Delhi High Court
Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath vs State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi) on 23 April, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 23rd April, 2013
+ CRL.A.715/2011 & Crl.M.B.No.412/2012 and
Crl.M.A.No.20074/2012
RAMESH @ RAMU @ DUDH NATH ....Appellant
Through: Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.
Appellant present in judicial custody.
versus
STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent.
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
+ CRL.A.1163/2011
NEELU LUNGA ....Appellant
Through: Ajay Verma with Mr.Shiv Kumar,
Advocates.
versus
STATE .....Respondent.
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Appellants-Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath and Neelu
Lunga challenge judgment dated 16.03.2011 in Sessions Case
No.211/1/10 arising out of FIR No.15/2010 registered at Police Station
Paschim Vihar by which they were held guilty for committing offences
under Section 394/308/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga was further convicted under
Section 411 IPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2011, they were sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of
`10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months each under Section
308/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine of `10,000/- each and in default to
undergo SI for six months each under Section 394/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga
was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period
already undergone under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were to
operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 17.01.2010 at
about 01.45 P.M. at house No.B-5/101, Paschim Vihar, they robbed Neeta
Pathak and deprived of her mobile phone make Sony Ericsson, lady purse
containing debit card, license and some other papers and money. In the
process of committing robbery, they also caused injuries to her with a
wooden log of a cot. On 08.01.2010, Neelu Lunga recovered the mobile
phone and other articles belonging to the complainant-Neetu Pathak. The
prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313
Statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. After appreciating
the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial
Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellants as mentioned
previously and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellants have
preferred the appeals.
3. During the course of arguments, Mr.Ajay Verma, counsel for
Neelu Lunga, on instructions, stated that she has opted not to challenge
the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take
lenient view and to modify the sentence and fine. Ms.Rakhi Dubey,
learned counsel for appellant- Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath, on
instructions from him (he was present in the court in custody) stated that
he too has opted not to challenge the conviction under Section 308/394
IPC. She also prayed to modify the sentence as the appellant is not
involved in any criminal case and has three minor children to take care of
them.
4. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and
learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. Since
the appellants have not opted to challenge the findings on conviction, their
conviction under Section 308/394/34 IPC and conviction of the appellant-
Neelu Lunga under Section 411 IPC stand affirmed.
5. Regarding sentence, it appears they have been sentenced to
undergo RI for five years with fine of `10,000/- under Section 394 IPC.
They were further sentenced to undergo sentence for the period already
undergone by them with fine of `10,000/- under Section 308 IPC.
Nominal roll dated 08.01.2013 reveals that the appellant- Ramesh @
Ramu @ Dudh Nath has already undergone substantive sentence of two
years, eleven months and twenty days. He earned remission for six
months and three days. Nominal roll dated 16.04.2013 reveals that the
appellant-Neelu Lunga has already undergone substantive sentence of
three years, two months and twenty eight days. She earned remission for
seven months and fourteen days. The crime committed by the appellants is
very serious. Appellant-Neelu Lunga was maid in the house and the
complainant had reposed trust in her. She was treated like a family
member. She with her associate Ramesh not only committed robbery but
also caused grievous hurt to the innocent lady. The Trial Court has
already taken lenient view and no further reduction is justified.
Substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the appellants is
maintained.
6. Regarding fine, the appellants have been order to pay a total
fine of `20,000/- each and in default they are to undergo SI for one year.
The appellants are in custody and have undergone substantial part of the
substantive sentence. Due to their poverty, they are unable to pay the fine.
Considering these circumstances, the fine of `20,000/- each is reduced to
`5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 15
days each.
7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All pending
applications also stand disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
APRIL 23, 2013
sa
