Raj Kumar vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 4681 Del

$-R-13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       DECIDED ON : 8th OCTOBER, 2013

+                            CRL.A.No. 577/2001

       RAJ KUMAR                                              ..... Appellant
                       Through :      Ms.Inderjeet Sidhu, Advocate along
                                      with appellant in person.

                             versus

       STATE                                               ..... Respondent

                       Through :      Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Raj Kumar (the appellant), Darshan Kumar and Rahul were

arrested in case FIR No. 716/99 PS Shalimar Bagh and were sent for trial

for committing offences under Sections 392/397/411/34 IPC on the

allegations that on 07.10.1999 at about 01.30 A.M. in front of Income Tax

Colony, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, they robbed Laloo and Sita Ram of cash

` 470/- and Timex watch at the point of knife. At about 01.45 A.M., they

were apprehended at the instance of the complainant by PCR officials and

watch was recovered. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the

facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was

submitted in the Court. The prosecution examined five witnesses. In their

313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. The Trial

Court, by the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2001 in Sessions Case No.

12/2000 convicted all of them under Sections 392/34 IPC. State did not

challenge their acquittal under Section 397 IPC. By an order dated

10.05.2001, the convicts were sentenced to undergo RI for four years each

with fine ` 500 each.

2. During the course of arguments appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that he has opted not to challenge his conviction

under Sections 392/34 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however, prayed

to take lenient view as he has already undergone substantial period of

substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a previous convict and has

clean antecedents. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to

consider the mitigating circumstances. Since the appellant has opted not to

challenge the conviction and there is ample evidence on record coupled

with recovery of the stolen article, conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC

stands affirmed. Nominal roll dated 21.01.2002 reveals that he has

remained incarceration for one year, three months and twenty two days as

on 21.01.2002. He also earned remission for two months and five days.

The period has increased to about two years at the time of enlargement on

bail on 12.08.2002. He has clean antecedents and was not involved in any

other criminal case. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. He was aged

23 years and was unmarried on the day of incident. He is now married and

has a family to take care of. After the appellant was enlarged on bail his

involvement in any criminal activity did not surface. He has suffered the

agony of trial/ appeal for about fourteen years. The fine has already been

deposited. Taking into consideration all these mitigating circumstances,

the appellant - Raj Kumar is sentenced for the period already undergone

by him in this case.

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

Court record be sent back forthwith.

4. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

OCTOBER 08, 2013/tr