Delhi High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of Delhi on 1 April, 2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 480/2003
Judgment reserved on : 27th March, 2014
% Judgment pronounced on : 01st April, 2014
SANTOSH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sandeep Gupta, Adv. with
Appellant in person.
versus
STATE OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.O.P. Saxena, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
JUDGMENT:
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order of conviction
under Section 25 (1B) of Arms Act in Sessions Case no.68/2002 arising out
of FIR no.369/2001, Police Station Sultanpuri.
2. In the abovesaid FIR a challan had been filed against the appellant-
accused for the offence under Section 307/452 IPC and Section 25/27/54/59
of the Arms Act. Vide order dated 27.05.2003 while the appellant-accused
was acquitted for the offence under Section 307/452 IPC, his conviction was
upheld for the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Vide order dated
28.05.2003 the appellant-accused was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to
undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant-accused was
released on bail vide order of this court dated 23.07.2003. As per record, he
had already deposited the fine.
3. Although the order of conviction under Section 25 (1B) has been
challenged by the appellant on various grounds, during the course of
arguments he has voluntarily stated through his counsel that he did not wish
to challenge his conviction under Section 25 (1B) Arms Act but confine his
arguments on the point of sentence. It is submitted that he is not a previous
convict and he is not involved in any other crime at any point of time except
the present case and he was a young boy at the time of his conviction in the
year 2003 and within this 11 years he is not involved in any way with the
world of crime and, therefore, a lenient view be taken and a he be released
on probation.
4. Learned APP for the State has conceded that there is no other case
pending against the appellant and that it was the only case in which he has
been convicted. It is, however, submitted that the sentence awarded was
proper and justified.
5. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions of the parties
and have gone through the record.
6. From the perusal of the record it is apparent that the appellant-accused
was apprehended at the spot by the public on 4.4.2001 at about 2.30 p.m.
for stabbing Smt.Sunita in her abdomen. She was removed to the hospital.
The appellant-accused was in custody of the public when the Investigating
Officer reached at the spot. He took the personal search of the appellant-
accused and recovered a Button actuated knife from his possession.
Smt.Sunita, in her deposition, before the court failed to identify the
appellant-accused as her assailant and finding no other evidence against the
appellant-accused to connect him with the commission of crime under
Section 307/452 IPC, he was acquitted by the trial court of the charges but
since the police officials including the investigating officer had corroborated
each other regarding the recovery of knife from the possession of the
appellant-accused, he was convicted for keeping button actuated knife but
since the prosecution failed to prove that the knife was used for commission
of offence, he was convicted for the offence under Section 25 (1B) of the
Arms Act.
7. In the background of this case where the complainant has failed to
identify the appellant-accused as her assailant and where the appellant-
accused has been acquitted of the graver charges of the offence under
Section 307/452 IPC and Section 25/27 of the Arms Act but convicted for a
lesser charge of keeping the button actuated knife in his possession and
because he was not found involved into any other case even at that time in
the year 2003 and during this period of 11 years which has elapsed since he
was first arrested in this FIR no.369/2001, I take a lenient view and while
upholding the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act sentence the
appellant-accused for the period already undergone by him.
8. With modification in order of sentence the appeal is disposed of.
9. The Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the Jail
Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar.
10. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court.
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
APRIL 01, 2014
rb
