Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The present FIR came to be registered on the complaint of one Naveen (PW4) alleging that on 29.04.2019 at about 7:45 P.M., when he was returning home on his motorcycle, while he stopped to receive a call, two boys came on a Pulsar motorcycle and the pillion rider snatched his mobile phone of make 'POCO F-1', from his right hand and at that point, the pillion rider further tried to take out his purse from the right-side pocket of his pant. Simultaneously, the driver took out a sharp-edged weapon i.e. knife and asked him to handover whatever he was carrying failing which, he would kill him. Frightened, the complainant took out his purse from his pant, and the pillion rider forcibly took out sum of Rs.35,000/- from the said purse and also took out another mobile phone, of make 'JIO Keypad'. Thereafter, both the said accused fled from the spot and the complainant tried to chase, however, could not trace the robbers. He informed his uncle Pawan Kumar (PW3), and reported the matter. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 392/34 IPC. The present appellant, being the driver of the motorcycle and the pillion rider (a CCL) were arrested in another FIR No.62/2019 (Ex.PW13/A) registered under Sections 392 IPC at PS Narela Industrial Area, where they disclosed their involvement in the subject FIR. From the possession of the appellant, the robbed mobile phone make POCO F-1 (Ex.PW8/A) was recovered. While the second phone make JIO Keypad (Ex.PW8/B) was recovered from the CCL. During the investigation, Section 411 IPC was added. Subsequently, during the charge, noting the contents, Section 397 was also added.

3. During trial, besides the complainant (PW-4), the prosecution also CRL.A. 926/2024 Page 2 of 10 Signed By:GAUTAM examined the uncle Pawan (PW-3), the aunt Dimple (PW-5) and one Sajid Khan (PW-11), the person who had purchased the mobile phone of make POCO F-1 and thereafter, sold it to the complainant as well as one Ravi Chand Singh, (PW-12) Unit Head of the factory where the complainant was employed. The complainant, in his testimony before the court, reiterated his version of the incident as stated earlier during the investigation. He also not only proved the seizure memo of the recovered mobile phone make POCO F-1 (Ex.PW4/B), but also exhibited his invoice as Ex. PW4/C. He also identified the appellant as the person who was driving the motorcycle and had pointed the knife at him. The testimonies of his uncle (PW-3) and aunt (PW-5) namely, Pawan Kumar and Dimple are to the extent that a sum of Rs.35,000/- was borrowed from them. In his testimony, Sajid Khan (PW-11) stated that he had purchased mobile phone make POCO F-1 on 13.11.2018 for a sum of Rs.21,000/-. The bill for the said phone was in his name. He deposed that after keeping the mobile phone for about 15 days, he sold the same to the complainant, however, admitted that no separate sale document was executed. He identified the mobile phone as well as the invoice. Ravi Chand Singh (PW-12) deposed that on 29.04.2019, he was working as Unit Head at Diwan Mundhra Brothers Pvt. Ltd. and on that day, the complainant left the factory at about 7:40 pm. He proved the duty records of the complainant in the factory on that day as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B.

6. Having gone through the testimonies of the complainant and the other aforementioned witnesses, the factum of complainant being robbed of his two mobiles and Rs.35,000/- on the day of the incident is not in doubt. During the cross-examination, the suggestion was given on the aspect that the invoice is not in the name of present complainant, however, considering the testimony of Sajid Khan, the contentions are meritless. The recovery of mobile phone of make POCO F-1 from the appellant stands duly proved. Mere suggestion that IMEI of the phone was not mentioned on the bill invoice (Ex.PW4/C) is also not of much help as the invoice refers to the CRL.A. 926/2024 Page 4 of 10 Signed By:GAUTAM details of make of mobile phone as well as its model number. The only contention raised before this Court is whether Section 397 IPC in these facts is made out or not.