Delhi High Court
Mohd. Sakeel vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 7 March, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 7th MARCH, 2014
+ CRL.A.No. 1080/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.3932/2014
MOHD. SAKEEL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Mohd. Sakeel (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. Sakeel (the appellant), 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, Rajan Saha and Vakil
were also convicted under 412 IPC. They were, however, acquitted under
Section 397 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal. It is
unclear if other convicts Mohd.Jahangir Khan and Mohd. Aziz have
challenged their conviction.
3. It is relevant to note that convict - Rajan Saha preferred
Crl.A.No. 673/2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 23.01.2014.
While maintaining conviction under Sections 395/412 IPC recorded by
the Trial Court, Sentence order qua Rajan Saha was modified and the
substantive sentence awarded for ten years was reduced to seven years.
The default sentence for non-payment of `25,000/- each under Section
395 and 412 IPC was reduced to three months each.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved
Crl.M.A.No.3932/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for release on the
period already undergone by him in custody. Learned counsel for the
appellant on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant - Mohd. Sakeel
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 treat the case of the appellant at par with that of Rajan
Saha.
5. Since the appellant - Mohd. Sakeel 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 27.02.204 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for
five years, four months and twenty seven days besides remission for seven
months and twenty six days. He is not involved in any criminal case and
his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He is the only bread earner of the
family consisting of his wife and two minor sons. He has lost his only
brother during trial. The appellant has no criminal past
history/antecedents and is 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.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back
immediately with the copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to
Superintendent Jail for information.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 07, 2014/tr
