Shahabuddin vs State Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 2671 Del

$-13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : 23rd MAY, 2014

+                    CRL.A.No. 1428/2012
      SHAHABUDDIN                                       ..... Appellant
                          Through :   Mr.Rahul Kumar, Advocate.
                          versus
      STATE NCT OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

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

1. The appellant - Shahabuddin questions the legality of a

judgment dated 24.02.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in

Sessions Case No. 52/11 arising out of FIR No. 25/10 PS Bhalaswa Dairy

by which he was convicted under Sections 392/34 IPC. By an order dated

05.03.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for four years with fine

`5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant as revealed in the charge-

sheet were that on 19.02.2010 at about 05.15 P.M. at Service Road, near

Khatta Bhalaswa Bridge / Pul, he and his associate Vasu (facing trial

before Juvenile Board) sharing common intention robbed Anil Kumar of `

320/- at blade point. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The trial

resulted in appellant's conviction only under Sections 392/34 IPC. The

State did not challenge acquittal of the appellant under Section 397 IPC.

3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, appellant's

counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant is not interested to

pursue the appeal for conviction recorded under Sections 392/34 IPC. He,

however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already

undergone substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him.

To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection. Since the

appellant has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on

conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC which is based upon the cogent

evidence of the complainant Anil Kumar coupled with recovery,

conviction under Sections 392/34 IPC is affirmed. Nominal roll dated

24.01.2013 reveals that he has already undergone eleven months and

nineteen days incarceration besides remission for two months and fifteen

days as on 24.01.2013. Order-sheet dated 27.08.2013 records the

undergone period as one year and seven months. The appellant was

granted suspension of sentence on furnishing personal bond in the sum of

` 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount. He, however, could not

furnish the required surety bond which was subsequently reduced to

`10,000/- by an order dated 28.10.2013. He remained in custody despite

grant of suspension of sentence due to his economic poverty to furnish the

required bond. Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant has clean

antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail

conduct is satisfactory. At the time of the crime, he was aged around 20 or

21 years. Considering all these circumstances, the period already

undergone by the appellant in custody is taken as substantive sentence

under Sections 392/34 IPC. The appellant shall be released forthwith if

not required to be detained in any other case.

4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. Superintendent

jail be informed accordingly.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 23, 2014 / tr