The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of an appellant under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery but modified the substantive sentence to the period already undergone. The Single Bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh, observed that the appellant had already served half of his sentence and suffered the ordeal of a protracted trial.
Background of the Case
The appeal was filed against the judgment and order on sentence dated September 17, 2016, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-02, South-East District, Saket Courts. The Trial Court had convicted the appellant, Saurav Gupta, for the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC in FIR No. 195/2014, registered at Police Station Kotla Mubarakpur. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 15,000. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 397 IPC.
The prosecution’s case was that on March 7, 2014, the complainant, Saurabh @ Nikhil, was taken by the appellant to a roof in Sewa Nagar. After consuming liquor, the appellant allegedly robbed the complainant of his diamond ring, mobile phone, and cash amounting to Rs. 13,000-14,000. The prosecution further alleged that the appellant inflicted an injury on the complainant’s face using an ustra (razor).
Arguments of the Parties
Ms. Stuti Gujral, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, contended that the conviction under Section 394 IPC was unsustainable as the incident occurred under the influence of liquor and was a result of a sudden quarrel rather than a premeditated robbery. She argued that the prosecution’s reliance on the Medico-Legal Case (MLC) was flawed because it was exhibited through a Record Clerk (PW-8) who had no personal knowledge of its contents, rather than the doctor who prepared it.
The defense also questioned the recovery of surgical scissors, stating it was not made in the presence of public witnesses. It was further argued that the alleged diamond ring was never recovered, and due to admitted family disputes involving the complainant’s cousins, false implication could not be ruled out. Alternatively, it was prayed that the appellant be released on the period of custody already undergone.
On behalf of the State, Ms. Shubhi Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), submitted that the testimony of the injured complainant (PW-4) was consistent and did not suffer from material contradictions. She argued that the MLC was duly proved in terms of Section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act through the Record Clerk, citing the Division Bench decision in Kamlesh v. State and other coordinate bench decisions. The State highlighted that the appellant himself admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he led the police to the repair shop from where the complainant’s mobile phone was recovered.
Court’s Observations and Analysis
Justice Ohri rejected the contention regarding the non-examination of the doctor, noting that the injury on the face was not disputed and was corroborated by the MLC and the complainant’s ocular version.
Regarding the robbery, the Court observed:
“However, the factum of the appellant taking away a diamond ring, a wallet containing Rs.13000-14000/-, and a Samsung Grand phone, cannot be lost sight of. The allegation of robbery having been committed by the appellant stands fortified by the recovery of surgical blades from the possession of the appellant as well as the recovery of the robbed mobile phone… from the mobile repair shop.”
The Court noted that witnesses PW-3 and PW-7 consistently deposed that the appellant had given the phone for repair, which was subsequently seized by the police. The Bench held that “in light of the consistent testimony and the positive identification of the appellant, the alleged defects in the investigation, namely the non-seizure of the blood-stained clothes and the weapon of offence not having been sent to the FSL, are not of much relevance.”
On the applicability of Section 394 IPC, the Court stated:
“Section 394 IPC requires that the accused must have caused hurt while committing the offence of robbery. In the present case, the complainant has claimed that an ustra was used to inflict an injury on his cheek. The MLC of the complainant notes a laceration on the left side of his face.”
Decision on Sentence
While upholding the conviction, the High Court considered the appellant’s prayer for release based on the period already undergone. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Sonadhar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 3683) regarding convicts who have undergone more than half of their sentence.
The Court observed:
“The appellant is aged about 35 years, is the sole breadwinner of his family, and bears the responsibility of taking care of his aged and sick mother. The offence in question pertains to the year 2014 and the present appeal has been pending since 2016; the appellant has suffered the ordeal of a protracted trial.”
Consequently, the Court ordered:
“Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted hereinabove, the fine being paid, as well as the decision in Sonadhar (supra), the substantive sentence of the appellant is hereby modified to the period already undergone by him.”
The appeal was partly allowed, and the appellant’s personal bond was cancelled and sureties discharged.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Saurav Gupta v. State
- Case Number: CRL.A. 1062/2016
- Citation: 2026:DHC:45
- Coram: Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri
- Counsel for Appellant: Ms. Stuti Gujral, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Miran Ahmad and Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates.
- Counsel for Respondent: Ms. Shubhi Gupta, APP for State with SI Ashwani Yadav.
