Delhi High Court
Mukesh @ Mukka vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 5 May, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : May 05, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1305/2013
MUKESH @ MUKKA ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Suman Chauhan, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Mukesh @ Mukka impugns conviction in Sessions Case
No.39/2008 arising out of FIR No.64/2008 registered at Police Station
Bara Hindu Rao by which he was held guilty for committing offences
punishable under Section 120-B/392/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo
RI for seven years.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the
charge-sheet was that on 13.06.2008 at about 05.00 A.M. opposite shop
No.T-736, Tyre Market, Azad Market, DCM Road in pursuance of
criminal conspiracy, the appellant and his associates Karan Singh @
Deva, Chandan @ Babar and Mohd. Wasim robbed ` 2,500/-, visiting
cards and mobile phone no.9212421161 from the complainant - Manoj
Kumar. They also robbed ` 3,500/-, railway tickets from Deepak Sharma
(PW-1). They were armed with knives at the time of committing robbery
and used deadly weapons to deprive the complainant - Manoj Kumar and
Deepak of their valuable articles. During the course of investigation,
statements of witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. The accused
persons were arrested. The Investigating Officer moved applications for
conducting Test Identification Parade. The accused declined to participate
in the TIP. Robbed articles were recovered at the instance of the accused.
After completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against
them in the Court. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The
prosecution examined 26 witnesses. In their statement under Section 313
Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the
evidence and considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Trial
court, by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant- Mukesh @
Mukka and his associates Chandan @ Babar and Karan Singh @ Deva.
Mohd. Wasim was acquitted of all the charges. Being aggrieved, the
appellant has preferred the appeal.
3. It is pertinent to note that co-convicts Karan Singh @ Deva
and Chandan @ Babar had preferred Crl.A.No.411/2011 and
Crl.A.No.974/2011 which were disposed of vide judgments dated
07.03.2013 and 24.04.2014 respectively by this Court. Conviction of
co-convicts under Sections 392/120-B IPC was sustained. Sentence order
was modified and substantive sentence was reduced to five years. Other
sentences were left undisturbed. Appellant's counsel on instructions has
stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the trial
court under Section 392 IPC. However, she prayed to take lenient view as
the appellant has remained in custody for more than four years. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.
4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of
the Trial Court under Section 392 IPC and the co-convicts for the reasons
mentioned therein have already been held guilty in similar circumstances
under Section 392/34 IPC, the conviction of the appellant under Section
392 IPC is affirmed and for the same reasons, his conviction with the aid
of Section 397 is set aside. Co-convicts were awarded RI for five years.
The appellant's case stands on similar footings. Nominal roll dated
16.09.2013 reveals that the appellant has already undergone incarceration
for four years, three months and fourteen days besides earning remission
for ten months and twenty six days. Apparently, the sentence served by
him till date is more than five years.
5. In the light of the above discussion, conviction of the
appellant under Section 392/120-B IPC is maintained. Order on sentence
is modified and the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant to
undergo RI for seven years under Section 392 read with Section 397 IPC
is reduced to Rigorous Imprisonment for five years. Other sentences are
left undisturbed.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. A copy of
the order be sent to the appellant through Superintendent, Tihar Jail.
7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MAY 05, 2014
sa
