Delhi High Court
Madan Lal vs State on 29 November, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 29th November, 2013
+ CRL.A. 300/2004
MADAN LAL
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Chetan Lokur, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant-Madan Lal challenges judgment dated
22.01.2004 and order on sentence dated 23.03.2004 in Sessions Case No.
481/96 arising out of FIR No. 80/83 PS Tuglak Road by which he was
convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections
395/397/398/452/450/455/347 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for seven
years with total fine ` 2,200/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 02.05.1983 at
about 07.15 A.M. at Kothi No. 31, Golf Links, he and his associates -
Satpal, Hem Singh, Tirath Singh and Bansi Lal committed dacoity and
decamped with gold ornaments and other household articles belonging to
Ramesh Kohli and Sunita Kohli in a taxi No. DLT 2644. The assailants
used deadly weapons while committing dacoity. During the course of
investigation, the assailants were arrested and robbed articles were
recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them and they
were brought to trial. The prosecution examined twenty two witnesses to
substantiate the charges. On appreciation of the evidence and considering
the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned
judgment convicted all assailants including the appellant - Madan Lal for
the offences mentioned previously. It is significant to note that Satpal died
during the pendency of the trial and the proceedings against him were
dropped as abated. Hem Singh and Bansi Lal challenged the judgment in
Crl.A.No. 306/2004. The said appeal stood abated on their death.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant on instructions from Madan Lal stated at Bar that the appellant
has opted not to challenge the conviction under the aforesaid offences. He
however, prayed for modification of the order on sentence as the appellant
has already served custody for about more than 3 years.
4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have
examined the record. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the
findings of the Trial Court on conviction under the aforesaid offences and
has accepted it voluntarily, the order on conviction stands affirmed.
Madan Lal was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years. Vide order dated
17.08.2006, substantive sentence was suspended and he was admitted to
bail and enlarged on bail. Nominal roll dated 29.07.2006 reveals that he
had already undergone 3 years, 3 months and 15 days incarceration as on
27.07.2006 including remissions out of total imprisonment of seven years.
He remained in custody thereafter before enlargement on bail on
17.08.2006. He is aged about 40 years. The appellant was not involved in
any other criminal case. His overall conduct in the jail was satisfactory.
The appellant has remained on bail for the last seven years and nothing
has come on record that during this period he indulged in any other
criminal act or misused the liberty. No useful purpose will be served to
send the appellant to jail again to undergo the remaining period of
sentence. Similar benefit has been given to co-convict Tirath Singh in
Crl.A.No.290/2004. There are peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case to modify sentence. The Trial Court Record was not traceable despite
best efforts. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Trial Court
could not be reconstructed. In the absence of statements of the prosecution
witnesses, it is highly difficult to appreciate the evidence. Learned APP
has no objection if the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C is exercised and
the minimum sentenced awarded to the petitioner/appellant RI for seven
years is reduced to the period already undergone by him in this case.
Considering the peculiar and special circumstances where the original
record is not available and taking into consideration all the facts and
circumstances recorded above, for special and adequate reasons, the order
on sentence is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the
sentence for the period already spent by him in this case.
5. Since the appellant has been released for the sentence already
undergone by him, he need not surrender before the Trial Court/Jail
Superintendent. Copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar
Jail for information. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms. Bail
bond and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged. Re-constructed
Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of this order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 29, 2013/sa
