Karambir Etc. v. State Of Hy.
!" "
#$ % &'
'
% ( ) '
*
! "#
# ! $% #&# " ''''
*+ '
,-. ( # )
*
" * + )+
,(-,,--.
% * # $# +
00 ,--0#
*+ )+
,123
+ + 42
5,
-.-6,--0 .(,2 / ,171.
+ #(818# *
+ 3$#9 + $ ,
$ + )+
,1
+ 9
$
:
/0 "
1-,-23!,
-44 ..-$5 #'
+ 6 , !$ % 5!#$ 0 $5 $
'' !$ !$ 0'
$ " 7-/.5 ,1
+ -( (---7:
-,
2
22 /0 "-23!,
-44 ..-$5 #'
6 , !$
5!#$ 0 $5 $
'' !$ !$ 0'
$ " 7-/.5 ,1
+ -( (---7:
-,
2
+ )+ 7 $
*
,1
+ #(818#$
)
/
0 3 + **
4 2 42
-.-6,--0#2 * ;. *$
< ;1 + * $ & %
* *
:063:8.-- *
3$ * ; * $ )
+ ! $"
#
$
+
*
$! $ *
3$! / *
9=:,//:->182 * #
+
+ #$! ++ *
$
*
9=:,//:->18
$
+ +#2 * ;.++
*
+? @#
*
)
7 *
* #
7
3$?<* + #(>#---7:$
*
+<
++ : $
$ 1-7: + # + +
1--7: + $
$ 1-7:$ )*
3< 3< %
#
+<
++ # $ ) + *
0(1 $ ? + # (6#---7:$
*
+<
$ 3
#
0(1 ) + * $
*
++
#+ * #
++
+
$ <
) A 97(
@# $
+
*
/ < # *
*
42 A / .
*
++ #
@ * + * ) * $ +
7+ $
(8-8,--0# /
7++
.(,2 / ,1
+ 1 2 + # + A
) $ #
8)-962!, !$:6#
9 + !*
# $ $
+ 9 + !*
+ *
++
+ 8 #$05-3.
-!
6-:;-$+ ,2#/, , $
$ <*+ 8 !6-.
!$:6# $
*
42 8 /, $" , !$:6
'
'#
$ ) *
8&#$05-3.
-,9-06 6-$" $
$ # *
) *
6 $
$
/
+ * +@
.(,2 /
*
(,#(0#(. (1
" *
/ In the present case, what to talk of proving commission of robbery by five or more persons, prosecution has failed to lead evidence even to the effect that any robbery/dacoity was at all committed. Learned P.P drawn my attention towards disclosure statements Ex.PD/4 and Ex.PD/5 made by the accused. As per these disclosure statements, these two accused alongwith two others had committed robbery of Rs.1.43,629/- from a motor-cyclist in Mundawar lown (Rajasthan). As no recovery has been effected on the basis of these disclosure statements, so these disclosure statements are not admissible in evidence. Even otherwise, assuming for the sake of arguments that these are admissible in evidence, it will show commission of robbery by four persons and not by five or more. Meaning thereby, no dacoity was committed and, therefore, the amount of Rs.33,000/- recovered from the possession of accused can not be held to be stolen property in commission of a dacoity. Thus ingredients of Section 412 IPC are not proved at all.
& 13.
Learned P.P then contended that even if it is not proved that amount recovered from the accused was a property stolen in commission of dacoity but as it was a property stolen in commission of robbery, so accused can still be convicted under Section 411 IPC. I am afraid that contention has no force. As already stated, prosecution has not led any evidence to show that any robbery was committed. No person has been examined by the prosecution, who was robbed of any amount at Mundawar. So much so, not even the FIR registered at Mundawar has been proved to show that any case was registered regarding the robbery committed in Mundawar town.
Perusal of the file reveals that it contain a request application made by Incharge Police Mundawar to learned Area Magistrate, Rewari, to transfer the case property to Police Station Mundawar as it was the case property of case FIR No. 144 of 2003 under Section 394 IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Mundawar (Alwar). This application further shows that, that FIR at Mundawar was registered on the complaint of one Ravidatt Rewari, who was robbed of the amount, nor even the FIR registered at his instance at Mundawar has been produced or proved on file.
14.
Apart from above, in order to hold a conviction under Section 411 IPC, it is necessary that stolen property and property recovered from the accused should be the same. Reference in this regard can be made to "Babu Singh versus State 19/4 C.L. R. 255. In this case, there is no evidence worth name that Rs. 17,000/- and Rs.16,000/- allegedly recovered from
< accused Karambir and Rambir respectfully was the part of stolen property. As already stated prosecution has even failed to prove that any robbery had been committed and so it can not said that money recovered from the accused was stolen property. 15.
As a result of my above discussion. I hold that prosecution has failed to bring home charge against the accused either under Section 412 IPC or section 411 IPC. >
#
**
" * #
$ )+
,123
+ 5 =
+ +
-6-,,-,0#$
) "
=
# #9 #3$# 9 + $# /
# $ + < *
*
+ +
8 #
( B #
A -.(,,-(> *
+
/
0
:
!"#$ !% &!
'()**')+
, ,
-
*.)**')+
-
- % $ /!
#012% & ')')*'*)
,
3%4) (- 2) $
+
(B#
A *
+ #
'
$ # $ "
C+ $ <=< = !$ <=< =# #D6!>?!
-2 @
!24.
*0'
5-5 #7 /$?-3E# + '' +
$)!$
&A+
)-;
!$" ,
#
B,->608,
$#
/ $
+
,B (( ;
**
" * + )+ #! "#
# *
+ +
*
*
+@
/
.(,2 /# +
*
) * & *
* +
* ; * ? +
*
7 + $
*
) #
* # *
;.: * ;1:/ <
/ #+ #
+ + = * /
2: * ;. F, 5 ,
!
, !,
,
, $,!
?
# $
+ :
< ;1 #
)*.'
!5 ,
1 ,, - ,
!
"#
1 , $ % & " ' # " ( # " ) !
;
*
+ $ #
$ ;.: * # +
= *
*
+ +
$ ;1:/ < (, =
)* +
# $ @
G+ *
*
+
#
* +
$
+
$ +
$ * $
+
2: * ;. +
A
5 , - )*.'
2
, *.'
.''
*# & " ' "
) +++++ ! 0
-
1 ,66666660 !,, - " , 0 7
!
0
-
8
). ;
*
$ + #$
) * * + 2 * ;.#
) +
*
+
#<
+ * H +
+
$ *
)
* ;
* +
* + 7
! $#
$
) * * +
+<
! $
+
+
)
*
++ ++
#
+ *
(. =
)
) * * + # +
$ +
A
)
"
#
+ $ $"
+
$ A (1
* "
*
$ #
" * I " * + , *# - & . (! // 01 22 0 1 3 4 " 5 67 38 % ) *
6 >
" *
:
8 0, ,
!
- 7
,
7
,
- ,
,
- , 0
%7 !
! , ,
3
!
- , !%7 !
0
! , ,
3
!,
-
,
0
! -, ,
2
.9*:.9+!0
!0
- -
7
,
2
*;
!
, (6 /
" * " * + $#9- & . (4 0%1 "
. 8 : 01 22 0 1 %/ 4 " 5 67
) *
(( (,
" * !
-
,
,
2
% !
% & $
- ,
, ! !
, , <
43
- ,
, !,
,
-
- 8
< 9.*4 2$
*''* -
= !
3
-!
2
*;
(> * *
+ $ *
+
99
+ + #
" * " * + - & . ( ' 94 01 " . 34 " 5 6 7 /%8 ) *
1
" * 5
-
2
=- < -!
, //%$ !
-
,
, , //%0
, ! ,, $
&
,
!
,
& -
, , -
0
0,-
4,- -
E (5
#
*
+ *
* #
) + $ )
+ *
$ $ <*+
*
$
)
*
" * / 2) $
+
)
+ #
+
*
(8 2 )
A*
) #2
+
4 #
+ + *
F +
I )
) *
* $
* #
$ 2 * ;:. / :
< / ;:1 ) #
#$
+
$ )
,- !
#
+ +
*
+
$
+
; * $ +
$ *992
) $ #" *
+
5-5 #7 -,C-$-D0 -0
0/4,-
,(
#
*
+
)
! $ + # $
+ +
* ; * # ! $
+ "
#$
2
$ #$
* #
+
* +++
2) * *?+ 72 * ;. + A H
+
,, !
#
*
+
$ $ $"
*
++ 2
#
<
% * I " * + $#9- & . (4 0%1 " . 8 : 01 22 0 1 %/ 4 " 5 67 8
, ' *# - & . (4 // 01 22 0 1 3 4 " 5 67 38 % ,0
#
+ + # +<
) * * +
$ $
*
+
: #
/ ) + )+ ++ *
,.
#" * + )+
,(-,,--.
/ % * # $#
+@
* * ,1 44 -.
!' '
05-$"0 -..#; "'
* &'
'
%- 5 & :
> ?:< 5%
> ?:<