Delhi High Court
Munni @ Munija vs State on 18 November, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 18th NOVEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.REV.P.207/2015
MUNNI @ MUNIJA ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Ahlawat, APP with SI
Vishvendra.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
CRL.M.A.No.5047/2015
1. For the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation of
delay in filing the revision petition, the delay is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of.
CRL.REV.P.207/2015
1. The instant revision petition has been preferred by the
petitioner - Munni @ Munija to impugn the legality and correctness of a
judgment dated 03.02.2014 in Crl.A. 53/13 by which judgment dated
22.06.2013 and order on sentence dated 29.07.2013 passed by learned
Metropolitan Magistrate in case FIR No. 170/05 under Sections
363/365/368/120B IPC at PS Seemapuri, were upheld. The revision
petition is contested by the respondent.
2. Allegations against the petitioner along with her associate
Satish Kumar were that on or before 03.04.2005, they hatched criminal
conspiracy whereby Satish Kumar agreed to purchase the kidnapped baby
for a sum of `5,000/- from the petitioner. The petitioner was assigned the
job of kidnapping a child aged about one and a half year and was given
advance of `1,000/- for that purpose. Pursuant to that conspiracy the
petitioner kidnapped the baby from his parental house at 10.00 a.m. on
03.04.2005 and confined her in Satish Kumar's house at Bhatinda, Punjab.
After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both of
them in the Court. The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. In 313
Cr.P.C. statements the accused persons claimed innocence and denied
their involvement in the crime. They examined DW-1 (Manoj Kumar) and
DW-2 (Kala) in defence. The Trial resulted in their conviction. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred. It is
unclear if co-convict Satish Kumar has challenged the conviction.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioner, on instructions, stated that the petitioner has opted not to
challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however,
prayed to take lenient view as the petitioner has already undergone
substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to her. To this, learned
Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection.
4. Since the petitioner has given up challenge to the findings
recorded by the Trial Court, her conviction is affirmed. The petitioner was
sentenced to undergo RI for three years under Section 120B IPC read with
Sections 363/365/368 IPC and RI for three years under Sections 363/365
IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Both the sentences were to operate
concurrently. Nominal Roll dated 06.11.2015 reveals that the petitioner
has already undergone two years, five months and twenty-two days
incarceration besides remission for three months and twenty-five days as
on 06.11.2015. The unexpired portion on that day was two months and
thirteen days only. It further reflects that the petitioner is not a previous
convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. Her overall jail
conduct is satisfactory. She is aged around 56 years. She is suffering from
various ailments as reflected in the medical report attached with Nominal
Roll.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Sentence Order is modified to the extent that the period already undergone
by the petitioner in this case shall be taken as substantive sentence. She
shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other
criminal case.
6. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 18, 2015 / tr
