Delhi High Court
Sameer @ Sonu & Anr. vs State on 25 July, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$-21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 25th JULY, 2013
+ CRL.A. 1297/2012 & CRL.M.A. 9585/2013
SAMEER @ SONU & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Deepak Vohra, Advocate.
Appellants are present in JC.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Sameer @ Sonu (A-1) and Raj Kumar (A-2) challenge 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 they were convicted under Section 395 IPC and sentenced
to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/- each.
2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 26.06.2007 at
about 03.15 A.M. at Outer Ring Road near CNG Pump, Chandgiram
Akhara, Delhi they with their associates Vikram @ Ganja, Ashok and
Amit committed dacoity of 28 bags of plastic raw material (plastic dana)
loaded in Tempo No. DL-1LH-4864 driven by Jahangir Ali. Vikram @
Ganja was armed with a knife and it was used by him while committing
dacoity. Saleem @ Khan was arrested for receiving robbed articles under
Section 412 IPC. 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 appellants. The prosecution examined fourteen
witnesses. In their 313 statements, the appellants 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 appellants guilty for the offence mentioned previously
and sentenced them accordingly. Being aggrieved, they have preferred the
appeal.
3. During the course of hearing, appellants' counsel on
instructions from them (they were present in custody pursuant to
production warrants) stated at Bar that they have opted not to challenge
their conviction under Section 395 IPC and accept it voluntarily. He
however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellants have already
undergone substantial period of sentence awarded to them and are not
previous convicts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. Since the appellants have not opted to challenge
findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 395 IPC, their
conviction stands affirmed.
5. The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for five years
with fine ` 5,000/- each. Raj Kumar's nominal roll dated 17.05.2013
reveals that he has already undergone three years, three months and eight
days incarceration as on 17.05.2013. He also earned remission for four
months and two days. Nominal roll further reveals that he is not a
previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. His
overall jail conduct is satisfactory. It is further stated that he was working
as a waiter in a restaurant and is to take care of his one year old daughter.
Sameer @ Sonu's nominal roll dated 18.10.2012 reveals that he has
already spent two years, eight months and nine days in custody as on
18.10.2012. He also earned remission for one month and nineteen days.
The period undergone has since increased to more than three years.
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
is married and has four children to take care of them.
6. Taking into consideration these mitigating circumstances, the
substantive sentence of the appellants - Sameer @ Sonu and Raj Kumar is
reduced from five years to four years. Other terms and conditions of the
sentence are left undisturbed.
7. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JULY 25, 2013
tr
