Shahzad @ Imran vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 27 October, 2016

The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P.697/2016 & CRL.M.B. 1946/2016
1. Present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner –
Shahzad @ Imran to impugn the judgment dated 17.08.2016 of learned
Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl.A. 223/2016 whereby the judgment dated
02.05.2016 on conviction and order on sentence dated 06.05.2016 of learned
ACMM were upheld. The petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court for

Crl.Rev.P.697/2016 Page 1 of 3
committing offences punishable under Section 382 IPC and under Section
25 Arms Act.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have
examined the file. On perusal of the file, it reveals that the Trial Court based
its judgment on conviction on the statement of the complainant – PW-1
(Shahbad). He disclosed that on 06.01.2014 at around 09.00 a.m. when he
was going to Madhu Vihar from Nirman Vihar on bus route No.469, he felt
that someone had taken out his purse from the pocket. He suspected the
petitioner to be the perpetrator of the crime and he was apprehended at
Swasthya Vihar Bus Stand. When his custody was handed over to the police
and his search was conducted, the purse containing cash `270/-, Voter ID
card and other documents was recovered from him. He was also found in
possession of a buttandar knife. Necessary proceedings were conducted by
the police at the spot. Despite lengthy cross-examination, no vital
discrepancies could be extracted in the cross-examination. No extraneous
consideration was assigned to the complainant to implicate the petitioner for
the crime. In the absence of prior animosity or ill-will, the complainant who
had no acquaintance with the petitioner is not expected to involve him and to
let the real culprit go scot free. It is relevant to note that in 313 Cr.P.C.
statement, the petitioner admitted recovery of the purse from his possession.
He attempted to shift the blame upon his friend and disclosed that the purse
was handed over to him by the friend who had removed it. The petitioner
did not disclose the name of his associate. He had no reasons to retain the
stolen purse knowingly that it was removed from the pocket of a passenger
in the bus. The petitioner did not disclose as to what was his motive to
travel in the bus with knife in his possession.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply