Ashok vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 3215 Del

$-20
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        DECIDED ON : 25th JULY, 2013

+                           CRL.A. 480/2012

       ASHOK                                        ..... 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)

CRL.M.A. 272/2013 (Exemption)

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

CRL.A. 480/2012 & CRL.M.B. 68/2013

1. Ashok (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 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for

five years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 26.06.2007 at

about 03.15 A.M. at Outer Ring Road near CNG Pump, Chandgiram

Akhara, Delhi he with his associates Vikram @ Ganja, Sameer @ Sonu,

Raj Kumar 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 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 the appellant has opted not to challenge his

conviction under Section 395 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 395 IPC, his

conviction stands affirmed.

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

with fine ` 5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 26.11.2012 reveals that he has

already spent two years, eight months and sixteen days in custody as on

26.11.2012. He also earned remission for one month and twenty five 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.

6. Taking into consideration all these mitigating circumstances,

the substantive sentence of the appellant - Ashok 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