Salim vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 3210 Del

$-23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          DECIDED ON : 25th JULY, 2013

+                 CRL.A. 481/2012 & CRL.M.B. 1035/2013

       SALIM                                           ..... Appellant

                              Through :   Mr.Sunil Tiwari, Advocate.

                              versus

       STATE                                           ..... Respondent

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

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

1. Salim (the appellant) challenges a judgment dated 30.03.2012

of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 122/2011

arising out of FIR No. 158/2007 PS Civil Lines by which he was

convicted under Section 412 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four

years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that he received or

retained 28 bags of plastic raw material (plastic dana) from the dacoits -

Vikram @ Ganja, Sameer @ Sonu, Raj Kumar and Ashok Kumar

knowing or having reasons to believe that it was a robbed property on

01.07.2007 at House No. E-3/27, Andhsar Colony, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant

with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. After

completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the

appellant. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In his 313

statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. After considering the

rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record,

the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for

the offence mentioned previously and sentenced him accordingly. Being

aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

3. During the course of hearing, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that he has opted not to challenge his conviction

under Section 412 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however, prayed to

take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial period

of sentence awarded to him and he is not a previous convicts.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

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

findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 412 IPC, his

conviction stands affirmed.

5. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for four years

with fine ` 5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 18.07.2013 reveals that he has

already undergone one year, four months and four days as on 18.07.2013.

He also earned remission for four months and seventeen days. Nominal

roll further reveals that he is not a previous convict and is not involved in

any criminal case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He has three

children to take care of them. His parents have expired.

6. Taking into consideration these mitigating circumstances, the

substantive sentence of the appellant - Salim is reduced from four years to

two and a half years with fine ` 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine,

he shall further undergo SI for a period of fifteen days.

7. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending

application also stands disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JULY 25, 2013 tr