New Delhi: A 32-year-old man has been sent to seven years rigorous imprisonment by a Delhi court for robbing a chemist of Rs 12,000 by using a deadly weapon.
Additional Sessions Judge Naresh Kumar Malhotra awarded the jail term to Praveen Kumar, a resident of Nangloi here, and also imposed a fine of Rs 2,000 on him.
The court noted that Praveen had committed robbery of Rs 12,000 in the evening by using a knife and he was apprehended at the spot and beaten by the public.
"I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has fully proved its case and established that accused Praveen along with two other persons in furtherance of their common intention, robbed Rs 12,000 from the complainant.
"It is also proved that while committing robbery of Rs 12,000 from the complainant, Praveen also used a deadly weapon i.E. Knife in the commission of offence. Thus, Praveen is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under sections 392 (robbery)/ 34 (common intention) of the IPC and under section 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt) of the IPC," the judge said.
According to the prosecution, a complaint was lodged by a man, who was running a chemist shop alleging that on the evening of February 28, 2011, three men stopped their bike in front of his shop.
While two remained outside, the third one entered the shop and demanded money from the complainant, it said, adding that when the chemist refused to give anything, he threatened him with a knife and his other associate took away Rs 12,000 cash.
When the complainant raised noise, his neighbour and some passersby gathered there. The three boys tried to flee from the spot and while two of them succeeded in fleeing, the third one was apprehended by the complainant and passersby.
The accused Praveen was handed over to the police. Another accused was arrested later on but he was acquitted by the court earlier.
During the trial, Praveen claimed that he was falsely implicated in the case by the chemist.
The court, however, rejected his contention saying that Praveen's claim was not probable as he was not known to the complainant prior to the incident.