Charge with one head

I Tushar Choudhary Judicial magistrate First class Raipur charge you Mr. A s/o Mr. B as
follows: -

That you on 10-03-2014 at night between 8:00 P.M and 9:00 P.M at Raipur, robbed the
complainant ‘A’ when he was returning to his home from the Raipur airport after dropping
his brother and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under section 392 of the
Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this court.

And I hereby direct that you be tried of the said charges by this court.

(Round seal of the court) Signature

Judicial Magistrate First class
Raipur

Judgement relating to offence punishable under section 392 of IPC

In the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class
Presided by Tushar Choudhary

Criminal case No.______

State of Raipur through Station House Officer

Police Station, Civil lines …………..Prosecution
Versus
B Son of C r/o Civil Lines, P.S Civil Lines ………….. Defence
For Prosecution: Asst. Distt. Prosecution Officer Shri Karan Choudhary
For Accused: Shri Mohit Paliwal

JUDGEMENT
Delivered on this 20th Day of March 2014
1. The accused stands charges for committing robbery against ‘A’ on the night of 10-03-
2014 which is an offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. There are no undisputed facts in the case.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that in the night of 10-03-2014 between 8:00
P.M to 9:00 P.M , the complainant ‘A’ was returning to his home after dropping his
brother at the Raipur Airport. The accused ‘B’ and one unknown person stopped him.
They were having pistol in their hands. They put him in fear of death by showing the
pistol and demanded his wrist watch, gold chain and purse which contained Rs.
2000/-. Due to fear of death the complainant gave all these things to the accused and
his companion. On the same night of the incident the complainant lodged report, of
the incident (Ex. P1) in Police Station civil lines. On the basis of suspicion the Station
House Officer interrogated the accused by taking him in custody and on his discovery
statement recovered a wrist watch (Article Q-1) kept in a box in his house and a
golden chain (Article Q-2) from a goldsmith. In the identification parade the
complainant identified the writ watch and Golden chain as his stolen property. After
completing investigation the police filed charge sheet against the accused.
4. On explaining the charge the accused has denied committing the offence. He has not
adduced any defence evidence.
5. The only point for determination in the case is whether the accused robbed the
complainant ‘A’ on the night of 10-03-2014?
6. The prosecution has examined the complainant ‘A’ (P.W.1), officer-in-charge Police
Station civil lines ‘C’ (P.W.2) , Goldsmith ‘D’ (P.W.3) and Deputy Collector (P.W.4)
to prove the charge against the accused.
7. The complainant ‘A’ (P.W.1) has stated that on the night of 10-03-2014 between 8:00
P.M and 9:00 P.M. , he was returning to his home after dropping his brother at the
Raipur Airport. The accused ‘B’ and one unknown person stopped him. They were
having pistol in their hands. They put him in fear of death by showing the pistol and
demanded his wrist watch, gold chain and purse which contained Rs. 2000/-. Due to
fear of death the complainant gave all these things to the accused and his companion.
On the same night at 10:00 P.M. of the incident the complainant lodged report, of the
incident (Ex. P1) in Police Station civil lines. This corroborates the above testimony
of the complainant ‘A’. ‘C’ (P.W.2) officer-in-charge of police station civil lines has
proved that he wrote the report Ex. P.1. On the information given by the complainant
‘A’.
8. ‘C’ (P.W.2) has stated that on the basis of suspicion he took the accused ‘B’ in his
custody and interrogated him. In the discovery statement (Ex. P.2) of the accused ‘B’
 recorded by ‘C’ under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in presence of witness,
the accused informed that he has kept the wrist watch in his house in the box used for
keeping clothes and sold the gold chain to the goldsmith ‘D’ (P.W.3), ‘C’(P.W.2) has
proved that on the basis of the above information he recovered the wrist watch(
Article Q-1) from the box kept in the house of the accused vide seizure memo
(Ex.P.3) and the Gold Chain (Article Q-2) from the possession of the goldsmith ‘D’
vide seizure memo (Ex. P.4) . The accused could not rebut the above evidence in
cross-examination of this witness.
9. Goldsmith ‘D’ (P.W.3) has stated that on 11-03-2014 the accused ‘B’ sold the gold
chain (Article Q-2) to him for Rs. 20,000/- claiming it to be his own property. This
fact corroborated from the entry made in the register (Ex. P.2) maintained by him.
The accused could not rebut the above testimony in cross-examination.
10. Deputy Collector ‘K’ (P.W.4) has stated that he conducted the identification test
parade of the wrist watch (Article Q-1) and Golden Chain (Article Q-2) in the
collectorate on 12-03-2014. The complainant identified these articles properly. The
identification memo (Ex. P.5) is prepared and signed by him and it bears signature of
the complainant and witnessed who were present during the identification test parade.
The accused could not rebut the above evidence by cross-examination. The
complainant has denied the defence plea that the wrist watch and gold chain were
shown to him in the police station earlier to the identification test parade. Therefore
the argument of the accused that the identification test parade was a farce is rejected
as baseless.
11. On the basis of the unrebutted testimony of the prosecution witnesses as discussed
above it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that on the night of 10-04-2014 about
8:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M the accused, along with an unknown person , put the
complainant in fear of death by showing knife and robbed him by taking away the
wrist watch, gold chain and purse with Rs. 2000/- from his possession. Thus, the
charge of offence punishable under section 392 of the Indian penal Code is fully
proved against the accused. The accused is held guilty of the above offence.
12. Accused prayed to give lenient punishment being the first offender, to commit
robbery at night by putting the complainant in fear of death by showing pistol is a
serious offence. The accused deserved strict punishment for the ends of the justice. It
will have a “deterrent effect” on other criminal elements of the society.
13. In the result the accused is sentenced under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. Two thousand. In default
of payment of fine the accused will undergo additional imprisonment for four months
after undergoing the substantive sentence. The accused remained on bail during the
proceedings. His bail bonds stand cancelled.
14. The wrist watch and gold chain to be returned to the complainant after the period of
appeal. In case of appeal the same be disposed of in accordance with the order passed
in appeal.

(Signature with date)

Judicial Magistrate First Class
Raipur

Judgement pronounced in open Court

Signature
Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Raipur

****