Harish Kumar @ Pintu vs State (Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 1662 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 11th April, 2013

+                         CRL.A. 126/2011

       HARISH KUMAR @ PINTU                            ..... Appellant

                         Through :    Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.

                         versus

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

                         Through :    Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellant- Harish Kumar @ Pintu S/o Bedi Ram

challenges judgment dated 16.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.89/2008

arising out of FIR No. 194/2004 PS Shahdara, by which, he and his

associates were convicted and sentenced. The appellant was held guilty

for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394/411/34 IPC.

Vide order dated 19.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten

years under Section 394/34 IPC with fine ` 3,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on the night

intervening 09/10.06.2004 at 12.30 A.M. near Hanuman Mandir,

Shahdara, he and his associates Sanjay, Rohtash and Deepak S/o Babu Lal

and Deepak Kumar @ Deepu robbed TSR driver- Krishan Dev Pathak of

cash ` 5,200/-, mobile phone, office key and I- card. They also caused

injuries to him with knife while committing robbery. The prosecution

examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313

Cr.P.C. statements, the accused pleaded false implication. The Trial Court

by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the offences

described previously and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the present

appeal has been preferred.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate, on getting instructions from the

appellant stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge his

conviction under Section 394/34 IPC. He however, prays to take lenient

view and reduce the substantive sentence from RI for ten years to RI for

six years.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to

challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections

394/34 IPC, order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that allegations

against the appellant are very serious whereby he and his associates

robbed an innocent person during night and deprived him of cash and

mobile phone. Nominal roll dated 02.02.2013 reveals that there is one FIR

under Section 302/364/120B/34 registered at Police Station Shahdara is

pending against the appellant. He has also been convicted in case FIR

No.368/3005 under Section 394/34 IPC registered at Police Station

Timarpur. The antecedents of the appellant are not clean. He deserves no

leniency. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and the role assigned to the appellant in the incident, in my view, interest

of justice would be served if on parity with co-convict Deepak @ Deepu

who was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, the appellant is

sentenced to undergo RI for seven years instead of ten years. He has

already remained in custody since long.

6. Considering all the facts and other circumstances of the case,

the order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of the

appellant is reduced from RI for ten years to RI for seven years. Other

sentences are left undisturbed.

7. The appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in the

above terms.

8. The Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE April 11, 2013 sa