Narain vs State
2012 Latest Caselaw 333 Del

$~53 to 56
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+              CRL.APPEAL No.468/2005

%              Judgment delivered on:17th January, 2012

NARAIN                                                         ..... Appellant
                                        Through : Mr S.Chaturvedi, Adv.
                       versus
STATE                                                       ..... Respondent
                                        Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP.


+              CRL.APPEAL No.470/2005

JAI NARAIN                                                     ..... Appellant
                                        Through : Mr S.Chaturvedi, Adv.
                       versus
STATE                                                       ..... Respondent
                                        Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP.


+              CRL.APPEAL No.471/2005

MOHAN LAL                                                ..... Appellant
                                        Through : Mr S.Chaturvedi, Adv.
                       versus
STATE                                                       ..... Respondent
                                        Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP.


+              CRL.APPEAL No.475/2005
RAJU                                                     ..... Appellant
                                        Through : Mr S.Chaturvedi, Adv.
                       versus
STATE                                                    ..... Respondent
                                        Through : Mr.Navin Sharma, APP.

       Crl.A. Nos.468,470, 471, & 475/2005                          Page 1 of 4
 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)

1. Since, all the above four appeals relates to the FIR No.108/2002 registered at police station Mukherji Nagar, Delhi and all four appellants were tried together alongwith another person Chulwa Choupal, who is absconding, in Sessions Case No.102/04, hence are being dealt with by this common order.

2. At the outset, on instructions, learned counsel for appellant submitted that he is not disputing the conviction of the appellants and prayed for leniency on the point of sentence in view of the peculiar facts, which shall be enumerated later on.

3. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that vide the impugned judgment dated 16.05.2005 appellants namely Jai Narain, Raju and Mohan Lal were held guilty under Section 392 and 412 IPC. Appellant Narain was held guilty under Section 412 IPC.

4. Vide order on sentence dated 17.05.2005 appellant Narain was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay a fine of ` 500/- in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 412 IPC. Remaining three appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of ` 500/- each in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 392 IPC. In views of the provision contained in Section 71 IPC no separate sentence was awarded to three appellants

for the offence under Section 412 IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. P.C. also extended to all four convicts.

5. He further submits that vide order dated 13.07.2006 this Court granted bail to all four convicts and since they are enlarged, as all of them already undergone about two years incarceration out of total sentence of four years.

6. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that half of the sentence is already undergone by them and all are from lower strata of society having families to support. Appellant Jai Narain and Raju are having two small kids and wife to support and their spouse being illiterate, no help to them to support the family income. Appellant Narain is about 50 years having four minor children and wife to support. Appellant Mohan Lal is about 45 years and five minor children to support including wife.

7. To sum up, learned counsel for appellants submits that the appellants have already suffered the agony of trial from the year 2002 and they were also in custody for some time during trial and after conviction till they were released on bail by this Court. In view of the family background and the fact that half of the period they have already undergone, in the interest of justice, a lenient view may be taken so that the families of the convicts be saved from further rigor and agony which they would definitely suffer, if appellants are to undergo remaining sentences.

8. On the other hand, Mr.Navin Sharma, learned APP has contended that since the appellants are not disputing the conviction and learned Additional Sessions Judge has already taken a lenient view while awarding sentence to them. It would be in the fitness of things if the appellants undergo their remaining sentence.

9. I note that half of the sentences already undergone by the appellants. Consequent to the order dated 13.07.2006 of this Court, they are at large. They have a family consisting minor children to support. Their families would be real sufferer, in case appellants are ordered to undergone remaining sentence.

10. Though, appellants are not disputing the conviction, however, in the interest of justice, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while maintaining the conviction of appellants, the sentence order dated 17.05.2005 is modified to the extent already undergone.

11. Since, all four appellants are on bail. Bail bonds are cancelled and their sureties stand discharged.

12. Consequently, Criminal Appeal Nos.468/2005, 470/2005, 471/2005, and 475/2005 are partially allowed and stand disposed of.

13. No order as to costs.

SURESH KAIT, J JANUARY 17, 2012 Mk