Delhi High Court
Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 20 March, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 20th MARCH, 2014
+ CRL.A.1073/2012
MOHD. AZIZ @ GUDDU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI .... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Open Court)
1. Mohd.Aziz @ Guddu (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
Mohd.Aziz @ Guddu (the appellant). They were also arrested and
recoveries were effected at their instance. Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu got
recovered a buttandar knife used in the offence along with two gold rings.
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. Rajan Saha, Aziz, Shakil 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.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellant - Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu 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 - Mohd. Aziz @ Guddu 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 30.08.2012 reveals that he has suffered
incarceration for three years, ten months and twenty three days besides
remission for one month and four days as on 25.08.2012. He is not
involved in any criminal case and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory.
It is informed that the appellant is aged about 26 years and is unmarried.
He has old and sick parents to look after. 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. Trial
Court record be sent back immediately.
6. Order dasti.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 20, 2014/ tr
