Vijay Singh @ Darona vs The State Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 953 Del

$-24
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 26th February, 2013

+                           CRL.A.368/2001

       VIJAY SINGH @ DARONA                      ....Appellant
                 Through : Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.

                                  versus


       THE STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI              ....Respondent

Through : Ms.Fizani Husain, APP.

SI Dayanand Yadav, PS Sultanpuri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

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

1. The appellant- Vijay Singh @ Darona has filed the present

appeal against the judgment and order on sentence dated 22.01.2001 in

Sessions Case No.177/1996 arising out of FIR No.435/1992 PS Sultanpuri

by which he and his associates Siri Kishana @ Krishan and Tara Devi

were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections

368/376 IPC. He was sentenced to undergo RI for five years under

Section 368/34 IPC and RI for seven years with fine ` 250/- under Section

376 IPC.

2. Allegations against the accused were that on 10.09.1992, co-

accused Hira Lal kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged 12

years. The police came into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No.11B was

recorded on the statement of Daya Ram. He informed the police that on

10.09.1992, he went to his village leaving behind his wife- Rama Devi

and his children including 'X'. When he returned on 16.09.1992, he came

to know that some persons living with a lady in the house of Hira Lal had

kidnapped or abducted 'X'. First Information Report was lodged. During

investigation, it came to the notice of the Investigating Officer that on

10.09.1992, Krishan with his wife came to accused Hira Lal R/o B-230,

Aman Vihar. He allowed them to stay in the house of Ram Chander.

Investigating Officer further came to know that 'X' being a neighbourer

used to visit the house. On 14.09.1992, Siri Krishna and his wife on the

directions of Hira Lal and Ram Chander Chouhan abducted the girl with

intention to sell her. The girl was not traceable. Police party went to the

village of Hira Lal. During investigation, it came to their notice that on

13.10.1992 Siri Krishna and his wife Tara Devi were arrested in Calcutta.

They were brought to Delhi. In the disclosure statement, Siri Krishna it

revealed that he had sold 'X' to Vijay Singh, the present appellant. On

this, the girl was recovered from the house of Ram Chander Chouhan.

Statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the

accused and his associates. The accused was duly charged and brought to

trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses to prove the charges. In

his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. They did

not lead any evidence in defence. On appreciating the evidence and

considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for offences punishable

under Sections 368/376 IPC and sentenced. Being aggrieved, the appellant

has preferred the appeal.

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

appellant on his instructions stated that the appellant has opted not to

challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. She, however,

prayed to modify the order on sentence and reduce the substantive

sentence awarded to him.

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

examined the record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 368/376 IPC, the

order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was

sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 250/-. The fine has

since been deposited. Nominal roll dated 14.01.2010 reveals that the

appellant has remained in custody in this case for a total period of six

years and sixteen days till 31.10.2001. He earned remission for two

months and ten days. He was admitted to regular bail on 31.10.2001. The

unexpired portion of the sentence is now nine months and four days. The

incident pertains to the year 1992. The appellant has faced trial for about

twenty years. He is on regular bail after the appeal was admitted since

31.10.2001. He has already undergone the substantial period of sentence

which is more than six years. No useful purpose will served not to send

him to jail to serve remainder of sentence after allowing him to remain on

bail for about eleven years. Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant

is not involved in any other criminal case. He is not a previous convict.

His jail conduct was satisfactory. No involvement of the accused was

found during the period he remained on bail, during the pendency of the

appeal.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the order

on sentence is modified and the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the

period already undergone by him in this case which is more than six years

and three months.

7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Bail bond

and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 26, 2013 tr