Delhi High Court
Shish Ram vs State on 30 January, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 30th JANUARY, 2015
+ CRL.A. 490/2012 & Crl.M.B.11188/2014
SHISH RAM ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Jivesh Tiwari, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. The appellant - Shish Ram impugns a judgment dated
06.03.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case
No.80/09 arising out of FIR No.731/07 under Sections 489B/489C/34 IPC
PS Lajpat Nagar. By an order dated 21.03.2012, the appellant was
sentenced to undergo RI for six years with fine ` 10,000/- under Section
489B and RI for four years under Section 489C. Both the sentences were
to run concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant and co-accused persons -
Jagram and Sunder Dev Kushwaha were that on 20.07.2007 when Sub-
Inspector Pramod Gupta along with other police officials was on
patrolling duty, he reached at Amar Colony Market where Vikrant, a Juice
Vendor called him. On seeing the police officials, two persons standing
there started slipping and were apprehended. Statement of the Juice
Vendor - Vikrant was recorded. He alleged that two persons had come at
his shop at C-13, Amar Colony Market and had asked for two glasses of
juice. They had handed over a fake currency note of ` 500. He got
suspicion and called the police. Both the accused persons, one of which
was the appellant Shish Ram were examined. `60,000/- fake currency
notes were recovered from the appellant-Shish Ram. Fake currency notes
amounting to `64,500/- were recovered from co-accused Sunder Dev
Kushwaha. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. Another co-accused Jagram was apprehended at the instance of
the appellant and his associate and he recovered forty fake currency notes
in the denomination of `500 from his house. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and two
other accused persons. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to bring
home the charges. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his involvement
in the crime and pleaded false implication. The accused persons examined
three defence witnesses, Ram Kishan, Ram Sobhawan and Saroj Prasad.
After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the
evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment held all the accused
persons guilty for the offences mentioned previously. The appellant was
sentenced as mentioned above. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the
appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant, on instructions, stated that the appellant has opted not to
challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however,
prayed to take lenient view as the appellant is not a previous convict and
has suffered substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to
him. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State has no
objection.
4. Since the appellant has accepted the findings of the Trial
Court on conviction and there is ample evidence coupled with recovery, I
am of the view that the prosecution has established its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The findings of the Trial Court on conviction are
affirmed.
5. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for six years
under Section 489B and four years under Section 489C with fine `
10,000/-. Nominal roll dated 05.01.2015 reveals that the appellant has
already remained in custody in this case for three years, ten months and
three days. He also earned remission for eight months and eleven days.
The unexpired portion is only one year, five months and sixteen days as
on 05.01.2015. The appellant is not involved in any other criminal case
and is not a previous convict. His overall conduct in jail is satisfactory.
The co-convict has been released vide order dated 12th January, 2015.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, sentence order
requires modification. The period already undergone by the appellant in
this case shall be taken as substantive sentence under Sections 489 B and
489 C IPC. He will, however, pay the fine amount of Rs.10,000/- and
default sentence for non-payment of fine will be SI for one month.
6. 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
JANUARY 30, 2015 /sa
