Delhi High Court
Imran @ Pehlwan vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 22 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 21st JANUARY, 2014
DECIDED ON : 22nd JANUARY, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1324/2011
IMRAN @ PEHLWAN ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.R.P.Luthra, Advocate with
Mr.Sourabh Luthra, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Imran @ Pehlwan (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated
19.08.2011 in Sessions Case No. 3/10 arising out of FIR No. 329/2009 PS
Seemapuri by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable
under Section 307 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 01.09.2011, he was
awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.09.2009 at
about 09.40 P.M. at road No. 62, New Indira Market, Old Seemapuri, he
and his associate in furtherance of common intention fired three rounds in
an attempt to murder Jasvinder. During the course of investigation, Imran
@ Pehlwan was apprehended and arrested in case FIR No. 429/09 PS
Amar Colony under Section 25 Arms Act. Pursuant to his disclosure
statement (Ex.PW-13/A) his involvement in the present case emerged.
The Investigating Officer apprehended his associate Suleman @ Rohit @
Pehlwan on his disclosure. TIP Proceedings were conducted in which,
Imran @ Pehlwan was identified by PW-3 (Mohit Chauhan). Statements
of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both
Imran @ Pehlwan and Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan. Vide order dated
26.02.2010, Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan was discharged. It is relevant
to note that State did not challenge the said order. The prosecution
examined twenty witnesses to substantiate the charges against the
appellant. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication and denied his
complicity in the crime. He examined DW-1 (Mohd. Salim) in his
defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and
appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned
judgment, held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously
and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the
appeal.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his
conviction under Section 307 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however,
prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone
substantial period of sentence awarded to him. Learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.
4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of
the Trial Court on conviction under Section 307 IPC, his conviction stands
affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with
fine ` 5,000/- each. Nominal roll dated 21.11.2013 reveals that he has
already undergone four years, one month and sixteen days incarceration
besides earning remission for two months and twenty two days as on
20.11.2013. The appellant was arrested in case FIR No. 265/09 PS
Khajuri Khas for committing offences under Sections 307/327/506/34 IPC
along with his associates Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan and Sultan. By a
judgment dated 17.09.2011, in Sessions Case No. 11/10, he and Sultan
were acquitted of the charges. Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan was
convicted under Section 325 IPC and awarded RI for three years with fine
` 2,000/- only. The complainant was unable to identify the appellant as
assailant. PW-3 (Mohit Chauhan) in the Court statement was not sure
about the identity of the assailant. PW-5 (Suleman), TSR driver, did not
recognize the appellant as assailant. The occurrence took place all of a
sudden without any specific motive. The assailant did not rob the
complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant by the fire rounds
were on his left arm. Final opinion regarding the nature of injuries could
not be given as the patient absconded from the hospital. Taking into
consideration these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of
the appellant - Imran @ Pehlwan is reduced from seven years to five
years. Other terms and conditions of the sentence are left undisturbed.
5. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the
order be sent to Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 22, 2014/tr
