$-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 23rd MAY, 2014
+ CRL.A.No. 1428/2012
SHAHABUDDIN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Rahul Kumar, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. The appellant - Shahabuddin questions the legality of a judgment dated 24.02.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 52/11 arising out of FIR No. 25/10 PS Bhalaswa Dairy by which he was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC. By an order dated 05.03.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine `5,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant as revealed in the charge- sheet were that on 19.02.2010 at about 05.15 P.M. at Service Road, near Khatta Bhalaswa Bridge / Pul, he and his associate Vasu (facing trial Crl.A.No.1428/2012 Page 1 of 3 before Juvenile Board) sharing common intention robbed Anil Kumar of ` 320/- at blade point. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The trial resulted in appellant's conviction only under Sections 392/34 IPC. The State did not challenge acquittal of the appellant under Section 397 IPC.
3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal for conviction recorded under Sections 392/34 IPC. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC which is based upon the cogent evidence of the complainant Anil Kumar coupled with recovery, conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC is affirmed. Nominal roll dated 24.01.2013 reveals that he has already undergone eleven months and nineteen days incarceration besides remission for two months and fifteen days as on 24.01.2013. Order-sheet dated 27.08.2013 records the undergone period as one year and seven months. The appellant was granted suspension of sentence on furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He, however, could not Crl.A.No.1428/2012 Page 2 of 3 furnish the required surety bond which was subsequently reduced to `10,000/- by an order dated 28.10.2013. He remained in custody despite grant of suspension of sentence due to his economic poverty to furnish the required bond. Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. At the time of the crime, he was aged around 20 or 21 years. Considering all these circumstances, the period already undergone by the appellant in custody is taken as substantive sentence under Sections 392/34 IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. Superintendent jail be informed accordingly.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 23, 2014 / tr Crl.A.No.1428/2012 Page 3 of 3