Delhi High Court
M.Narsimhan vs State on 24 February, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : February 24, 2014
+ CRL.A.851/2012
M.NARSIMHAN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.J.S.Kushwaha, Advocate with the
appellant produced in judicial
custody.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
SI Pramod Kumar, PS Subhash Place.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for
final disposal today itself.
2. M.Narsimhan (the appellant) is aggrieved by the judgment
dated 22.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.1178/2009 arising out of FIR
No.467/2009 by which he was convicted for committing offence under
Section 392/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 27.11.2010, he was
awarded RI for five years with fine `10,000/-. Allegations against the
appellant were that on 31.08.2009 at about 03.40 p.m. at Inner Ring Road
near F-Block Bus Stand, Shakur Pur, Delhi, he and his associate robbed
Ramu Gupta (complainant) and deprived him of his purse containing
`9,500/- at knife point. Perry Sawmi, appellant's associate who used
knife was apprehended at the spot. The appellant, however, succeeded to
flee the spot with the robbed cash. He was subsequently arrested in this
case. The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish his guilt. In
313, statement, he denied his complicity in the crime and alleged false
implication. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section 392 IPC.
3. During the pendency of appeal, the appellant was enlarged on
bail and substantive sentence was suspended vide order dated 01.11.2012
on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of `20,000/- with one surety in
the like amount. By an order dated 21.11.2013, the surety amount was
reduced to `5,000/-. However, the appellant was unable to furnish the
reduced surety amount due to poverty. Today the appellant appeared in
person pursuant to the issuance of production warrant. On instructions,
appellant's counsel stated at Bar that the appellant has opted to give up the
challenge to the findings on conviction recorded under Section 392 IPC.
He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant has
undergone the substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him.
He is unable to pay fine `10,000/- due to poor economic condition.
Learned APP has no objection to this.
4. Since the appellant has accepted the findings of the trial court
on conviction voluntarily and has opted not to pursue the appeal on this
aspect, in view of the overwhelming evidence in the statement of the
complainant whereby he was identified in the court, his conviction under
Section 392/34 IPC is affirmed. Nominal roll dated 27.06.2012 reveals
that he was under detention for the last two years, nine months and twenty
four days besides remission for two months and five days as on
27.06.2012. The period has since increased to more than four and a half
years. He is not a previous convict and is not involved in any criminal
case. Considering his poor condition whereby he was unable to furnish
the required surety amount in the sum of `5,000/- and the fact that he has
served substantial period of substantive sentence, sentence order is
modified and the period already undergone by him in this case is taken as
substantive sentence. Other terms of the sentence order are left
undisturbed except that the default sentence will be SI for 15 days for
non-payment of fine amount of `10,000/-.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial
Court record along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith. A
copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
February 24, 2014
sa
