LAW OF CRIMES PAPER III

Ranjit Chauhan vs State of UP & ors

SUBMITTED BY-
ACHLESH CHANDRA MISHRA
BA.LL.B. BATCH 2014-19
PRN- 14010223001
In October, 2017

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF-

PROF.Megha Nagpal
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL, NOIDA,

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, PUNE

 CERTIFICATE

The project titled “Ranjit Chauhan vs State of UP & ors” submitted to the Symbiosis Law
School, NOIDA for “Environmental Law” as part of Internal Assessment is based on my
original work carried out under the guidance of Prof. Megha Nagpal. . The research work
has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged. I understand that I myself could be held responsible and accountable for
plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the Candidate

(Achlesh Mishra)
Date:07.10.2017
 Judgement

1. In the present case Ranjit Chauhan has been accused of committing robbery. It is
alleged that on 1st day of August at 1:30 am near HDFC ATM, ground floor of Galaxy
Park Sector 62, Noida he robbed Mr. Krishna Rao. Robbery is a punishable offence
under the Indian Penal Code (herein referred as IPC). The offence of robbery is a
much graver offence than theft because robbery not only involves theft but it also
involves putting a person in fear of instant death. This court has been given the task of
finding out whether the accused that is Ranjit Chauhan has committed the offence of
robbery or not. The court will look into the matter by listening to the arguments
presented to it by the counsels of both the parties. That is the counsel of the state and
counsel of Mr Ranjit Chauhan.

2. Advocate representing the State Mr. Arvind Mehta has presented a piece of evidence
in an attempt to prove that the offence of Robbery was committed by Mr. Ranjit
Chauhan. He has submitted CCTV footage in form as a form of electronic evidence.
The CCTV footage has captured the whole moment in which it can be seen that Mr.
Ranjit Chauhan is threatening Mr. Krishna Rao with a gun and is indicating Mr.
Krishna Rao with his hand gestures to give him something. Then after a few seconds
Mr. Krishna Rao gives him his wallet which contained Rs 5000, a pan card, an office
ID and a debit card all of which belonged to Mr. Krishna Rao. Mr. Arvind Mehta has
also submitted the slip of the copy of the transaction of Rs 5000 which Mr. Krishna
Rao had just withdrawn from his bank account from the HDFC ATM. Also a wallet
has been recovered from Mr. Ranjit Chauhan and Mr. Krishna Roa has identified the
wallet belonging to him.

3. Mr. Tarun Taneja representing Mr. Ranjit Chauhan stated his argument that the
CCTV footage can be a fake one and with the present day technology anyone can
frame his client for the offence of robbery which might have been done by someone
else. Also he stated that Mr. Ranjit Chauhan personally does not know Mr. Krishna
Rao and therefore he has no motive to commit a crime against Mr. Krishna Roa.

4. But these arguments have been rejected by the Court. The investigation report
submitted by Sub- Inspector Yugantar Singh clearly states that the CCTV footage is
not a fake one and it is an authentic CCTV footage certified by the concerned
authorities. Also the second argument given by Mr. Tarun Taneja that Mr. Ranjit
Chauhan had no motive to commit a crime against Mr. Ranjit Chauhan because he
does not know him personally has fallacy in it. Since it is not necessary that if a
 person knows someone personally then he will have a motive to commit a crime.
Money can also act as a tool for a motive behind an act. It is a famous which line says
that “Na baap bada na bhaiya the whole thing is that ki sabse bada rupiya”.
Therefore we can justify that money can also be the motive behind the act as it was in
the present case, which has been shown to us by the CCTV footage.

5. Our criminal system works on a simple belief that no innocent person should ever be
punished. Therefore CrPC mandates a thorough examination of evidences. In the
present case the evidence provided to this court is that of CCTV footage. I don’t think
that a thorough examination of this type of evidence can be done. Since the
investigation report clearly states that the CCTV footage is an authentic one. Also I
have personally seen the CCTV footage in camera proceedings and I can confirm that
Mr. Ranjit Chauhan robbed Mr. Krishna Roa wallet from him.

6. Now after the examination of the evidence, we can now move on to determining the
exact guilt of Mr. Ranjit Chauhan. According to the prosecution the accused is guilty
of robbery. The Section 390 of the IPC defines when theft is robbery in the following
way “Robbery.—In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is
robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in
committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.” Now in order to determine the guilt of
Mr. Ranjit Chauhan we need to understand the essential conditions that need to be
fulfilled for committing robbery. After understanding these situations we will apply
them to our present situation.

7. The first condition for theft to be robbery is that the property must be dishonestly
taken away from the person and moved out of his possession. Section 378 of the IPC
defines theft as “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of
the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in
order to such taking, is said to commit theft.” In the present case Mr. Ranjit Chauhan
dishonestly takes away the wallet of Mr. Krishna Rao. He also moves it away from
the possession of Mr. Krishna Roa. But Mr. Krishna Rao gives his consent in giving
away the wallet. Therefore we can conclude that Mr.Ranjit Chauhan has not
committed theft. But Mr. Ranjit Chauhan threatened Mr. Krishna Roa for giving away
his wallet which is immorally wrong and any act which is immorally is a crime.

8. The second essential condition is that there must be a voluntarily attempt to cause to
any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant
hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. In the present case Mr. Ranjit Chauhan had
 threatened Mr Krishna Roa with a gun and put him in instant fear of death. Thus this
second essential of when theft is robbery has fulfilled.

9. Therefore after listening to the arguments of both the parties and examining the
evidence. This court finds Mr. Ranjit Chauhan guilt of the offence of robbery which is
punishable under IPC. Mr. Ranjit Chauhan is sentenced to