submits that the accused has been involved in several other cases and that in the circumstances no leniency could be shown. The Ld. Addl. PP has pointed out the previous history of the accused and that he has been previously convicted in 9 cases involving the Arms Act , theft, robbery and drugs for personal consumption.
I have heard both the sides.
In the present case the accused has been found guilty of robbery by threatening a shop assistant with the aid of a surgical blade and part of the amount so robbed was also recovered from his possession.
In the circumstances I consider it appropriate to sentence the accused to RI for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/, in default of which he shall undergo RI for 10 months for the commission of the offence U/s 392 IPC. Accused is further sentenced to undergo to RI for one year for the Page 6 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13 7 commission of the offence U/s 411 IPC. All sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr P.C be given to the accused as he is in custody since 01.05.2012. File be consigned to the record room. Copy be supplied to the accused.
Announced in the Open ( ASHA MENON)
Court on : 08.02.2013 Addl. Sessions Judge02
Central : Delhi
Page 7 / 5 of Judgment State Vs. Ziyauddin @ Zugnu dt..4.2.13