V.S. Aggarwal, J.@mdashThis is an appeal filed by Mohd. Shahid (hereinafter described as the appellant) directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 22nd May, 2000 and 24th May, 2000 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable u/s 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of file the appellant was to undergo further simple imprisonment for five months. The facts of the prosecution in brief are that on 1st January, 1999 Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar and Head Constable Surinder heard the noise ''pakro-pakro, loot liya''. On hearing the noise Sub Inspector Naresh Kumar and his member of the police force ran towards that direction. They saw one person coming to their side while running. Sub Inspector apprehended that person with the help of the police staff. On his search a knife was recovered from his right side of the socks and Rs. 265/- were recovered from the right pocket of his coat. Sketch of the knife was drawn and it was taken into possession after sealing the same. He also took into possession Rs. 265/-.
2. Complainant Ghanshyam Awasthi was also available and had made the complaint that he was traveling on bus route no. 429. When he got down at the bus stop of Ashram Chowk he was apprehended by one person who dragged him in the street. That person had taken out a knife from his socks and threatened that if he would raise an alarm he would be killed. He snatched Rs. 265/- from him and thereafter had started running. The complainant had raised an alarm. It is on these broad facts that report u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure had been filed against the appellant. The charge was framed against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 392 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution had examined seven witnesses including the complainant and the members of the police force who had apprehended the appellant. When the said evidence was put to the appellant in his statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he denied his involvement in the case and pleaded his innocence. He did not produce any defense.
4. The learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence held that there is no ground to disbelieve Ghanshyam Awasthi and that the cash amount robbed by the appellant as well as the knife has been recovered from the appellant. This lends corroboration to the statement of Ghanshyam Awasthi, the complainant. With these findings the trial court held the appellant guilty of the above said offences and passed the impugned judgment and order of sentence.
5. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that no public witness, as such, has been joined and, Therefore, the version of the prosecution witness, namely, P.W.5 Ghanshyam Awasthy should not be accepted.
6. The said argument has to be stated to be rejected. Every case has to be examined on its peculiar facts. In a case punishable u/s 392/397 Indian Penal Code, as in the present appeal, the facts indicated were that the appellant had taken Ghanshyam Awasthy on one side in the street and thereupon committed the above said offence. It is not the case of the appellant that any other public witness was available who witnessed the occurrence. In the absence of any such defense to insist that at the relevant time public witness should have been there or should have been joined, would be travesty of facts.
7. In that event, it was pointed that there are contradictions in the statement of Ghanshyam Awasthy as to how long he stayed at the spot and regarding if he was carrying money in the purse or not.
8. Once again the plea is without merit. Minor contradictions would occur even in the statement of most truthful witness. When the substratum of the evidence is unshaken, it would not be appropriate to reject a testimony of the witness. There has to be cogent reason for doing so. The same are absent and on minor contradictions, referred to above, the testimony of Ghanshyam Awasthy can not be ignored.
9. Ghanshyam Awasthy appeared as P.W.5 and in unequivocal terms stated that the appellant had dragged him in the street and thereupon taken out a knife from his socks and threatened him that if he makes a noise, he would be killed. He snatched Rs. 265/- from him. Thereafter the appellant ran away and Ghanshyam Awasthy raised alarm "Pakro Pakro". The cross-examination of the witness did not yield any result. The testimony of the witness otherwise shows that there is no ground to disbelieve him.
10. The testimony of Ghanshyam Awasthy gets further corroboration from the statement of S.I. Naresh Kumar, who was on patrolling duty at that place. He supports the statement of the complaint that while on duty on hearing the noise, he saw the appellant running and apprehended him. the amount of Rs. 265- and the knife from the socks of the appellant were recovered. Both the factors, namely, catching hold of the appellant, who was trying to run away and the recovery clearly supports what Ghanshyam Awasthy has stated. Thus, there is no ground to discredit or disbelieve the complainant.
11. All these factors, Therefore, show that the trial court rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 Indian Penal Code.
12. No other argument was raised.
13. For these reasons the appeal being without merits, must fail and is dismissed.
