Delhi High Court
Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby vs State Nct Of Delhi on 20 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 20th January, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1473/2011
UTTAM JIT SINGH @ BOBBY ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.K.K.Manan with Mr.Nipun
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
SI Ram, PS Lajpat Nagar.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby (the appellant) questions the
legality and correctness of the judgment dated 16.07.2011 of learned
Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.136/2009 arising out of
FIR No.833/2007 registered at Police Station Lajpat Nagar by which he
was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC.
By an order on sentence dated 18.07.2011 he was awarded rigorous
imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on the night
intervening 25/26.08.2007 at around 01.15 A.M. near Lajpat Bhawan,
Lajpat Nagar-IV he committed robbery and deprived Kunal Sharma of
`8,500/- and gold chain. He also robbed his fiancee Mrigna Rekhi of gold
chain which she was wearing at that time. After recording Kunal
Sharma's statement (Ex.PW-3/A), the First Information Report was
lodged by HC Praveen Kumar and the investigation was entrusted to
Insp.Pramod Gupta. The appellant was arrested in FIR No.545/2007
registered at Police Station Hauz Khas and pursuant to the disclosure
statement regarding his involvement in the instant case, robbed jewellery
articles were recovered from one Suresh Kumar (since acquitted). The
appellant declined to participate in the TIP proceedings. Statements of
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Suresh Kumar was
apprehended for retaining or receiving stolen articles. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for
committing offences under Section 392/397 IPC whereas Suresh Kumar
was charged for committing offence under Section 411 IPC. The
prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish their guilt. In their 313
statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. After
considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the
evidence, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the
appellant under Section 392 IPC. Co-accused Suresh Kumar was
acquitted of all the charges and the State did not challenge the said
acquittal.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has given up challenge to the
conviction recorded by the Trial Court. He, however, prayed to take
lenient view as the appellant has already suffered substantial period of
substantive sentence awarded to him. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has no objection to that.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings
recorded by the Trial Court on merits, in the presence of overwhelming
evidence of PW-3 (Kunal Sharma) and PW-4 ( Mrigna Rekhi) coupled
with recovery of the robbed articles, his conviction under Section 392 IPC
is affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated
29.02.2012 reveals that he suffered incarceration for one year and five
months besides earning remission for two months and seventeen days as
on 27.02.2012. The period has almost increased to four years. It is stated
that the appellant was convicted in case FIR No.545/2007 under Section
392 IPC, FIR No. 838/2007 under Section 392 IPC and FIR No.371/2007
under Section 379/34 IPC. It further transpires that benefit of proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant to give
him a chance to reform. It is informed that the appellant belongs to a well
off family and was involved in criminal cases due to falling in bad
company. The appellant has lost his mother during trial. The order on
sentence records that the appellant was repentful and promised not to
repeat the mistake in future. Considering all these mitigating
circumstances, the period already suffered by the appellant in this case in
custody is taken as his substantive sentence. Other terms of the sentence
order are left undisturbed except that default sentence would be one
month. The sentence order is modified accordingly.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial
Court record be sent back with the copy of the order. Copy of the order
be also sent to Jail Superintendent for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 20, 2014
sa
