Delhi High Court
Rajesh & Anr. vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 5 December, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 5th DECEMBER, 2013
+ CRL.A. 420/2001
RAJESH & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.D.S.Rathore, Advocate for A2.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. The case is taken up today as the date already fixed i.e.
04.12.2013 was declared as holiday on account of 'General Elections to
the Legislative Assembly of Delhi'.
2. Rajesh, Mahender Kumar and Harish Chand @ Hari were
arrested in case FIR No. 131/93 PS Keshav Puram and were sent for trial
under Section 307/452 IPC with the allegations that on 05.07.1993 at
around 07.30 P.M. at G-40/A Industrial Area, Lawrence Road, they in
furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to C.R.P. Rao by a
knife. Harish Chand @ Hari was declared Proclaimed Offender. During
trial it emerged that the assailants had also robbed ` 5,000/- from the
complainant C.R.P. Rao. The appellants were charged under Section 397
IPC. The prosecution examined number of witnesses to establish the guilt
of the appellants. In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false
implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival
contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment
dated 30.04.2001 in Sessions Case No. 252/96 held both the appellants
guilty under Section 307 IPC. Mahender Kumar was in addition convicted
under Section 452 IPC. By an order dated 02.05.2001, Rajesh was
awarded RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/-. Mahender was awarded RI
for five years with fine ` 5,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for three
years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 452 IPC. Both the sentences were
to operate concurrently.
3. Rajesh and Mahender Kumar preferred appeal to challenge
the conviction. Subsequently, Rajesh did not appear to pursue the appeal.
Nominal roll dated 06.12.2010 reveals that he has already served the
sentence awarded to him and was released from jail on 13.05.2004 after
expiry of the sentence and payment of fine. It appears that on that account
the appellant Rajesh has lost interest to pursue the appeal and is dismissed
for non-prosecution.
4. During the course of arguments, counsel for the appellant
Mahender Kumar, on instructions, stated at Bar that he has opted not to
challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections
307/452 IPC. He prayed to take lenient view and to modify the sentence
order as the appellant has remained in custody, in this case, for more than
three years and has no criminal antecedents.
5. Since Mahender Kumar has opted not to challenge the
findings of the Trial Court on conviction, the conviction under Sections
307/452 IPC stands affirmed. Nominal roll dated 06.12.2000 reveals that
he remained in custody, in this case, for two years, eight months and ten
days besides earning remission for five months and twenty two days as on
13.12.2002. He was not involved in any other criminal case and had no
criminal antecedents. His overall jail conduct in the jail was satisfactory.
After his release in 2002, on bail, nothing has emerged to infer if he was
involved in any criminal case. The incident pertains to the year 1993. It is
stated that he is a married man and has four children to look after them.
Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the period already
suffered by the appellant Mahender Kumar is taken as substantive
sentence. He shall, however, pay the unpaid fine (if any) and deposit `
30,000/- as compensation to be paid to the complainant/ injured within
fifteen days in the Trial Court. The compensation shall be released to the
complainant after service of due notice.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
Reconstructed Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. Copy of the
order be also sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
DECEMBER 05, 2013/tr
