Delhi High Court
Anmol Singh @ Raju vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 4 October, 2013
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~31.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 1255/2013
% Judgment dated October 04, 2013
ANMOL SINGH @ RAJU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Vishal Sehjpal, Adv.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Firoz Khan Ghazi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
CRL.M.A.15029/2013.
1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A.15030/2013.
3. This is an application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 44
days' delay in filing the present appeal.
4. Notice. Learned counsel for the appellant accepts notice and does not
oppose the present application.
5. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.
Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
6. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.A. 1255/2013.
7. Present appeal has been filed by the petitioner under Section 374(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 18.5.2013
and order on sentence dated 22.5.2013 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.83/2011 whereby the appellant was
directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of
Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC read with
Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and in default of payment of fine simple
imprisonment for five days.
8. The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the trial court, is as under:
"(1) As per the allegations on 11.11.2009 at 6:00 PM at Kewal
Park Extension, Jhakri Chottewali Gali, Azadpur, Delhi, the
accused Anmol Singh @ Raju committed robbery of one bag
containing a driving license and Rs.2,150/- belonging to
complainant Nishar-ul-Huque on the point of Churi / knife.
Case of Prosecution in brief
(2) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 11.11.09 on the
receipt of DD No.56B, ASI Kuldeep Singh along with Ct. Sanjeev
reached at Cable Park Extension, Sikri (narrow) Gali, Azadpur
where HC Bharat Bhushan of Traffic Police met them along with a
person namely Nishar-ul-Haque and HC Bharat Bhusan had
already caught hold of a young boy and Nishar-ul-Haque was
having a black coloured bag and a knife in his hand.
(3) The Investigating Officer recorded the statement of
complainant Nishar-ul-Haque who informed the police that he use
to work in Azadpur Mandi and was doing the work of collecting the
money from various shop owners. According to him on 11.11.2009
at about 6 PM he was returning home from Mandi on his Scooter
No.bearing DL4 SL 2203 (make Chetak) after collecting money was
having some cash and license with him in a bag which he had kept
in the open tokri of the scooter. He has further informed the police
that when he stopped the scooter due to traffic jam, one boy came
from behind and lifted the bag from his scooter which bag was of
grey black colour having monogram of Star containing Rs.2,150/-
(two notes of Rs.500/- ten notes of Rs.100/- and three notes of
Rs.50/- denomination) wrapped in handkerchief. According to him,
he thereafter raised an alarm and started chasing that boy and on
hearing the voices the public persons surrounded that boy and he
(victim) was near that boy he took a knife and threatened saying
"Chaku se phar dunga". The complainant has further told the
police that in the meantime one Traffic Police Personnel also
reached there and that boy was apprehended and on interrogation
he disclosed his name Anmol Singh after which the knife was
removed from his hand by the Traffic Police official and the bag
was also taken into possession by the police and in the meantime
the local police reached the spot. Thereafter, rukka was prepared,
accused was arrested and after completing the investigations the
charge sheet was filed before the Court.
CHARGE:
(4) Charges under Section 392/397 Indian Penal Coe and under
Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act, were settled against the accused
Anmol Singh @ Raju to which he pleaded not guilty and claim
trial."
9. The prosecution in all has examined eight witnesses. No witnesses was
examined by the defence despite opportunity granted.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant
submits that he does not wish to argue the matter on merits, however, he
prays that his sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.
11. It is contended by counsel for the appellant that the appellant is 32 years
of age, this is his first offence and he has clean antecedents. Counsel
further submits that the family of the petitioner includes his wife, child
and old and ailing mother, and the petitioner is the only bread earner of
his family. Counsel, thus, prays that having regard to the nature of
offence, the sentence awarded to the appellant should be modified to the
period already gone.
12. Notice. Learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice and has
opposed the present appeal. Counsel further submits that the trial court
has weighed all these circumstances and thereafter awarded sentence.
13. I have heard counsel for the parties and also perused the evidence placed
on record. The order on conviction passed by the Trial Court is upheld.
As per the nominal rolls the unexpired portion of the sentence of the
appellant is one year, one month and fifteen days as on 16.9.2013. Having
regard to the nature of the offence and also taking into consideration that
the appellant has clean antecedents, this is his first offence, his age and
the family members dependent on him, in the facts of this case the order
of conviction is upheld and the sentence of the appellant is reduced from
two years to one year. The petitioner shall be released after his
completion of one year of his total sentence.
14. Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
CRL.M.(BAIL)1978/2013
15. In view of the order passed in the appeal, the bail application stands
dismissed.
G.S.SISTANI, J
OCTOBER 04, 2013
msr
