Suraj @ Suresh vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2009 Latest Caselaw 4678 Del

*    IN      THE     HIGH   COURT    OF   DELHI      AT   NEW     DELHI

+               CRL.A. 513/2006 with Crl. M.A. 11618/09

        SURAJ @ SURESH                                ..... Appellant
                                 Through: Mr. Sumeet Verma, Advocate.
                            versus

        STATE (NCT) OF DELHI               ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, Addl.

PP for the State.

*       CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

        1.      Whether the Reporters of local papers
                may be allowed to see the judgment?                     No

        2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                  No

        3.      Whether the judgment should be
                reported in the Digest?                                 No

: V.K. JAIN, J. (oral)

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22 nd March,

2005 and Order On Sentence dated 24th March, 2005 whereby

the appellant Suraj @ Suresh was convicted under Sections

452/393/394/398/34 of IPC and under Section 25 of Arms Act and

was sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

500/- or to undergo RI for 3 months in default u/s 452 of IPC r/w

Section 34 thereof and was further sentenced to undergo RI for 4

years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or to undergo RI for 3 months in

default u/s 393/34 of IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo

RI for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or to undergo RI for 6

months in default u/s 394 of IPC r/w Section 34 thereof. He was

also sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

2,000/- or to undergo RI for 6 months in default u/s 398/34 of IPC.

He was lastly sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay a

fine of Rs. 500/- or to undergo SI for one month in default under

Section 25 Arms Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22nd December, 2003,

the complainant Raj Kumar Garg and his son in law Naresh Singhla

were sitting in his house, when the door bell rang. When the door

was opened by him, three persons were found standing outside.

One of them put a knife on his neck and pushed him towards the

bed room. All of them entered his house and asked him to

handover the cash and jewellery kept in the house. He was given

a knife blow on his ear and hand. His wife and daughter in law

also came there and raised alarm, whereupon persons from the

public gathered there. Two of the culprits managed to run away

whereas one of them was apprehended on the spot along with a

knife.

3. The complainant came in the witness box as PW-3 and stated

that on 22.12.2003 at about 10.20 pm when he was sitting in the

bed room along with son in law, someone rang the door bell. On

opening the door he found three persons present outside. Those

persons pushed him inside and entered the house. All of them

were having knife with them. One knife meant for meat cutting

was kept on his neck, he was asked to handover the cash and

jewelry kept in the house. When he resisted, he was given blow

near his right ear and on his right wrist as well as on the little

finger of his right hand. His daughter in law and wife came there,

whereas his son in law threw a suitcase on the intruders.

Consequently two of the persons managed to run away whereas

the third one was apprehended on the spot and handed over to the

police. The witness identified the appellant Suraj as the person

who was apprehended on the spot. The testimony of the

complainant has been corroborated by his wife PW-4 Smt. Pushpa

Rani, PW-5 Shri Naresh Singhla, who is son in law of the

complainant, and PW-8 Neha Garg, who is his daughter in law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant states that considering the

evidence produced during trial, he does not press the appeal on

merits. He further states that since the appellant has already

spent more than 6 years in jail and has also earned remission of

more than a year, the only prayer made by the appellant is that the

period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine be reduced.

5. Keeping in view the period already spent by the appellant in

jail and his financial incapacity to pay the amount of fine, the

period of imprisonment in default of payment of fine is reduced to

15 days each under Sections 452,393,394 and 398 of IPC and

under Section 25 of Arms Act.

With this modification, this appeal (Crl. A No. 513/2006) as

well as Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 11618/2009,

seeking waiver of fine, stand disposed of.

                                                     V.K. JAIN,J
                                                       JUDGE
NOVEMBER                  17, 2009/acm