Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
N.V. Ramana, S. Abdul Nazeer and Surya Kant

JUDGMENT

Surya Kant, J.

1. The present criminal appeal, which has been heard through video conferencing, is at the instance of Mohd. Anwar who impugns the judgment dated 22.02.2010 of the High Court of Delhi whereby his appeal against a judgment dated 27/29.04.2004 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, convicting and sentencing him Under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC") and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, was turned down.

Facts & Case History

2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim-complainant, Tabban Khan (PW-1), was riding his motorcycle on the main road near Shahdara around 11:30 PM on 17.05.2001, when he stopped to ease himself near a fishpond. Suddenly, three boys (including the Appellant) caught hold of him and started assaulting him. They were armed with a knife and revolver. Upon extortion, the complainant handed over a bundle of five-hundred-rupees notes totalling around thirty thousand (Rs. 30,000) to the boys, who then contemplated murdering him by stabbing, so that he would not report the matter to the police. Hearing commotion of passers-by, the three boys left the complainant and ran towards a warehouse. The complainant then returned to his home and reported the matter to the jurisdictional police the following evening. This complaint was subsequently converted into an FIR on 20.05.2001 at 7:45 PM.

3. A police party, on 20.05.2001 at about 8:30 PM, during routine checking of buses near GT Road, noticed three boys surreptitiously deboarding a bus through the rear door. On suspicion, Constable Vinod Kumar (PW-4) and Constable Prakash Chand (PW-7) chased and apprehended them, and recovered a prohibited buttondar knife from the Appellant and his co-Accused. They also confessed to having robbed the present complainant. All three were arrested and produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate for a Test Identification Parade ("TIP") the following day, which they refused to undergo.

4. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses during trial which included the victim-complainant (PW-1), the Metropolitan Magistrate who sought to conduct the TIP proceedings (PW-10) and a total of ten policemen. Sketches of the knife, arrest memos, site plans, and recovered money and weapons were admitted in evidence. The Appellant and his co-Accused plainly de........