Delhi High Court
K.P.Singh vs The State on 22 October, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER, 2013
DECIDED ON : 22nd OCTOBER, 2013
+ CRL.A. 337/2001
K.P.SINGH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.R.M.Tewari, Advocate with
Ms.Jyoti Tewari, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
ASI Prabhakaran, PS Delhi Cant.
AND
+ CRL.A. 338/2001 & CRL.M.A. 1796/2001
SUMAN LATA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.R.M.Tewari, Advocate with
Ms.Jyoti Tewari, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
ASI Prabhakaran, PS Delhi Cantt.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. K.P.Singh (A-1), Than Singh, Suman Lata Chauhan (A-2) ,
Ram Nath and Brij Raj Singh were arrested in case FIR No. 486/87,
Police Station Delhi Cantt. and sent for trial for committing offences
under Sections 120B IPC, 302/364/467/471/419 IPC read with120B IPC.
By a judgment dated 09.05.2001 in Sessions Case No. 56/96, A-1 and A-2
were held guilty for committing offence under Section 120B IPC. Ram
Nath was convicted under Section 120B, 419/467 IPC read with Section
120B IPC. Proceedings against Than Singh were dropped as abated due to
his death. Brij Raj Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B
IPC. By an order dated 15.05.2001, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to
undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 100/- each. It is significant to note
that State did not come in appeal to challenge the judgment dated
09.05.2001. Though A-1 and A-2 were charged for hatching conspiracy to
murder Ram Partap, their landlord, to grab the rented accommodation
House No. RZ-14/1, Ashok Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi, but they were
acquitted of the charge of said conspiracy due to lack of evidence. A-1
and A-2's conviction is under Section 120B IPC simplicitor.
2. During the hearing of the appeals, appellants' counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that A-1 and A-2 have opted not to challenge the
findings of the Trial Court for conviction under Section 120B IPC and
accept it voluntarily. He however, prayed to release the appellants for the
period already undergone by them in this case. Learned APP has no
objection to it.
3. Since the appellants - A-1 and A-2 have accepted their
conviction under Section 120B IPC voluntarily and have given up their
challenge to conviction, the findings of the Trial Court to that extent are
confirmed / affirmed. The incident occurred in 1987. The appellants have
suffered ordeal of trial / appeal for about twenty five years. A-1 and A-2
remained in custody for fifteen months and fourteen months, respectively,
before release on bail / enlargement on bail. They are not involved in any
other criminal case. They were acquitted of the charge of murder of their
landlord Ram Partap. In their 313 statements, the appellants never claimed
themselves to be the owner of the property in question on the basis of the
forged and fabricated documents. They are not beneficiaries in the
transaction as the property in question was allegedly disposed of by the
relatives of Ram Partap whose whereabouts are unknown. Ram Nath was
found guilty for forging and fabricating documents. It is unclear whether
he challenged the judgment. In view of these circumstances, sentence
order requires modification. A-1 and A-2 are sentenced to undergo the
period already spent by them in this case.
4. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back forthwith if not required in any other case. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 22, 2013/tr
