CRL.A./45/2016 of VINAY Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI%Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2019

Judgment delivered on: 18.11.2019

CRL.A. 45/2016

VINAY

..... Appellant

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

CRL.A. 63/2016

RAHUL@CHIRMANTI

versus

STATE

AND

..... Appellant..... Respondent

CORAM

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

JUDGMENT

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

1.The appellants have filed the present appeals impugning ajudgment dated 23.11.2015, whereby they have been convicted of the

offences under Sections 394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The appellant in Crl.A.63/2016 (Rahul @ Chirmanti) has also beenconvicted of an offence under Section 397 IPC.

2.The appellants have also impugned an order dated 30.11.2015,sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fineof ₹10,000/- each for the offence under Section 394 IPC. And, in default of payment of fine, to simple imprisonment for period ofthree months.

3.The impugned judgment was rendered in connection with casearising from FIR no.397/2013 under Sections 394/397/34 of the IPC,registered with P.S. North West Delhi. The said FIR was registered atthe instance of one Mr Sanika Munda. He had reported that on theintervening night of 05.09.2013 and 06.09.2013, at about 12 AM, heand his brother Rahul Soy (who deposed as PW-6) were caught bythree robbers near public toilet, M-Block, Shakur Pur at Road no.43,Near DDA Office, A-Block. He stated that he was carrying bagcontaining ₹2,100/- in cash, some clothes and one LG mobile phone. The complainant stated that the three robbers (the three accusedpersons) were already stationed at the said spot and they caught himand Rahul Soy (PW-6). They snatched the bag from his possessionand the wallet of Rahul Soy. He reported that one of the robbers(Rahul@Chirmanti) also stabbed PW-6 with knife. After committingthe robbery, all the accused fled from the spot. The wife of Rahul Soy(who deposed as PW-10) also reached the spot of the incident spot on

hearing the alarm. Subsequently, the injured was taken to the hospitalfor treatment.

4.On 09.09.2013, the accused Rahul was arrested in FIR No.382/13underSections389/411/34IPCandpursuanttotheinterrogation,hedisclosedhisinvolvementintheoffence.Subsequently, he led the police to his house from where onebloodstainedknifewasrecovered(Ex.PW-4/C).Aspertheprosecution, the said knife was used during the incident. On the sameday, the other accused – Vinay and Md. Sadiq – were also arrested bythe police. Thereafter, TIP (Test Identification Parade) wasconducted, however, all the accused refused to participate in the TIP.

5.On 10.09.2013, the bag robbed from Sanika Munda wasrecovered from park with the help of the accused, Md. Sadiq(Ex.PW-3/B). Moreover, the robbed purse of PW-6 was alsorecovered on the same day from the house of accused Vinay (Ex.PW-3/A).

6.Eleven witnesses were examined by the prosecution before theTrial Court. The complainant – Sanika Munda – was not examined.The Trial Court, after evaluating the evidence, found the appellantsguilty of the offences for which they were charged. It held that theidentification of the accused before the Court for the first time afterthe incident “could not be said to be without substance in the peculiarfacts and circumstances of the present case.” The Court furtherrejected the contention of the defence that the recovery of the knife

made from the house of the accused was planted and could not bebelieved. The court held that the gap between the incident and therecovery of the knife was just about three days, which was not longenough to give rise to any reason to suspect such recovery. Moreover,the Court also observed that the purse of PW-6 was recovered fromthe house of accused Vinay and the fact that the same was identifiedby PW-6 during the trial, was enough to establish the case of theprosecution.

7.Resultantly, the Trial Court held accused Rahul @ Chirmantiguilty of the offences under Sections 394, 397/34 IPC, whereasaccused Vinay was held guilty of the offences under Sections 394/34IPC. The third accused, Mohd. Sadiq was declared proclaimedoffender.

8.The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment on theground that the main eye witness – the complainant Sanika Munda –has not been examined. They contend that the story of the prosecutiondoes not stand proved. It is further contended that no public witnesshas joined the investigation despite the fact that the alleged incidenttook place on busy road. It is further contended that there areinconsistencies in the evidence of the police witnesses and theevidence available did not establish that they had committed anyoffence, beyond reasonable doubt. It is also contended on behalf of theappellants that testimony of PW-4 (SI Lokender) was not reliable andthe police officials had planted the knife, bag and the wallet alleged tohave been recovered.

9.It was also contended that Rahul @ Chirmanti could not beconvicted of the offence under Section 397 IPC as the knife, althoughalleged to have been recovered, was not produced.

10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theState has countered the aforesaid submission and submitted that therewas no material inconsistency in the testimony of witnesses and theevidence led clearly established that the appellants were guilty of theoffences, for which they have been convicted. It is also submitted thatit was not necessary to join the complainant as the eye witness, asthere was sufficient credible evidence pointing to the guilt of theappellants in this case.

Evidence

11.Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly examine theevidence led by various witnesses.

12.Rahul Soy, the person who was stabbed during the incident ofrobbery, was examined as PW-6. He deposed that on 06.09.2013, ataround 11.45 PM, he had gone to M Block to drop his friend – thecomplainant Sanika Munda – who was carrying bag containing anamount of ₹2,100/- in cash, one LG mobile phone and some clothes. When they reached near road no.43, DDA Office, three boys (theaccused) came from the side and restrained both PW-6 and thecomplainant. One of the said three boys tried to snatch the bag fromthe complainant and when PW-6 tried to object, one of the boyscaught hold of him from his neck and the other boy stabbed him in his

abdomen with knife. PW-6 stated that the person who caught hold ofhim from his neck was “fatty built” person. While doing so, theperson stabbing PW-6 also snatched his purse. PW-6 deposed that dueto the stab injury, he became unconscious. Thereafter, after reclaimingconsciousness, PW-6 and the complainant went to PW-6’s house. Hisfamily members called the Police and subsequently, PW-6 was takento one Mahavir Hospital. He was medically examined there (MLC Ex.PW1/A) and his statement was recorded by the police. PW-6 alsodeposed that during the investigation, he handed over the receipt (Ex.PW-6/A) of the purchase of mobile phone to the police. During hisexamination-in-chief, on 19.01.2015, PW-6 identified Rahul @Chirmanti as the person who had stabbed him in his abdomen. Further,PW-6 also identified the accused Mohd. Shafiq who had snatched thebag, containing money and other articles, from the complainant.13.One Ms Sonmani, who is the wife of PW-6, was examined asPW-10. She deposed that on 06.09.2013, at about 12.15 AM, thecomplainant came to her house and stated that her husband (PW-6)has been injured due to the knife injury received at road no.41, ABlock. She stated that consequently, she reached the aforesaid spotalong with the complainant and there she found her husband who wasinjured and stained in blood. Thereafter, she informed the PCR whichsubsequently reached the spot at around 1.00-1.30 AM and took herhusband to BMH Hospital. The IO recorded the statement of PW-10 atthe hospital.

14.Dr Soma Roy, who is casualty medical officer at BhagwanMahavir Hospital (BMH), Pitampura, was examined as PW-1. Shedeposed that on 06.09.2013, at about 1.30 AM, she examined PW-6(MLC No. 3257). It was further deposed that PW-6 was brought to thehospital for medical examination by HC Subhash, as PW-6 had beenphysically assaulted. On examination, she found out that PW-6 had astab wound on left side of his abdomen (supriolateral to umbilicus)measuring about 3x0.5 cm. Thereafter, PW-6 was immediatelyreferred to SR surgery, where he was also examined by one Dr NandKishore.

15.HC Chet Lal, who was working as Duty Officer from 1.00 AMto 9.00 AM at PS Subhash Place on the night of incident, wasexamined as PW-2. He deposed that on 06.09.2013, at about 3.35 AM,he received rukka from CT Anil Kumar and the said rukka was sentby SI Kali Charan. Consequently, he recorded an FIR under Sections394/397/34 IPC. Thereafter, he handed over copy of the said FIRand original rukka to Ct Sunil Kumar (PW-4) so be forwarded to SIKali Charan for further investigation.

16.Ct Ashok Kumar was posted at PS Subhash Place on the nightof incident. He was examined as PW-3 and he deposed that on10.09.2013, he joined the investigation in aforesaid FIR with SI KaliCharan. He identified the accused Vinay in the court and furtherdeposed that on the same day, the accused Vinay took them to hishouse, which was located at L-467, Shakurpur, JJ colony, Delhi. Hetook them to the roof of the house, where he had kept one purse under

the heap of bricks. He produced the said purse and confessed that itwas the same purse which he had robbed on 06.09.2013 in the night.Thereafter, SI Kalicharan checked the purse wherein he found: (i) apassport photo of PW-6; (ii) photocopy of his voter ID Card; (iii)one photo copy of his labour department; (iv) visiting card of oneCharanjeet; and (v) press visiting card of one Pawan Putra HanumanPlacement Agency. The IO prepared pullanda of the said documents.After sealing the same with the seal of “KC”, it was taken intopossession (Memo Ex.PW-3/A). Thereafter, accused Vinay wasbrought back to the Police Station and placed in the lock up. The saidcase property was then deposited in the malkhana.

17.PW-3 further deposed that thereafter, accused Mohd. Shafiqwho was also in the lock up, was interrogated by the IO. Shafiq tookthem to near E-Block Park, near Ring Road, where booster pumpwas installed and some scrap (kabad) was lying. From the heap ofscrap, accused Mohd. Shafiq took out one red and blue colored bag,which was snatched from the complainant at the spot near DDA officenear toilet of E-block. The said bag was then checked by the IO,wherein he found one blue-coloured jeans, one old shirt, one vest, onechequed shirt, an orange and black coloured T-shirt and one smalldiary. The aforesaid clothes and items were kept back in the bag andthe said bag was sealed in pullanda (Memo Ex.PW-3/B). PW-3 hadalso identified accused Mohd. Shafiq in court.

18.Ct Sunil Kumar was posted on emergency duty at PS SubhashNagar on the day on incident. He was examined as PW-4. He deposed

that on 06.09.2013, at about 1.30 AM at night, on receipt of DD no.8B, he along with with SI Kalicharan reached the spot of the incident.In the meanwhile, they were informed that the injured person had beentaken to BMH Hospital. Thereafter, both the aforesaid persons reachedthe concerned hospital, where SI Kalicharan collected MLC of InjuredRahul Soy. PW-4 deposed that the injured person was unfit for givinghis statement. The complainant was also present in the hospital and hisstatement as the eyewitness was recorded. Thereafter, SI Kalicharanmade rukka for registration of the case and handed over the same toPW-4. The said rukka was then taken to the Police Station by PW-4and the FIR was registered. Thereafter, PW-4 alongwith SI Kalicharanand the complainant reached the spot of the incident and at theinstance of the complainant, rough site plan was prepared. Hedeposed that efforts were made to find out the accused persons but noone was traced at that time. He stated that thereafter, on 09.09.2013, atabout 12.00 PM, accused Rahul @ Chirmanti was taken out of thelock up and he was interrogated by the IO in the presence of PW-4.The accused made disclosure about the whole occurrence of theincident and his statement was recorded (Ex.PW-4/A). Thereafter, thesaid accused took PW-4 and the SI to his house being jhuggi no. 56/50at Sant Ravi Dass Camp, Shakurpur, Delhi, wherein he produced aknife which was taken out from the pocket of pant. He deposed thatthe said knife was buttondar knife and it was stained with blood. Asketch of the said knife was prepared (Ex.PW-4/B) and it was sealedand taken into possession (Memo Ex.PW-4/C). Thereafter, the saidaccused took them to DDA Park near L block, where the accused

Vinay was apprehended. He was arrested on the spot (Ex.PW4/E).Accused Rahul further took them police party at DDA Park, M Blockwhere the accused Mohd. Shafiq was apprehended and arrested. Thesaid accused was also arrested on the spot (Ex.PW4/F) and he wasalso subjected to personal search (Ex.PW4/G). Thereafter, all theaccused persons pointed out at road no. 43 near DDA office neartoilet. The IO prepared separate pointing out memos by each of theaccused (Ex.PW-4/H of accused Rahul @ Chirmanti, Ex.PW-4/I ofaccused Vinay and Ex.PW-4/J of accused Mohd. Shafiq).

19.Ct. Mukesh Kumar was part of the investigation team and hewas examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 09.09.2013, at about 12AM at night, accused Rahul @ Chirmanti was interrogated in thePolice Station and his disclosure statement was recorded (Ex.PW-4/A). Thereafter, the police also visited the jhuggi of the said accusedat no.56/60 at Sant Ravi Dass Camp, Shakurpur, Delhi. PW-5 furtherdeposed that after reaching at his jhuggi, accused Rahul produced aknife from the pocket of pant. The said knife was buttondar knifeand was stained with blood. sketch of the knife was prepared andthereafter it was sealed. He also deposed that thereafter, accused Rahultook them to DDA Park near L block, where accused Vinay wasapprehended and arrested. Thereafter, the police along with theaccused were taken to DDA Park M Block near State Bank Block,where the accused Shafiq was apprehended and arrested.

20.HC Subhash was examined as PW-7. He deposed that he wason duty on PCR Van Commander 28 on the night of the incident. On

06.09.2013 at about 1.20 AM in night, he received information thatone person has been attacked with knife in front of DDA office,Shakurpur. He deposed that he reached at the incident spot at about1.24 AM, where they met the injured, who had stab injury in hisabdominal region. Thereafter, the accused was taken to BMH hospital.

21.HC Baldev Raj, who had also investigated the said incident,deposed as PW-8. He deposed that during the investigation, accusedRahul was arrested and recorded his disclosure statement. He furtherdeposed that one more accused was arrested.

22.SI Kalicharan, who was posted at PS Subhash Place as Sub-Inspector, deposed as PW-9. He stated that on 06.09.2013 at about12.30 AM, he along with Ct. Sunil Kumar reached the spot where hedid not find anyone. They were informed that the injured had alreadybeen taken to the hospital. After reaching the hospital, they foundRahul Soy (PW-6) in unconscious condition. They also met thecomplainant in the hospital and his statement was recorded (Ex.PW-9/A). On the basis of the said statement, rukka was prepared(Ex.PW9/B). Thereafter, they along with the complainant reached thespot of the incident and site plan was prepared. Further, abloodstained T-shirt (Ex.PW4/N) of injured Rahul Soy was also seizedfrom the hospital. On 09.09.2013, PW-9 obtained the disclosurestatement of accused Rahul @ Chirmanti from HC Suresh. The saidaccused was further interrogated by PW-9. Thereafter, they along withthe accused went to his jhuggi where they recovered knife from one

of the pants which was kept in the jhuggi. He deposed that the saidaccused confessed that he used the same knife in the alleged incident.

Reasons and Conclusion

23.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted thatone of the principal witnesses for the prosecution (Sanika Munda) wasnot examined by the prosecution. He submitted that Sanika Mundawas with the injured at the time of the incident and was also victimof the alleged crime. However, he was not examined. He alsoemphasized that the complaint was registered on the statement ofSanika Munda and in absence of his evidence, the conviction couldnot be sustained. He further stated that there was serious doubt as tothe recovery of the knife allegedly used in the crime. The recovery isstated to have been made at the instance of the accused Rahul @Chirmanti (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 63/2016). He submittedthat the knife was stated to be lying in the pocket of one of thetrousers, which is highly improbable and it is apparent that the samehad been planted. He submitted that although the house from wherethe knife is alleged to have been recovered is in crowded area,however, none of the members of the public had witnessed suchrecovery or had been examined by the prosecution.

24.He also submitted that it was the prosecution’s case that kniferecovered was blood-stained knife and the forensic evidencematching the blood on the knife with that of the victim would haveassisted the case of the prosecution. However, the knife was notproduced and, therefore, the fact that knife was used in the alleged

robbery, was not established. He submitted that the Trial Court hadacquitted the appellants of the offence under Section 25 and 27 of theArms Act, 1959 as the prosecution’s case that the accused werecarrying the said knife was not established. He submitted that in viewof this finding, the appellant Rahul @ Chirmanti could not beconvicted under Section 397 of the IPC. He submitted that one of thenecessary ingredients of an offence under Section 397 of the IPC is ause of the deadly weapon and since the knife in question has not beenproduced, the conviction for an offence under Section 397 of the IPCcould not be sustained. He also submitted that there were doubts as tothe identification of the appellants as the persons who had allegedlycommitted the offence. He submitted that PW-6 had admitted that theappellants had been shown to the complainant (Sanika Munda) in thePolice Station and, therefore, no purpose would have been served forconducting TIP. Accordingly, the appellants had also declined toparticipate in such TIP.

25.Undoubtedly, it would have been apposite for the prosecution tohave examined Sanika Munda.His testimony would have beenimportant since he was present at the incident. In fact, the allegationis that the accused had snatched his bag containing some clothes,mobile phone and cash of ₹21,000/-. However, this Court is unable to accept the contention that the conviction of the appellants cannot besustained in absence of his testimony. In this case, the prosecution hasled evidence – independent of the evidence that could have beenprovided by Sanika Munda – to establish the involvement of theappellants in the offence.

26.The testimony of PW-6 is unambiguous. He had deposed thatone of the boys who was heavily built (fatty built), had caught hold ofhim from his neck and one other person had stabbed him in hisabdomen with the knife and had snatched his mobile phone and hispurse containing some visiting cards and documents.He hadidentified the accused Rahul @ Chirmanti as the person who hadstabbed him and accused Vinay as the person heavily built person whohad held him by his neck. PW-6 had also identified the accused Mohd.Shafiq who had snatched the Complainant’s bag.

27.There is no doubt as to the injury received by PW-6. The MLC(Ex.PW1/A) clearly established that the injury was dangerous. It alsoindicates that the injury was caused by sharp object (“stab wound”).Dr. Soma Roy had deposed as PW1 and testified that she hadexamined Rahul on 06.09.2013 at about 01:30 AM and she hadobserved stab wound at the left side of his abdomen (supriolateral toumbilicus) measuring about 3 x 0.5 cm.

28.In absence of any evidence or circumstances, which would raiseany doubts as to the testimony of PW-6 and the medical evidence; thesame are sufficient to establish the involvement of the appellants inthe alleged crime. This Court has examined the evidence in the presentcase and finds no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-6.

29.The fact that knife used in the crime had not been produced,does not, in any manner, raise any doubt as to the testimony of PW-6that he had been stabbed in his abdomen by knife by Rahul @Chirmanti. Undeniably, the production of the knife and forensicevidence establishing the blood on the knife as that of the victim (PW-

6) would have assisted the prosecution in establishing its case, but thefact that the knife had not been produced, cannot lead to theconclusion that the prosecution has not established its case beyondreasonable doubt. As is apparent from the impugned judgment, theknife had been sent to FSL and had not been received back.

30.The nature of the wound is established by PW-1. The MLC(Ex.PW1/A) establishes that knife had been used to inflict the injury.PW6 identified Rahul @ Chirmanti as the person who had inflicted thedangerous injury.

31.Non-production of the knife at best can be treated as its non-recovery. It is now well settled that recovery of weapon is notessential for establishing that theweapon had been used incommission of the crime.

32.In Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi): (2004) 3 SCC 166,the Supreme Court had explained that when an offence of robbery iscommitted by an offender being armed with deadly weapon which iswithin the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating terrorin his mind, the offender must be deemed to have used that deadlyweapon in commission of the robbery.

The Court further observed as under:-

“8. Thus, what is essential to satisfy the word "uses" forthe purposes of Section 397 IPC is the robbery beingcommitted by an offender who was armed with deadlyweapon which was within the vision of the victim so asto be capable of creating terror in the mind of thevictim and not that it should be further shown to havebeen actually used for cutting, stabbing, shooting, as thecase may be.”

33.There are number of decisions rendered by this Court, whereit has been held that the conviction under Section 397 of the IPCwould not be sustainable if the weapon was not recovered. (See:Charan Singh v. State: 1988 Crl.L.J. NOC 28 (Del); Ghanshyam @Bablu v. State: 2010 (1) JCC 240; Jitender @ Jitu v. State (NCT ofDelhi): 2015 (2) JCC 1018; Dig Bahadur v. State: 2018 (1) JCC 9;and Rajender @ Raju v. State: Crl. A. 616/2003, Crl.A. 82/2004,decided on 19.05.2018). However, the said decisions do not take noteof an earlier decision of this court in Salim v. State (Delhi Admn.):(1988) 14 DRJ 85.In that case, this Court had not accepted thecontention that since the knife had not been recovered, it could not beestablished that deadly weapon had been used.

34.In Seetal v. State (NCT of Delhi): (2014) 215 DLT 60, aCoordinate Bench of this Court had examined the earlier decisions andhad observed that there is diversion of use between the decisions ofthis Court with regard to the question whether recovery of the weaponis necessary for sustaining conviction under Section 397 of the IPC.The court had observed that there is line of cases, which follows thedecisionoftheSupremeCourtinPhoolKumarv.DelhiAdministration: 1975 (1) SCC 797 where knife is held to be adeadly weapon and once its use is established, it is not necessary tocategorize the same and, therefore, non-recovery of the same does notfrustrate the prosecution’s case.

35.In Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (supra), theSupreme Court had sustained the conviction under Section 397 of the

IPC notwithstanding that the weapon had not been recovered. Afternoticing the divergent views, the Court had observed as under:

“the fact that the knife was not recovered at all, or thatthe recovered weapon was not shown during the courseof trial of the victim, would not matter as long as theeye witnesses to the crime are able to convincingly andconsistently recount the fact that they were threatenedby the sight of the accused wielding the knife intoparting with their belongings.”

36.In later decision in Murlidhar v. State: Crl. A. 279/2002, thiscourt had noticed various views and following the decision in PhoolKumar v. Delhi Administration (supra) and Ashfaq v. State (Govt. ofNCT of Delhi) (supra), held that recovery of weapon is not essentialfor sustaining conviction under Section 397 of the IPC.

37.In the present case, there is little doubt that knife was used inthe offence. The contention that unless knife is examined, it cannotbe ascertained whether it is deadly weapon or not, is also unmerited.The sketch of the knife (Ex.PW4/B) has been produced, whichindicates its length was 24.11 cm and the length of the blade was 12.3cm. Even if this is ignored, the fact that the knife has been used isestablished by the testimony of PW-6 and is sufficiently corroboratedby the MLC (Ex.PW1/A).

38.In Salim vs State (Delhi Admn):1988(14) DRJ 85, this Courthad, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Phool Kumar vsDelhi Administration: AIR 1975 SC 905, held that knife irrespective

of the size or description would qualify to be deadly weapon for thepurposes of Section 397 of the IPC.

39.It was contended on behalf of the appellants that there isinconsistency in the testimony of PW-6 and PW-10 (the wife of PW-6). PW-6 had testified that he had become unconscious due to the stabinjury and after regaining consciousness, his brother (Sanika Munda)had gone to his house where his family members had made call at100 number. Thereafter, he was taken to Mahavir Hospital. His wife(deposed as PW-10) had stated that Sanika Munda had come to thehouse and stated that Rahul Soy had received knife injury,accordingly, she had also reached the spot. She informed the PCR inthis regard and PCR Van had come to the spot. She had stated that “wetook my husband Rahul Soy to BMH hospital”. The inconsistency inthe testimony is with regard to whether PW-6 had come back to hishouse. Considering that the PW6’s house is only 100 to 150 stepsfrom the spot, it does not appear that there is any materialinconsistency. Further closer examination of the testimony of PW-10 does not indicate that PW-6 was not taken to his house. She haddeposed that she had come to the spot and had found Rahul Soy in aninjured condition and she had informed the PCR in this regard. Shehad deposed that “we took my husband Rahul Soy to BMH hospital”.‘We’ in this case is her, the complainant as well as the officials in thePCR Van. She did not depose as to from which spot PW-6 was takento the hospital. Her testimony is silent in this regard. Therefore, thecontention that there is material inconsistency between the testimonyof PW-6 and PW-10 in this regard, is unmerited.40.This Court also finds no merit in the appellant’s contention thatthere is any doubt as to the identification of the appellants as thepersons who are involved in commission of the offence. Thecontention that the appellants had been shown to the Complainant andPW-6 at the Police Station, is unsubstantiated. PW-6 had testified thathis brother Sanika Munda (complainant) had seen the accused at thePolice Station.However, he had denied the suggestion that he hadseen them at the Police Station. Thus, there is no evidence to establishthat the accused was shown to PW-6 at the Police Station. Secondly,even if it is accepted that PW-6 had identified the accused at thePolice Station, it does not raise any significant doubt as to histestimony identifying Rahul @ Chirmanti as the person who hadinflicted the stab wound and Vinay as the person who had held him byhis neck, is untrustworthy. In addition to the above, the articles robbedby the accused were also recovered at the instance of the accused.

41.This Court finds no infirmity with the decision of the learnedTrial Court. The Trial Court had rightly evaluated the evidenceobtaining in this case. This Court had also examined the evidenceobtaining in this case and concurs with the view of the Trial Court.42.The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.

NOVEMBER 18, 2019RK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J