Satish @ Sonu vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 268 Del

$-6
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       DECIDED ON : 15th JANUARY, 2014

+                             CRL.A. 878/2012

       SATISH @ SONU                                         ..... Appellant

                              Through :   Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
                              versus

       THE STATE (GOT. OF NCT) DELHI                         ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

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

1. Satish @ Sonu (the appellant) impugns the legality and

correctness of a judgment dated 10.10.2011 of learned Additional

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 43/2011 arising out of FIR No.

202/2008 PS Subzi Mandi by which he was convicted for committing

offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years

with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 31.07.2008 at

about 03.00 - 04.00 P.M. after dropping a passenger complainant -

Nurain Baitha, an auto driver, came out from Mahindra Park with TSR

No. DL-1RE-0511 and the appellant boarded the TSR to go to Hindu Rao

Hospital. On the way, the appellant got stopped the TSR and when the

complainant demanded the fare, he took out a knife and snatched ` 190/-

from him. He also gave a knife blow on his head and escaped after

inflicting injury. He was chased and apprehended at some distance. The

Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording

complainant's statement. During the course of investigation, statements of

the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion

of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant in the

Court. The prosecution examined five witnesses. In 313 statements, the

appellant denied his complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in his

conviction.

3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that Satish @ Sonu has opted not to challenge

his conviction under Section 394 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. She

however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant is not a previous

convict and has remained in custody for about three years. Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order

accordingly. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge findings of the

Trial Court on conviction under Section 394 IPC in the presence of

overwhelming evidence, his conviction stands affirmed. The appellant

was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine ` 5,000/-. Nominal

roll dated 31.07.2013 reveals that he has already undergone one year, ten

months and twenty nine days incarceration besides earning remission for

six months and seventeen days as on 30.07.2013. The period already

undergone has since increased to about three years. Nominal roll further

reveals that his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. It is further stated that

he is the sole bread earner of the family and has a wife, two children and

old aged mother to take care of them. Considering all these mitigating

circumstances, the sentence order is modified and the period already

suffered by the appellant in custody in this case is taken as substantive

sentence.

4. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The appellant

be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. A copy of the

order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information. Trial Court record be

sent back immediately.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JANUARY 15, 2014/ tr