Shibu Semol vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 1393 Del

$-7
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        DECIDED ON : 14th MARCH, 2014

+                 CRL.A.983/2011 & CRL.M.A.No. 3344/2014
       SHIBU SEMOL                                          ..... Appellant
                            Through :     Ms.Indermeet Sidhu, Advocate
                                          with Mr.Parikshit Mahipal,
                                          Advocate.
                     versus
       THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)       ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. By a judgment dated 15.07.2010 in Sessions Case No.

53/2009 arising out of FIR No. 543/2005 PS Kalyan Puri, Shibu Semol

(the appellant) was convicted under Sections 452/307/506 IPC. By an

order on sentence dated 19.07.2010, he was awarded RI for three years

with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 452 IPC; RI for seven years with fine

`20,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506

IPC. Allegations against him were that on 18.10.2005 at about 11.45 A.M.

at house no. F-73, Gali No. 2, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi, he fired twice

with a country-made pistol at the victim - Richa in an attempt to murder

her. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

2. During arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated

at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the

Trial Court on conviction under the aforesaid offences in view of

overwhelming evidence of the complainant / victim (PW-1 Richa @

Gudia) coupled with medical evidence. Prayer was made to modify the

sentence order as the appellant has already undergone substantial period

of substantive sentence awarded to him. To this, learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has no objection.

3. Since the conviction under Sections 452/307/506 IPC is not

under challenge and the appellant has accepted it voluntarily in view of

the clinching evidence of the complainant supported by medical evidence,

the findings of the Trial Court are affirmed. Nominal roll dated

13.02.2014 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for three years, nine

months and seven days besides remission for one year, three months and

three days as on 10.02.2014. The unexpired portion of sentence was one

year, eleven months and twenty days on that day. It further reveals that he

is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case.

His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order dated 19.07.2010

records that the appellant was a young man with clean antecedents and

had no history of any criminal nature. He was a person of clean

antecedents. The offence was an outcome of his love having gone sour

and was committed more out of emotion and passion than a criminal

intent. The victim did not suffer any injury in the occurrence. The

appellant has voluntarily offered to pay ` 25,000/- as compensation to the

complainant on his own. Considering all these circumstances, the sentence

order is modified and the period already spent by the appellant in custody

is taken as substantive sentence. Other terms and conditions of the

sentence order are left undisturbed. The appellant shall deposit ` 25,000/-

in the Trial Court within 15 days and this amount shall be given as

compensation to the complainant / victim after due notice. Needless to

say, compensation awarded by the Trial Court shall also be given to the

complainant / victim.

4. 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. A copy of the order be sent to the

Superintendent jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 14, 2014/tr