- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Aslam Alias Deewan v. State Of Rajasthan .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 24 April 2002, at approximately 8:30–8:45 p.m., Nand Kishore was struck on the head with an iron rod and robbed of his bag between Partanion-Ka-Rasta and Gali Mahadev in Jaipur. His brother-in-law, Jagdish Soni (PW 1), lodged a written report (Exh. P-1) at Police Station Manak Chowk, leading to registration of an FIR under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During investigation, the police arrested two accused: Waseem @ Raju on 2 May 2002 and the present appellant, Aslam @ Deewan, on 11 May 2002. Pursuant to information supplied under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the police recovered ₹10,000 in cash, an iron rod, the victim’s handbag, and gold items.
The Special Judge, Fake Currency Cases, Jaipur City, tried both accused, examined twenty-one prosecution witnesses (including injured witness Nand Kishore, PW 11) and convicted them under Section 394 IPC, sentencing each to ten years of rigorous imprisonment (RI). Two separate criminal appeals were filed before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. The High Court dismissed both appeals, upholding conviction and sentence. The present appeal before the Supreme Court challenges that High Court judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence—particularly the testimony of injured eyewitness Nand Kishore (PW 11) and the test-identification proceedings—was sufficient to sustain the appellant’s conviction under Section 394 IPC.
- Whether the statutory minimum sentence of ten years’ RI mandated by Section 394 IPC could be reduced in the appellant’s case on the ground of custody already undergone.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The prosecution evidence, especially PW 11’s testimony, was insufficient to “fasten the guilt” on the appellant.
- Because the appellant had already spent a considerable period in custody, the sentence should be reduced.
State's Arguments
- The High Court’s judgment correctly evaluated the evidence; PW 11’s testimony and the identification proceedings firmly established the appellant’s involvement.
- The sentence was the statutory minimum; therefore, it could not be reduced.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court first outlined the scope of Section 394 IPC, emphasizing that it punishes those who voluntarily cause hurt during robbery as well as those “jointly concerned” in its commission. The Court then reviewed the evidentiary record and concurred with the concurrent findings below:
- Test Identification: A test-identification parade was conducted by Judicial Magistrate Mukesh Jat (PW 21), in which PW 11 identified the appellant. Both the trial court and High Court had rejected the contention that PW 11 might have previously seen the accused.
- Recovery of Articles: Judicial Magistrate Arti Bhardwaj (PW 20) supervised identification of the recovered articles (Exhs. P-13, P-14), further corroborating PW 11’s account.
- Section 27 Disclosures: The Court noted that recoveries—including cash, iron rod, handbag, and gold articles—were effected pursuant to voluntary information supplied by the accused, reinforcing the prosecution case.
- Sentence: Section 394 prescribes a minimum sentence of ten years. Given that the trial court had imposed only the minimum, and considering that both accused were “habitual offenders” with similar pending cases, the Court held that no reduction was permissible.
Finding no legal infirmity in the appreciation of evidence or the sentence imposed, the Supreme Court refused to interfere.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL DISMISSED. The conviction of the appellant under Section 394 IPC and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment are affirmed.
Implications: The decision maintains the concurrent findings of the trial court and High Court. It reiterates that courts cannot reduce sentences below the statutory minimum prescribed by Section 394 IPC, and confirms that credible eyewitness testimony supported by proper identification proceedings and recoveries is sufficient to uphold convictions for robbery with hurt. No new legal precedent was set.
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. Two appeals, one filed by the present appellant and the other by Waseem @ Raju were directed against the common judgment and order of the learned Special Judge, Fake Currency Cases, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The accused persons were found guilty and were convicted for offence punishable under Section 394 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”), and sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.
3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
A written report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by Jagdish Soni (PW 1), at Police Station Manak Chowk, Badi Chopad, Jaipur, wherein it was mentioned that on 24-4-2002 at about 8.30 to 8.45 p.m his brother-in-law, Shri Nand Kishore s/o Shri Rameshwar Das, was looted by some miscreants in between Partanion-Ka-Rasta and Gali Mahadev, who inflicted grievous blow on his head by iron rod and snatched his bag and ran away. Shri Nand Kishore was got admitted in Bangar Hospital. On the basis of the above report, the police registered a chalked FIR (Exhibit P-2) under Section 392 IPC.
4. During investigation of the case, accused Waseem @ Raju s/o Qadir was arrested by the police on 2-5-2002 at Karkardooma Court premise, Delhi, at about 3.00 p.m, vide arrest memo (Exhibit P-27) and appellant-accused Aslam @ Deewan s/o Shamshu Khan was arrested vide Exhibit P-25 on 11-5-2002 in the house of Sheokat Bhai, near Bilal Masjid, Delhi.
5. Accused Waseem gave an information vide Exhibit P-21, under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”) about the place of incident; he gave another information vide Exhibit P-22 in respect of shop from where he took one cycle on rent for the said incident, and the bag, which was looted on the date of the incident, and told that these articles were lying at House No. C-48, Shahid Nagar, Gali No. 3, Police Station Sahibabad (U.P). He gave the third information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exhibit P-23 about Rs 10,000 which were given to Bharat Properties, Loni Road, to purchase a plot.
6. In pursuance of the aforesaid information, a sum of Rs 10,000 was recovered vide recovery memo, Exhibit P-24 in presence of witnesses Sajid and Manzoor Hasan. The other recoveries were also made in pursuance of the information given by the accused. The iron rod which was used for inflicting injury on the person of injured Nand Kishore was seized vide seizure memo, Exhibit P-12 on 15-5-2002. The handbag and other gold items were recovered as per the information of the accused persons vide Exhibit P-18. The other informations were also given by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery was effected at their instance and information given in writing by them voluntarily.
7. Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. Twenty-one witnesses were examined to further the prosecution case. Nand Kishore (PW 11) was the injured witness. The trial court, considering the evidence on record found the accused persons guilty. Thereafter the appellants, as noted above, filed appeals. Before the High Court the primary stand was that the evidence of PW 11 was not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused. The High Court did not find any substance and dismissed the appeal.
8. In support of the appeal, it was submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the appellant for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC.
9. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported the judgment.
10. Section 394 describes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt in committing or attempting to commit robbery. The offence under this section is more serious offence than one under Section 392. Section 394 postulates and contemplates the causing of harm during commission of robbery or in attempting to commit robbery when such causing of hurt is hardly necessary to facilitate the commission of robbery. Section 394 applies to cases where during the course of robbery voluntary hurt is caused. Section 394 classifies two distinct class of persons. Firstly, those who actually cause hurt and secondly, those who do not actually cause hurt but are “jointly concerned” in the commission of offence of robbery. The second class of persons may not be concerned in the causing of hurt, but they become liable independently of the knowledge of its likelihood or a reasonable belief in its probability.
11. In the instant case test identification parade was held. The accused persons were identified during investigation by the injured Nand Kishore Soni (PW 11) in the presence of ACJM Mukesh Jat (PW 21). PW 11 identified the articles which were recovered in the presence of the Magistrate Arti Bhardwaj (PW 20). The identification proceedings reports are Exts. P-13 and P-14.
12. As noted above, the identification proceeding was conducted by Mukesh Jat, the Judicial Magistrate (PW 21). The stand that PW 11 may have got opportunity to see the accused persons earlier was found to be without any substance by both the trial court and the High Court. The identification of the articles was done in the identification proceedings carried out by Arti Bhardwaj, Judicial Magistrate (PW 20).
13. So far as the sentence is concerned, the minimum is ten years. Therefore, there is no question of reducing the sentence, though the appellant's stand was that the appellant has already suffered custody for a considerable length of time. The same is of no consequence. The trial court has also noted that both the accused persons are habitual offenders and appeals involving similar offences were pending before the High Court.
14. Since in the instant case minimum sentence has been awarded, we find no reason to interfere with the appeal.
15. The appeal is dismissed.
Alert