Delhi High Court
Deenu vs The State ( Nct Of Delhi) on 2 July, 2015
Author: Ashutoshkumar
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV.P. 357/2015
Date of Decision: 02.07.2015
DEENU ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Udai Raj Singh, Adv.
versus
THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Pramod Saxena, APP.
SI Ravi Shankar, PS Saket.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORDER
% 02.07.2015
Crl.M.A. No. 8946/2015
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Application is allowed accordingly.
Crl.Rev.P.357/2015 & Crl.M.B.7217/2015
1. The revisionist impugns the concurrent judgment of conviction
and sentence of the Trial Court dated 23.02.2015/25.02.2015 and the
Appellate Court judgment dated 06.06.2015, whereby he has been
convicted under Section 411 IPC and has been sentenced to undergo
RI for 1 year, fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of fine
further imprisonment for a period of 3 months, passed by the Trial
Court, in connection with FIR No. 260/2010 (PS Saket), which was
affirmed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No. 9/2015.
2. One Smt. Sunita lodged a complaint alleging that on 14.9.2010
she was snatched of her gold chain (2 tolas) by two motorcycle borne
youth. FIR was registered under Section 356/359 IPC, PS Saket.
3. The Petitioner was arrested in connection with another case and
the gold chain was recovered. The Petitioner was thereafter
interrogated and he made a disclosure statement on 12.11.2010.
4. The Petitioner refused to participate in the test identification
parade on the plea that he was shown to the witnesses.
5. The gold chain was identified by the complainant during the
Test Identification of case property. The Trial Court after examining 7
witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and two on behalf of the
defence, convicted the appellant under Section 411 IPC and sentenced
him as aforesaid.
6. Complainant Smt. Sunita (PW1), identified co-accused Amit as
pillion rider who had snatched her gold chain. On the contrary SI
Virender Singh (PW4), during his cross examination, stated that as per
the disclosure statements of the accused, the petitioner was the pillion
rider who had snatched the gold chain.
7. So far as the incident of snatching is concerned, the offence was
committed on 14.9.2010 at around 11 am and police swung into action
immediately.
8. The Trial Court rightly believed the testimony of PW1 that she
saw co-accused Amit snatching her chain. On this aspect, the evidence
of SI Virender Singh PW4 was discarded as his information was based
on the disclosure statement and he was not a witness to the
occurrence.
9. The statements of the mother of the petitioner Smt. Bimla Devi
and the mother of the co-accused, Smt. Som Wati, who were
examined as DW1 and DW 2 respectively, indicating that the accused
persons were taken for interrogation regarding some petty quarrel in
the night intervening 9/10.11.2010 but were later falsely implicated in
the present case, was disbelieved by the Trial Court.
10. The seizure memo of the gold chain (Ex. PW7/C) stood proved
in the trial.
11. The Trial Court, consequently convicted the appellant under
Section 411 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. The Appellate
Court upheld the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
12. This court, after examining the records of the case, is satisfied
as to the correctness, legality and propriety of the findings leading to
conviction.
13. It has been submitted at the bar, that the petitioner has remained
in jail for 97 days.
14. Interest of justice would be served if the sentence imposed on
the petitioner is modified to the extent of the period of custody which
he has already undergone.
15. The sentence of the petitioner is accordingly modified as period
already undergone.
16. The criminal revision petition is disposed of accordingly.
17. No order need be passed in Crl. M.B. No. 7217/2015 in view of
the aforesaid modification of the sentence.
18. The Petitioner be released from jail forthwith, if not required in
any other case.
19. A copy of this order would be transmitted to the superintendent
of the concerned jail
(ASHUTOSH KUMAR)
Judge
JULY 02, 2015/ab
