Bijender vs State
2009 Latest Caselaw 4523 Del

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                     Judgment Reserved on: 03rd November, 2009
                     Judgment Delivered on: 06th November, 2009

+                          CRL.REV.P.794/2003

        BIJENDER                                    ..... Petitioner
                           Through:    Mr.Rajesh Mahajan, Adv.

                     versus

        STATE                                 ..... Respondent
                           Through:    Mr.Manoj Ohri, APP


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
        the judgment?

     2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                    Yes

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
        Digest?                                        Yes

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1. On 1.12.2001, a complaint had been lodged by Uday Singh

PW-2. He had boarded a bus at Shivaji Stadium at 12.15 PM; his

pocket was picked in the bus at the point of knife by a gang of 8-10

persons. Rs.3500/- was robbed; he was given beatings and his

pocket was forcibly torn at the point of knife. One out of the said

persons was apprehended; the others succeeded in escaping.

Complaint Ex.PW-2/A was lodged.

2. On the aforestated complaint FIR no.402/2001 was

registered under Section 394/34 of the IPC at P.S.Mandir Marg.

Nand Kishore PW-1 had corroborated the version of PW-2. He has

stated that on 1.12.2001 when he was going to Gole Market from

Shivaji Stadium by bus route no.157, while standing near the stand

of the bus he heard a noise that the pocket of someone had been

picked and Rs.3500/- had been stolen. PW-1 asked the bus driver

to stop the vehicle in the meanwhile 2-3 boys dragged PW-1 inside

the bus and beat him; no one came forward to save him. On getting

down from the bus PW-1 saw three boys snatching money from

another person by giving him a knife blow; Rs.3500/- had been

snatched; one of those three boys was apprehended at the spot.

3. PW-3 Chander Pal was the conductor of the fateful bus; as

per his version on oath he had not seen the face of the

apprehended person. Daya Ram PW-7 was the driver of the bus;

he had also not seen apprehended person; both the driver and the

conductor of the bus had been permitted to be cross-examined by

the learned prosecutor; they stuck to their stand and did not

identify the accused.

4. Const.Jasbir Singh PW9 had apprehended the accused. ASI

Kishan Chand PW-4 has reached the spot and taken custody of the

apprehended person i.e. the accused Bijender who had been

arrested.

5. The injured persons i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 had been removed to

the hospital by Const.Kalim Beg PW-10 where they were examined

vide MLCs Ex.PW-11/A and Ex.PW-11/B prepared by Dr.Veena

Mahajan PW-11. Injuries sustained by the victim PW-2 who had

been examined vide MLC Ex.PW-11/A are simple injuries with a

sharp weapon. MLC Ex.PW11/B of PW-1 had evidenced simple

injuries with a blunt weapon. The piece of blade had been

recovered and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A.

6. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 had been relied upon; their

versions were held to be consistent and corroborative; the medical

evidence had substantiated their ocular testimony.

7. Vide judgment dated 13.3.2003, the accused Bijender had

been convicted under Section 394/34 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-; in default

of payment of fine to undergo SI fro six months.

8. In appeal vide impugned judgment dated 2.8.2003 the

conviction of the petitioner under Section 394/34 of the IPC had

been maintained; he already having suffered incarceration of 22

months and being a poor person a modification was made in the

payment of fine and in default of payment of fine SI was reduced

from six months to two months.

9. On 3.12.2003 petitioner had been granted bail: it had been

recorded that he has already undergone two years RI out of the

total three years RI which had been awarded to him.

10. What has been argued before this court is the quantum of

sentence which had been awarded to the petitioner. It is

submitted that this was a case of simple pick pocketing; PW-3 and

PW-7 the conductor and driver of the bus had failed to identify the

accused; the offence dating back to the year 2001 i.e. eight years

having since elapsed; leniency be awarded to the petitioner and his

sentence be reduced to the sentence already undergone by him. It

is further submitted that first appellate court had correctly

appreciated the fact that the petitioner is a poor man and due to

financial constraint the sentence of fine had been modified and in

default of payment of fine the sentence of six months SI had been

reduced to SI for two months. It is submitted that it may not be

possible for the petitioner to pay the said amount also.

11. In Ladoo vs. The State 26 (1984) DLT 254 in a conviction

under Section 394 of the IPC where the accused was a young man,

not being a previous convict, and not having any other case against

him sentence of five years RI was reduced to four years.

12. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, ends of

justice would be well met if the sentence already suffered by the

petitioner i.e. incarceration for the period of two years is the

sentence awarded to him. Fine imposed upon him also stands

remitted. Petitioner is accordingly sentenced to undergo the

imprisonment already undergone by him.

13. Petition disposed of in the above terms.

(INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE 06th November, 2009 rb