Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. This charge-sheet committed to this court after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C.

3. Charges u/s 392/34 IPC were framed against all accused, whereas accused Tejpal @ Lala also charged under section 411 IPC. Separate charges under sections 394/397 IPC were also framed against accused Sonu vide order dated 18/09/2013 and all accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

FIR No. 137/2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Rohit @ Lala etc. 2/31

4. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined PW1 Ct. Narender, PW2 Prem Pal, PW3 HC Om Prakash, PW4 Ct. Rakesh Dhawan, PW5 Dr. Sushma, PW6 SI Chetan Singh, PW7 Dr. Ankur Batra, PW8 ASI (then HC) Ravinder Kumar, PW9 SI Ashwani, PW10 SI Sushil Kumar and closed PE.

7. I have heard the arguments and perused the record. All the accused persons have been charged u/s 392/34 IPC jointly, whereas accused Sonu has FIR No. 137/2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Rohit @ Lala etc. 7/31 also been charged separately u/s 394/397 IPC. Accused Tejpal @ Lala has further been charged u/s 411 IPC. However, before appreciating the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it is necessary to revisit ingredients of robbery prescribed under section 390 IPC and punishable u/s 392 and 394 respectively. Relevant sections 390/392/394 IPC are as under:

9. If prosecution succeeds in proving that accused has committed theft or extortion with such amount of hurt/ wrongful restraint / or attempt to death / hurt as contemplated u/s 390 IPC, then it will be an offence under section 392 IPC and punishment would be upto 10 years. However, if during above said robbery any injury is caused, irrespective of the nature of injury, then it shall be an offence punishable u/s 394 of IPC and punishment will enhance to imprisonment of life. Section 394 IPC has covered specific cases of hurt during this theft as covered by robbery. However, separate charge of hurt or wrongful restraint is not be considered for the purpose of punishment of accused as it contemplates under this section only. On the basis of the abovesaid legal proposition the case of accused persons has to be decided.

33. Under Section 394/397 IPC: Next charges against accused Sonu are u/s 394/397 IPC. Accused Sonu caused neck injury to the complainant Prem Pal during this incident due to he has been separately charges under Section 394/397 IPC. Section 394 IPC prescribes if any accused during robbery voluntarily causes hurt to victim is liable under this section. In this case, it stands proved that offence of robbery after causing injury was committed by all accused but only accused Sonu has been charged for this offence, whereas all of them ought to be liable for this offence with the help of joint liability. However, in the absence of any such charge under section 394 IPC, other accused namely Tejpal @ Lala and Mahesh @ Atti Chauhan cannot be convicted for this offence without framing of formal and specific charge. All accused had beaten up the complainant during robbery and this fact is well clear by his first statement as well as his testimony, but it is not sufficient to convict them u/s 394 IPC. Section 222 CrPC prescribes a conviction of accused without framing of formal charges, but it is not applicable where charges have been framed for higher degree of offences and conviction is FIR No. 137/2012 State Vs. Tejpal @ Rohit @ Lala etc. 25/31 made for lesser offences, which is not the case herein. Though this court is vigilant that charges may be amended at any stage of trial, yet this case is one of the oldest cases of this court and recalling of witnesses for re-examination after amendment of charges would definitely cause further delay of trial, especially conclusion of trial after more than 10 years. As such, amendment of charge may not be in the interest of justice.