Deepak Kumar @ Deepu vs The State
2013 Latest Caselaw 1381 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                     DECIDED ON : 20th March, 2013
+                 CRL.A. 1092/2010 & CRL.M.A.12522/2012
      DEEPAK KUMAR @ DEEPU                  ....Appellant
              Through : Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate.
                                versus
      THE STATE                                  ....Respondent
               Through :        Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant- Deepak Kumar @ Deepu S/o Bharat Singh

challenges judgment dated 16.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.89/2008

arising out of FIR No. 194/2004 PS Shahdara, by which, he and his

associates were convicted and sentenced. The appellant was held guilty

for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394/411/34 IPC.

Vide order dated 19.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten

years under Section 394/34 IPC with fine ` 3,000/- and RI for three years

under Section 411 IPC.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on the night

intervening 09/10.06.2004 at 12.30 A.M. near Hanuman Mandir,

Shahdara, the appellant and his associates Sanjay, Harish Kumar @ Pintu,

Rohtash and Deepak S/o Babu Lal robbed TSR driver- Krishan Dev

Pathak of cash ` 5,200/-, mobile phone, office key and I- card. They also

caused injuries to him with knife while committing robbery. The

prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In

their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused pleaded false implication. The

Trail Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the

offences described previously and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the

present appeal has been preferred.

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

appellant Mr.Sumeet Verma, Advocate, on getting instructions from the

appellant present in person pursuant to issuance of production warrant

stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction under

Section 394/411/34 IPC. He however, prays to take lenient view and

reduce the substantive sentence from RI for ten years to RI for seven

years.

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

examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to

challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections

394/411/34 IPC, order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that allegations

against the appellant are very serious whereby he and his associates

robbed an innocent person during night and deprived him of cash and

mobile phone. Nominal roll dated 17.03.2013 reveals that there are five

different FIRs under different Sections pending against the appellant. He

has also been convicted in three different FIRs under different Sections.

The antecedents of the appellant are not clean. He deserves no leniency.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role

assigned to the appellant in the incident, in my view, interest of justice

would be served if his prayer to grant him RI for seven years instead of

ten years is accepted. He has already remained in custody since long.

6. Considering all the facts and other circumstances of the case,

order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of the

appellant is reduced from RI for ten years to RI for seven years. Other

sentences are left undisturbed.

7. The appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in the

above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.

8. The Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2013/tr