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. 1475/2011
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.81/09 arising out of FIR
No.838/07 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 27.08.2007 at
Defence Colony Flyover at about 06.15 P.M. he deprived Hema Aron of
her debit card and credit card of Standard Chartered bank and ICICI Bank
and jewellery articles at the point of knife. She was also forced to
disclose the code number of her ATM/debit card and thereafter the
appellant ran away on scooter. After recording Hema Aron's statement
(Ex.PW-2/A), the First Information Report was lodged by SI Satyavir
Singh and the investigation was entrusted to SI Gulshan. On 05.09.2007,
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 Pardeep Sainani (since acquitted) who was arrested from his
residence at 14/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi. The appellant declined
to participate in the TIP proceedings. Statements of witnesses conversant
with the facts were recorded. Pardeep Sainani 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 Pardeep Sainani was charged for
committing offence under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution examined 11
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 Pardeep Sainani 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-2 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. 833/2007 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
