Delhi High Court
Kishan @ Bablu vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 1 September, 2008
Author: Aruna Suresh
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. APPL.No.785/2004 and Crl.M.A.8656/2008
Date of decision : 01.09.2008
KISHAN @ BABLU ..... Appellant
Through : Ms. Purnima Sethi, Adv.
Versus
THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through : Mr M.P. Singh, APP.
AND
(2) CRL. APPL. No. 848/2004
SHIV RAJ @ SWARAJ @ SURAJ ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Adv.
Versus
STATE OF DELHI ... Respondent
Through : Mr M.P. Singh, APP.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether reporters of local paper may be
allowed to see the judgment?
(2) To be referred to the reporter or not?
(3) Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ?
JUDGMENT
ARUNA SURESH, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order I shall dispose of two
Criminal Appeals being Crl.A.No.785/2004 titled
Kishan v. State and Crl.A.No.848/2004 titled 'Shiv
Raj @ Swaraj @ Suraj v. State' as both the appeals
are the outcome of the judgment and order on
sentence dated 28th August, 2004 and 6.9.2004
respectively passed in Sessions Case No.14/2001,
titled as 'State Vs. Raju etc., being FIR
No.402/2000, under Sections 392/397/34 IPC,
Police Station Keshav Puram.
2. Appellant Kishan @ Bablu and appellant Shiv Raj @
Swaraj @ Suraj were convicted for an offence
punishable under Sections 392/397/34 IPC by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge vide his
judgment dated 28th August, 2004 and vide his
order on sentenced dated 6th September, 2004 they
were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
(RI) for seven years along with a fine of Rs.500/-
each, in default two months R.I. for an offence
under Sections 392/397/34 IPC. Benefit under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was also given to both the
appellants.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants
submit that they would not press their appeal on
merits but they have prayed that a lenient view be
taken and the appellants be awarded sentence
already undergone by them in this case.
4. Appellant Kishan @ Bablu is in judicial custody
since 28.10.2000. He was on regular bail for the
period from 27.04.2001 to 27.08.2004. He has
already undergone imprisonment for a period of
four years five months, whereas appellant Shiv Raj
@ Swaraj @ Suraj is in judicial custody since
28.10.2000, though he remained on regular bail for
the period from 18.04.2001 to 27.08.2004. He has
suffered imprisonment for about four years five
months.
5. Considering the fact that both the appellants are in
judicial custody for a long period and their behavior
has been found satisfactory by the jail authorities
and also as per the nominal roll they are not in
custody in any other case and they are first
offenders, it is in the interest of justice that the
prayer as made for reduction of sentence is
allowed.
6. Hence, prayer as made is allowed. Appellants are
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for the period
already undergone by them, subject to their
depositing the fine as imposed upon them by the
trial court. The order on sentence passed by the
learned ASJ on 6.9.2004 stands modified
accordingly.
7. Appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
8. Attested copy of the order be sent to the trial court
as well as to the concerned Superintendent Jail for
necessary compliance.
ARUNA SURESH, J.
SEPTEMBER 01, 2008
vk
