Jauddin @ Pappu vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 218 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : 10th January, 2014

+      CRL.A. 260/2003

       JAUDDIN @ PAPPU                                   ..... Appellant
                    Through :           Mr.J.P.Singh, Advocate with
                                        Mr.Rahul Kr.Singh, Advocate.
                           VERSUS
       THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                  ..... Respondent
                     Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                               SI Laxmi Narain, PS Rohini.
        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The appeal is listed today for directions and with the consent

of the parties, is disposed of today.

2. Jauddin @ Pappu (the appellant) is aggrieved by a judgment

dated 12.09.2001 in Sessions Case No.169/2001 arising out of FIR

No.389/98 registered at Police Station Rohini by which he and his

associate Kali Charan were convicted for committing offences punishable

under Section 458/392 read with Section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act.

3. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.06.1998 at

about 09.30 P.M. at house No.F-17/162 Sector-8, Rohini, he and his

associates Kali Charan and Israj committed robbery using deadly

weapons. Complainant- Hari Om happened to reach at his residence and

saw the assailants committing robbery. He raised alarm and with the

assistance of the public persons was able to apprehend the appellant and

Kali Charan at the spot. The deadly weapons were recovered from their

possession. Israj succeeded to escape from the spot. The information was

given to the police and DD No.66B was recorded. The Investigating

Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Hari Om's

statement. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses

conversant with the facts were recorded. Israj was apprehended

subsequently at Bus Stop. Robbed articles were recovered from the

possession of accused persons. After completion of investigation, a

charge-sheet was submitted against all of them in the court. They were

duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses

to substantiate the charges. In their 313 statement, the accused persons

pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. On

appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the

parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted both the

appellant and Kali Charan for the offences mentioned previously. Israj

was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted of all the charges. It is

relevant to note that the State did not challenge his acquittal. It appears

that Kali Charan who had undergone the sentence awarded to him did not

prefer to challenge the judgment.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the

course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions from the

appellant stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take

lenient view as the appellant had remained in custody for substantial

period. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on

conviction in the presence of overwhelming evidence, his conviction for

offences mentioned in the judgment is confirmed. Nominal roll dated

22.05.2013 reveals that the appellant remained in custody for five years

besides earning remission for eight months and fourteen days. He was

enlarged on bail on 24.01.2004. He has clean antecedents and was not

involved in any criminal case. Nothing has emerged if after enlargement

on bail he was involved in any criminal activity or misused the liberty

granted to him. The appellant has suffered ordeal of trial/appeal for about

15 years. Regarding modification of order on sentence, it reveals that

he was awarded minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC i.e. seven

years. However, this case has peculiar circumstances and interest of

justice compels the Court to reduce the sentence. The appellant preferred

the appeal against the impugned order of 2001 from jail. The appeal was

admitted on 20.05.2003. Trial Court record was requisitioned vide order

dated 30.04.2003. The substantive sentence of the appellant was

suspended till the disposal of the appeal as the appellant had already

undergone actual imprisonment of about four years and four months and

had earned a remission of over five months vide order dated 20.05.203. It

is relevant to note that the original record was not traceable. Attempts

were made to reconstruct the original record to appreciate the appeal on

merits. However, the Trial Court was unable to reconstruct the original

record to scrutinize the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses

on merits. The documents on record are not at all sufficient to finally

decide the appeal on merits.

5. Learned APP has no objection if the power under Section

482 Cr.P.C is exercised and the minimum sentenced awarded to the

petitioner/appellant RI for seven years is reduced to the period already

undergone by him in this case. Considering the peculiar and special

circumstances where the original record is not available and taking into

consideration all the facts and circumstances recorded above, for special

and adequate reasons, the order on sentence is modified and the appellant

is sentenced to undergo the sentence for the period already suffered in

custody by him in this case.

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

Court record be sent back forthwith. Copy of the order be sent to the jail

Superintendent for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE JANUARY 10, 2014 sa