Vijay Kumar vs State (Nct) Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 5851 Del

               *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                                                  Date of Reserve: 10th December, 2010

                                 Date of Order: December 22, 2010

                                   + Crl. Appeal No.173/2010
%                                                                            22.12.2010
         Vijay Kumar                                                  ...Appellant

         Versus

          State (NCT) of Delhi                                        ...Respondent

Counsels:

Mr. Sumeet Verma, for appellant.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.


         JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

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

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.       Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                            JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant

assailing the judgment and order on the point of sentence passed by learned ASJ, Delhi

on 17th August 2008 convicting appellant under Section 394 IPC and Section 25 of Arms

Act. The appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 394 IPC and

two years imprisonment under Section 25 of Arms Act.

2. The counsel for the appellant Vijay Kumar submits that the appellant is not

assailing his conviction and he only prays for modification /reduction on sentence. The

appellant has already undergone more than 6 years of sentence as awarded to him and

this should be considered as sufficient punishment.

Crl. Appeal 173/2010 Page 1 Of 2

3. I have perused the nominal roll of the appellant. The nominal roll of the appellant

would show that the out of total 7 years of imprisonment, the appellant had already

undergone six years and two months and 23 days. Thus the remaining imprisonment is

only nine and a half months. The conduct of the appellant in jail as shown in the nominal

roll has been satisfactory.

4. Looking into the role of the appellant in commission of crime, it is seen that the

appellant had not used arms and his role was of catching hold of the victim while other

accused persons had assaulted the victim and robbed him.

5. Under these circumstances, I consider that it is a fit case where the sentence of

the appellant should be modified and the sentence of the appellant is modified to the

extent that the appellant is sentenced to undergo sentence to six years and three months

imprisonment instead of seven years and the fine, as imposed by the learned Sessions

Judge.

6. With above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be

sent to Jail Suptd. forthwith.

December 22, 2010                                         SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
rd




Crl. Appeal 173/2010                                                               Page 2 Of 2