Delhi High Court
Rajan Saha vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 23 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 16th January, 2014
DECIDED ON : 23rd January, 2014
+ CRL.A.673/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.960/2013
RAJAN SAHA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Rajeev Kapoor, Advocate.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Rajan Saha (the appellant) questions the legality and
correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11
arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which
he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC.
By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012 he was awarded rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395
and 412 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at
about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road,
Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the
complainant Smt.Seema Sharma and her family members of cash and
gold/silver ornaments using deadly weapons. Daily Diary (DD) No.22
(Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded at 01.05 P.M. at Police Station Dabri
regarding the incident. The investigation was assigned to SI Narender
Singh who with Const.Amar Singh went to the spot. After recording
complainant-Seema Sharma's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) he lodged First
Information Report. Efforts were made to find out the culprits but in vain.
On 31.08.2008 SI Narender Singh received DD No.111-B (Ex.PW5/A)
dated 30.08.2008, which was recorded pursuant to the information
received from SOS/Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi informing
that one of the offenders namely Rajan Saha was arrested under Section
41.1(d) of Cr.P.C. and would be produced before Duty M.M. next day
i.e.31.08.08. It was further informed that Rajan Saha had made a
disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the decoity in question.
Accordingly Rajan Saha was arrested on 31.08.2008. When he declined
to participate in the TIP proceedings, he was taken on remand. TSR mini
door for `2,10,000/- and Hunk motorcycle for `59,000/- purchased out of
the booty in the name of his brother-in-law Manoj was recovered pursuant
to his disclosure statement. The looted mobile phone bearing IMEI
No.359945000295694 of make-Fly with sim No.9910211900 was also
recovered from him. He disclosed the names of the associates and it led
to the apprehension of Mohd.Shakil, Mohd.Vakil, Zaved @ Mukesh and
Guddu. They were also arrested and recoveries were effected at their
instance. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses
conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of
investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them for
committing offences under Sections 395/397/412 IPC and 25/27 Arms
Act. Vide order dated 07.08.2009, the appellant and his associates were
charged under Sections 395/412/397/34 IPC. The prosecution examined
21 witnesses to prove the charges. In 313 statements, the accused persons
denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.
Rajan Saha examined his brother-in-law Manoj Kumar as DW-1 in
defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival
contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment
convicted all of them under Section 395/34 IPC. The appellant, Aziz,
Shakil and Vakil were also convicted under 412 IPC. They were,
however, acquitted under Section 397 IPC and the State did not
challenged the said acquittal. It is unclear if other convicts Mohd.Jahangir
Khan, Mohd.Shakil and Mohd. Aziz have challenged their conviction.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellant-Rajan Saha has opted not to
challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however,
prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone
substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a
previous convict. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection
to it.
4. Since the appellant-Rajan Saha has given up challenge to the
findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 395/412 IPC and
accepts it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the
statements of PW-1 (Seema Sharma), PW-2 (Rajbala) and PW-3 (Noor
Alam), inmates of the house, who identified him as one of the assailants
coupled with recovery of robbed articles at his instance, his conviction is
affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395/412 IPC.
Nominal roll dated 02.08.2013 reveals that he has suffered incarceration
for four years, eleven months and one day besides earning remission for
five months and one day as on 02.08.2013. He is not involved in any
criminal case and his overall jail conduct was satisfactory. It is informed
that the appellant has suffered heart attacks twice in jail and was treated in
DDU hospital and G.B. Pant hospital. He has aged mother who is also
suffering from heart ailments. During appeal, report was called at the
time of consideration of suspension of sentence and it was informed that
the mother of the appellant was referred for heart problem to AIIMS by
the doctor. The appellant has no criminal past history/antecedents and was
the first offender. Though the assailants were armed with deadly
weapons, no physical harm was caused to any of the inmates.
Considering these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of
the appellant is reduced to seven years each under Sections 395 and 412
IPC. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed
except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 25,000/-each
under both the heads would be three months each.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
Crl.M.B.No.960/2013 also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent
back immediately.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2014/sa
