Delhi High Court
Jitender vs The State(Nct Of Delhi) on 30 August, 2010
Author: Ajit Bharihoke
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: August 30, 2010
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.781/2010
JITENDER ....APPELLANT
Through: Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with
Mr. Gaurav Bhattacharya, Advocate
along with appellant in custody.
Versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ....RESPONDENT
Through: Mr. Pawan K. Bahl, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE
1. Whether Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in Digest ?
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)
1. Jitender Kumar, the appellant herein, has preferred this appeal
under Section 375(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the
quantum of sentence awarded to him in terms of the judgment/order
dated 07.12.2009.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are
that the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 392/397 IPC
on the allegations that on 14.02.2005, he along with his co-accused
entered House No.1521, Sector 7, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi belonging to
the complainant and committed robbery of ` 10 lakhs besides some
ornaments and a briefcase containing various documents and camera
etc. on the point of a "katta" and a knife by putting the complainant
and her children under the fear of their lives.
3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge charged the appellant
under Section 392/397/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty in the first
instance. However, after the examination of eight witnesses including
the complainant, the appellant moved an application to confess his
guilt. On being satisfied that the application moved by the appellant
voluntarily, the learned Additional Sessions Judge proceeded to record
the statement of the appellant wherein he admitted the correctness of
the evidence produced by the prosecution and confessed his guilt. The
learned Additional Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence
adduced by the prosecution and the plea of guilt of the appellant,
convicted him on the charges under Section 392 as well as Section 397
IPC. The appellant was sentenced under Section 397 IPC to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for the period of seven years and for the offence
under Section 392 IPC, a fine of `1000/- was also imposed on him, in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the
period of two months.
4. The appellant is aggrieved of the quantum of sentence awarded
to him. As per the nominal roll, he has undergone incarceration for five
years and five days (actual) as on 04.06.2010 and he has also earned a
remission in sentence for two months and ten days. Thus, the
unexpired period of sentence, as per the latest nominal roll dated
04.06.2010, is one year nine months and fifteen days. The appellant
has prayed that his sentence be modified to the extent of the period
already undergone in custody and he has also prayed for the waiver of
fine.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the
appellant is a young man having responsibility of his old parents and
an unmarried sister. He contended that the brother of the appellant is
living separately with his family and he is not supporting the parents
and the sister. Thus, because of incarceration of the appellant, the
parents and young sister of the appellant have been pushed on the
verge of starvation. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant
has realised his mistake and is full of remorse and repentance and he
deserves a chance to mend his ways and integrate himself in the
society as a useful member.
6. Learned APP, on the other hand, has argued in support of the
order on sentence and he has submitted that considering the nature of
the offence committed by the appellant he has been shown sufficient
indulgence and leniency in awarding sentence.
7. I have considered the rival contentions. The learned Additional
Sessions Judge has sentenced the appellant to undergo imprisonment
for seven years for the offence under Section 397 IPC read with Section
392 IPC and, for the offence under Section 392 IPC, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge has imposed fine of `1,000/- on the
appellant.
8. Section 397 IPC deals with the punishment for the offence of
robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt and it
reads thus:
"397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.-
If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly
weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or
grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall
be punished shall not be less than seven years."
9. Bare reading of aforesaid provision reveals that minimum
punishment which could be awarded for the offence under Section 397
IPC is seven years. In the instant case, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has apparently awarded minimum sentence to the appellant
under Section 397 IPC, as such there is no scope for interfering with or
reducing the sentence. Coming to the fine imposed for the offence
punishable under Section 392 IPC, the learned Additional Sessions
Judge has imposed a fine of `1,000/- only on the appellant. Taking into
account that the appellant and his co-accused were involved in robbery
of ` 10 lakhs as well as valuables including gold ornaments, I am of the
view that the fine imposed upon the appellant by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge is minimal as compared to the gravity of
offence. Thus, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence by
reducing the same particularly when the offence committed by the
appellant is of grave nature.
10. In view of the above, I find no merit in the appeal. It is dismissed
accordingly.
(AJIT BHARIHOKE)
JUDGE
AUGUST 30, 2010
pst
