$-3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 5th FEBRUARY, 2014
+ CRL.A. 948/2012
VIKRAM THAPA @ MANGAL PANDEY ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
SI Manoj Kumar, PS Punjabi Bagh.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Abhishek @ Pritam and Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey (the appellant) were arrested in case FIR No. 13/11 by the police of PS Mandir Marg for committing offences under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC and sent for trial alleging that on 18.01.2011 at about 09.30 P.M. near Lady Harding hospital, they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to the complainant - Dinesh Prasad and deprived him of his mobile phone and cash ` 8,000/- at the point of knife. Abhishek @ Pritam was apprehended at the spot whereas Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey succeeded to escape from the spot. First Information Report was lodged after recording Dinesh Prasad's statement (Ex.PW-7/A). Subsequently, Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey was arrested. Statements of the Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 1 of 3 witnesses were recorded. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove the charges. In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in their conviction. By an order on sentence dated 26.11.2011, the appellant was awarded RI for five years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 392/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 394/34 IPC; RI for one year with fine ` 500/- under Section 411 IPC. The substantive sentences were to operate concurrently. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey has preferred the present appeal. It is unclear if Abhishek @ Pritam has challenged the conviction.
2. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that Vikram Thapa @ Mangal Pandey has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and accepts it voluntarily. She, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant has served the substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court and is not a previous convict. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to have recourse to this procedure.
3. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction in view of the overwhelming evidence of the Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 2 of 3 complainant who identified him in the Court as one of the assailants who inflicted injuries to him coupled with medical evidence, his conviction stands affirmed. Nominal roll dated 13.05.2013 demonstrates that he has already undergone two years, two months and nine days incarceration besides remission for five months and twenty six days as on 13.05.2013. No criminal case is shown to have been pending against him. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. Considering the clean antecedents of the appellant and the period already undergone by him in this case, the substantive sentence of five years under Sections 392 IPC and 394 IPC awarded to the appellant is modified and is reduced to RI for four years each. The substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.
4. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information. Trial Court record be sent back immediately.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2014/ tr Crl.A. 948/2012 Page 3 of 3