Delhi High Court
Pawan Sahani & Anr. vs State Nct Of Delhi on 30 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 30th January, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1265/2011 & CRL.M.B. 1048/2013
PAWAN SAHANI & ANR. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr. Sunil Tiwari, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants Pawan Sahani @ Sunil (A-1) and Akhtar @
Babloo (A-2) have preferred the appeal to challenge their conviction
under Sections 186/353/307/34 IPC by a judgment dated 27.08.2011 in
Sessions Case No.34/09 arising out of FIR No.271/06 registered at Police
Station S.P.Badli. By an order on sentence dated 01.09.2011, they were
awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine `5,000/- each
under Section 307 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three months with fine
`500/- under Section 186 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year
with fine `1,000/- under Section 353 IPC. The sentences were to operate
concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 07.04.2006 at
around 06.40 P.M. Khera Road near Jhuggies of Sector 18, Badli village,
they obstructed SI Pawan Kumar, SI Ritesh Kumar and other member of
raiding party in the discharge of their public duties and in furtherance of
common intention attempted to inflict injuries by firing at them. On
07.04.2006 at around 05.00 P.M. SI Ritesh Kumar received a secret
information that Pawan Sahani @ Sunil (A-1) and Akhtar @ Babloo (A-2)
involved in committing robberies would come in Sector 18, JJ colony
Jhuggies, Rohini to meet their friends. On that secret information a
raiding party was organised and the police team comprising of SI Ritesh
Kumar, ASI Ravinder, HC Hasim Ali etc. left the Crime Branch office in
a government vehicle and recorded Daily Diary (DD) No.13 (Ex.PW7/A).
At about 06.40 P.M. two persons were noticed coming on a motorcycle
number DL-5R-5707 from Khera Road, Ring Road, Delhi going towards
jhuggies of Sector 18. At the pointing out of the secret informer, SI
Ritesh Kumar signalled them to stop the motor-cycle. Instead of stopping
it, they took 'U' turn and in the process they fell down. In the meantime,
A-1 sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle took out a country made
pistol from right side dub of his pant and fired at SI Ritesh Kumar.
However, it did not hit him. Both the appellants were apprehended and
necessary proceedings were conducted at the spot. Statements of
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation a charge-sheet was filed against both of them in the court;
they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined
seven witnesses to prove their guilt. In 313 statements, the appellants
pleaded false implication without examining any witness in defence. The
trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid.
3. During arguments, appellants' counsel on instructions stated
at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge findings of the trial
court on conviction and voluntarily accept it. He, however, prayed to
modify the sentence order as the appellants have clean antecedents and
have remained in custody for substantial period. Learned Additional
Public Prosecution has no objection to it.
4. Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings
on conviction in view of the overwhelming evidence against them, the
conviction as recorded by the trial court is affirmed. A-1's nominal roll
dated 03.02.2012 reveals that he has remained in custody for seven
months and seventeen days besides earning remission for two months and
three days as on 02.02.2012. The custody period is stated to have been
increased to more than three years till date. A-1's conduct in jail was
satisfactory. He has not been shown involved in any criminal case. A-2's
nominal roll dated 17.08.2013 reveals that he has remained in detention
for two years, one month and twenty eight days besides earning remission
for seven months and twenty four days as on 16.08.2013. He is also not
shown to have been convicted in any criminal case. He has clean
antecedents and his overall jail conduct was satisfactory. Vide order dated
21.01.2014, State was directed to file antecedents of the appellants. It is
reported that the appellants were involved in FIR No.669/1998 under
Section 395/398 IPC registered at Police Station Mandir Marg and were
convicted on 13.05.2002. Nominal roll, however, does not depict it. It is
unclear if the appellants had challenged their conviction or have served
the sentence awarded to them. Anyhow, the said involvement pertains to
the year 1998. At the time of apprehension of the appellants, only A-1
allegedly had a country made pistol in his possession. They had no other
incriminating article. It is unclear to whom the motorcycle recovered in
the incident belonged. Even after their apprehension, nothing emerged as
to whom the appellants wanted to meet. They were not found involved in
any criminal case of robbery of trucks as disclosed in the secret
information. No stolen/robbed articles were recovered from their
possession or at their instance. The appellants did not fire repeatedly at
any specific member of the raiding party. No injury was caused to any
police official. Considering these mitigating circumstances, sentence
order is modified and the substantive sentence of rigorous imprisonment
for seven years under Section 307 IPC is reduced to rigorous
imprisonment for three years. Other terms and conditions of the sentence
order are left undisturbed.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
Crl.M.B.No.1048/2013 also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent
back immediately. Copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for
information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 30, 2014
sa
