* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 20th January, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1475/2011
UTTAM JIT SINGH @ BOBBY ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.K.K.Manan with Mr.Nipun
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
SI Ram, PS Lajpat Nagar.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 16.07.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.81/09 arising out of FIR No.838/07 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 18.07.2011 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 27.08.2007 at Defence Colony Flyover at about 06.15 P.M. he deprived Hema Aron of Crl.A.No.1475/2011 Page 1 of 4 her debit card and credit card of Standard Chartered bank and ICICI Bank and jewellery articles at the point of knife. She was also forced to disclose the code number of her ATM/debit card and thereafter the appellant ran away on scooter. After recording Hema Aron's statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the First Information Report was lodged by SI Satyavir Singh and the investigation was entrusted to SI Gulshan. On 05.09.2007, the appellant was arrested in FIR No.545/2007 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas and pursuant to the disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the instant case, robbed jewellery articles were recovered from one Pardeep Sainani (since acquitted) who was arrested from his residence at 14/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant declined to participate in the TIP proceedings. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Pardeep Sainani was apprehended for retaining or receiving stolen articles. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offences under Section 392/397 IPC whereas Pardeep Sainani was charged for committing offence under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to establish their guilt. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court by the Crl.A.No.1475/2011 Page 2 of 4 impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 392 IPC. Co- accused Pardeep Sainani was acquitted of all the charges and the State did not challenge the said acquittal.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has given up challenge to the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already suffered substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to that.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings recorded by the Trial Court on merits, in the presence of overwhelming evidence of PW-2 coupled with recovery of the robbed articles, his conviction under Section 392 IPC is affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated 29.02.2012 reveals that he suffered incarceration for one year and five months besides earning remission for two months and seventeen days as on 27.02.2012. The period has almost increased to four years. It is stated that the appellant was convicted in case FIR No.545/2007 under Section 392 IPC, FIR No. 833/2007 under Section 392 IPC and FIR No.371/2007 under Section 379/34 IPC. It Crl.A.No.1475/2011 Page 3 of 4 further transpires that benefit of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant to give him a chance to reform. It is informed that the appellant belongs to a well off family and was involved in criminal cases due to falling in bad company. The appellant has lost his mother during trial. The order on sentence records that the appellant was repentful and promised not to repeat the mistake in future. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the period already suffered by the appellant in this case in custody is taken as his substantive sentence. Other terms of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that default sentence would be one month. The sentence order is modified accordingly.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of the order. Copy of the order be also sent to Jail Superintendent for information.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 20, 2014 sa Crl.A.No.1475/2011 Page 4 of 4