Tara Chand @ Mukesh v. State

$~7 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.REV.P. 1/2017 & Crl.M.B.1/2017 TARA CHAND @ MUKESH ..... Petitioner Through :

Mr. Dinesh Malik, Mr. Akash Saini and Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advs.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through :

Mr.

Amit Chadha, APP with SI Jaideep Singh PS Swaroop Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 10.03.2017 Crl.M.A.3/2017 (Delay) For the reasons as stated in the application, delay is condoned. Application is disposed of.

Crl.M.A.2/2017 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

Application is disposed of.

CRL.REV.P. 1/2017 Petitioner was convicted by trial court under Section 392 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 months with fine of `1,000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment of 7 days. Petitioner preferred appeal before the District

Judge, which has been dismissed by the Learned Additional District JudgeIII, North District, Delhi vide judgment dated 23rd August, 2016. That is how petitioner is before this Court by way of present petition under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There are concurrent findings of trial court as well as appellate court on appreciation of evidence. It is trite law that High court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., has not to reappreciate the evidence, which has already been appreciated by the trial court as well as the appellate court and return a finding of fact as against the concurrent findings returned by the two courts below. The High Court will interfere only if the judgment suffers from any flagrant violation of any legal principle or where any grave perversity has occurred.

During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any flagrant violation of any legal principle or grave miscarriage of justice having been resulted to the petitioner. As per the prosecution, petitioner had robbed PW-1 of his mobile phone and `200/- on 26th February, 2011 near Peeli Kothi Wali Gali, Nathu Pura, Delhi. PW-1 Guddu Kumar Jha has duly supported the prosecution version.

house on foot.

He was listening music by connecting ear phones on his mobile phone. When he reached in front of Peeli Kothi wali gali, Nathu Pura, Delhi, petitioner kicked him from behind. Due to which he fell down on the road.

Petitioner snatched mobile phone and `200/- from him. Petitioner took out the SIM card and broke the same. He raised alarm, at which police officials reached there and apprehended the petitioner. Mobile phone and money were recovered from the petitioner. PW-2 & 5 are the police officials, who were on patrolling duty and had reached the spot immediately.

They had apprehended the petitioner.

PW-2 & 5 have corroborated the PW-1. They have deposed that petitioner was apprehended by them. Mobile phone and `200/- were recovered from the petitioner. Findings of facts have been recorded by the trial court as well as appellate court on meticulous scrutiny of evidence available on trial court record, which do not suffer from any perversity. Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

MARCH 10, 2017/dk