$-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 15th JANUARY, 2014
+ CRL.A. 878/2012
SATISH @ SONU ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (GOT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Satish @ Sonu (the appellant) impugns the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 10.10.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 43/2011 arising out of FIR No. 202/2008 PS Subzi Mandi by which he was convicted for committing offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 31.07.2008 at about 03.00 - 04.00 P.M. after dropping a passenger complainant - Nurain Baitha, an auto driver, came out from Mahindra Park with TSR Crl.A. 878/2012 Page 1 of 3 No. DL-1RE-0511 and the appellant boarded the TSR to go to Hindu Rao Hospital. On the way, the appellant got stopped the TSR and when the complainant demanded the fare, he took out a knife and snatched ` 190/- from him. He also gave a knife blow on his head and escaped after inflicting injury. He was chased and apprehended at some distance. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant's statement. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant in the Court. The prosecution examined five witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in his conviction.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that Satish @ Sonu has opted not to challenge his conviction under Section 394 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. She however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant is not a previous convict and has remained in custody for about three years. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order accordingly. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 394 IPC in the presence of Crl.A. 878/2012 Page 2 of 3 overwhelming evidence, his conviction stands affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 31.07.2013 reveals that he has already undergone one year, ten months and twenty nine days incarceration besides earning remission for six months and seventeen days as on 30.07.2013. The period already undergone has since increased to about three years. Nominal roll further reveals that his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. It is further stated that he is the sole bread earner of the family and has a wife, two children and old aged mother to take care of them. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the sentence order is modified and the period already suffered by the appellant in custody in this case is taken as substantive sentence.
4. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. A copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information. Trial Court record be sent back immediately.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 15, 2014/ tr Crl.A. 878/2012 Page 3 of 3