Mohd. Yusuf vs State Of Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 5485 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                               DECIDED ON : 27th November, 2013

+                              CRL.A. 469/2000
       MOHD. YUSUF                                   ..... Appellant
                         Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate.

                         Versus

       STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                     ..... Respondent
                     Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.

CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Mohd.Yusuf (the appellant) and Charanjeet @ Bittoo were

arrested in case FIR No.261/1997 under Sections 393/307/397/34 IPC

registered at Police Station Shalimar Bagh and sent for trial on the

allegations that on 23.04.1997 at about 09.00 P.M. in front of House

No.AH-61, Shalimar Bagh, they attempted to rob Inderjit Kapoor while

armed with country made revolvers. Mohd.Yusuf fired from the revolver

and attempted to murder Ct.Shambhu Dayal who chased him after the

robbery attempt. First Information Report was lodged after recording

Inderjit Kapoor's statement (Ex.PW3/A) at 10.50 P.M. The appellant was

caught hold at the spot by the police officials whereas Charanjeet @

Bittoo fled the spot. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts

were recorded. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory.

After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against

both of them in the court and they were duly charged and brought to trial.

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove their guilt. In their 313

statements, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false

implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival

contention of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held

Mohd.Yusuf guilty for committing offence only under Section 307 IPC.

It is relevant to note that Charanjeet @ Bittoo was acquitted of all the

charges and the State did not challenge the acquittal. Being aggrieved, the

appellant has preferred the appeal.

2. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that appellant has opted not to challenge the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 307 IPC. He,

however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant had no

history of criminal record and had remained in custody for more than five

years in the case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection

to consider the mitigating circumstances. By an order dated 17.05.2000

Mohd.Yusuf was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years with fine

`5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 25.12.2010 shows that he remained in

custody for five years two months and nine days besides earning

remission for one year, one month and five days as on 06.04.2004. He

was not involved in any criminal case and his overall jail conduct was

satisfactory. After his enlargement on bail on 06.04.2004 nothing has

emerged to show involvement in any criminal case. Co-accused

Charanjeet @ Bittoo was acquitted on the same set of evidence. In the

incident, none suffered any injury. The complainant did not implicate the

present appellant for committing robbery. Considering the mitigating

circumstances, the period already spent by the appellant in custody in this

case is taken as substantive sentence. He shall, however, deposit the

unpaid fine (if any) in the Trial Court within one month and in default,

shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months.

3. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial

Court record along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith. A

copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE November 27, 2013/sa