Robbery -- No Recovery of Stolen Property -- Conviction cannot rest solely on uncorroborated allegation
(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.394 -- Robbery -- No Recovery of Stolen Property -- Robbery is an essential and indispensable ingredient of the offence, not a peripheral circumstance -- Allegation of snatching property, unsupported by recovery of the property or any incriminating material connecting it to the accused, is insufficient to sustain conviction -- Conviction under this section cannot rest solely on the uncorroborated assertion of the complainant. (ii) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S.222 -- Conviction for Minor Offence -- Robbery Charge Not Established -- An accused charged with an offence comprising several particulars may be convicted of a minor cognate offence established by the facts on record, even where the major offence charged is not proved -- Dislocation or fracture of a tooth falls within the definition of grievous hurt and sustains conviction under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the greater charge of robbery fails. (iii) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.325 -- Sentence -- Grievous Hurt -- Long passage of time since the incident is not by itself a determinative factor in sentencing -- Where a major portion of the sentence has already been undergone by the accused, sentence may be restricted to the period already undergone considering the peculiar facts of the case.
LOGIN TO READCaseLawToday.com is powered by M/s Law Herald Infotech
