Maula Baksh vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 474 Del

$-20
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                   DECIDED ON : 24th JANUARY, 2014
+                 CRL.A. 415/2011 & CRL.M.A. 1148/2014
       MAULA BAKSH                                       ..... Appellant
                             Through :   Mr.Sumeet, Verma, Advocate.
                             VERSUS
       THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)          ..... Respondent

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. Maula Baksh (the appellant) impugns the legality and

correctness of a judgment dated 25.05.2010 of learned Additional

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 37/2008 arising out of FIR No.

55/2008 PS Ashok Vihar by which he was convicted for committing

offences under Sections 397/394/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated

26.05.2010, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 10,000/- under

Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC; RI for seven years with fine `

10,000/- under Section 394 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate

concurrently.

2. First Information Report was lodged by Nitin Mehta who

disclosed to the police that on 21.02.2008 at about 05.00 P.M. he was

sitting in Ashoka Park. Manmohan Bhasin came to him and informed that

S.K.Chadda had received injuries and asked for the car. S.K.Chadda was

taken in the car to hospital. On the way to the hospital, S.K.Chadda

informed them that when he reached near Maharaja Agarsen School on

foot after getting down from the bus, two boys came from behind;

assaulted him with a blade; and, robbed him of his wallet containing

`800/-. Mr.Chadda was taken to Dr.Singhla who was not available at his

clinic. The victim was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. Police arrived

there vide Daily Diary (DD) No. 21 and formal FIR No. 55/08 was

recorded at PS Ashok Vihar. During investigation, accused Maula Baksh

and Mohd. Shahid were arrested. A surgical blade and photograph with

papers were recovered from them. S.K.Chadda expired on 21.02.2008 at

07.15 P.M. and was declared dead due to Myocardial ischaemia as a result

of coronary in-sufficiency. Post-mortem on the body was conducted.

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 both in the Court; they were duly charged and

brought to trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In 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, held both of them

guilty for the aforesaid offences. It is not clear if Mohd. Shahid challenged

the conviction.

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

instructions stated at Bar that Maula Baksh has opted not to challenge the

findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He informed that the appellant

had already served the substantive sentence and at present he is serving

default sentence. He prayed to modify the default sentence. Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.

4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of

the Trial Court on conviction for the aforesaid offences, the same are

affirmed. Nominal roll dated 30.12.2013 reveals that he has served his

substantive sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court on 23.12.2013.

The default sentence started from 24.12.2013. The appellant has been

awarded default sentence of total fine ` 20,000/- SI for two years. In my

view, the default sentence SI for two years awarded by the Trial Court is

excessive and unreasonable. The appellant due to poverty is unable to pay

the fine and has already served default sentence for one month. Taking

into consideration Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of

'Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat', 2012 (10)

SCALE 21, where the default sentence was reduced from three years to

six months, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of ` 20,000/-

and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for three months.

Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.

5. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of the

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

any) be sent back immediately.

CRL.M.A. 1148/2014 In view of the above, the application stands disposed of being infructuous.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JANUARY 24, 2014/ tr