Vibhu Bakhru JUDGMENT
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 16.12.2015, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant also impugns an order on sentence dated 23.12.2015, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC; and a fine of ` 500/- was imposed on him, in default of which, the appellant would have to undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment. All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2014 at about 11:00 pm, near red light Welcome towards Seelam Pur, Delhi the appellant committed the robbery of a mobile phone belonging to Mohd. Firoz (the complainant) and during this incident, the appellant used a weapon-a paper cutter. Thereafter, certain public persons apprehended the appellant and gave him beatings. Consequently, FIR No. 853/2014 under Sections 397/392 of the IPC was registered with PS Seelam Pur, thus setting criminal law into motion.
3. The charge sheet was filed against the appellant and by an order dated 03.02.2015, he was charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 of the IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty and the case was set down for trial. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and the defence did not lead any evidence.
Evidence
4. The complainant (Mohd. Firoz) was examined PW1. He stated that he worked in computer designing at Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi. On 13.12.2014, at night time, he was going home from office. At about 11:00-11:15 pm, he was going to the Welcome side on foot to take an auto after deboarding at the Seelampur Metro Station. Suddenly, one person came from behind him, caught hold of his collar and put a paper cutter on his neck and told him to hand over all his belongings to him. PW1 stated that he did not have any valuable items. The assailant then put his hand into PW1's pocket and took out his mobile phone (Redmi Note make). He also tried to take money (about ` 30-` 40), however, he did not take the same. Thereafter, the assailant told PW1 to go away from the spot. PW1 then ran away from the spot and after about fifteen paces, he found 3-4 persons of the locality who PW1 informed about the incident. The said 3-4 persons then apprehended the assailant and gave beatings to him. PW1's mobile phone and the paper cutter were recovered from the assailant. Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number following which, a PCR and the local police came to the spot.
5. In his cross-examination, PW1 affirmed that the accused came from his back side. Thereafter, PW1 stated that the accused put his hand on the pocket of his pant and felt the mobile phone; he asked PW1 what the article was and thereafter, PW1 took his phone out and handed the same over to the accused due to fear. PW1 denied informing the police that the accused had put his hand into PW1's pocket and took out the mobile phone. PW1 stated that the accused did not ta........