Delhi High Court
Mohd.Riyaz vs The State on 10 September, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2015
+ CRL.A.85/2015
MOHD.RIYAZ ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Dinsh Malik, Advocate with
Mr.Gurpreet Singh, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP with
SI Bharat, PS Kotwali.
Complainant in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 14.10.2014 of learned
Special Judge, NDPS, in Sessions Case No. 91/12 arising out of FIR
No.152/12 PS Kotwali by which Mohd. Riyaz (the appellant) was held
guilty for committing offences under Sections 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act,
he has filed the instant appeal. By an order dated 18.10.2014, he was
sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine `10,000/- under Section
307 IPC and SI for one year with fine `5,000/- under Section 25 Arms
Act. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-
sheet was that on 27.06.2012 at about 10.10 p.m. complainant - Mohd.
Shahid was going towards his house. When he reached in front of House
No.4897, Gali Kucha, Ustad Dagg, Chandni Chowk, Delhi, the appellant
threatened to kill him. He inflicted 3 - 4 knife blows on his body. The
Investigating Officer (PW-10 ASI Naresh Kumar) took over the
investigation. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant in the Court. The prosecution examined ten
witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant
pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in his defence.
The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has given up
challenge to the findings recorded by the Trial Court on conviction. He,
however, prayed to take lenient view as the matter has been settled with
the complainant / victim and the appellant has remained in custody for
sufficient duration. Learned APP has no objection to take lenient view.
4. Since the appellant has opted to give up challenge to the
findings on conviction, it is affirmed.
5. Nominal roll dated 13.05.2015 reveals that the appellant has
already undergone two years, two months and twenty days incarceration
besides remission for two months and thirteen days as on 12.05.2015.
Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant is a first time offender and
is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail conduct is
satisfactory. He was aged around 19 ½ years on the day of occurrence.
The parties are related to each other and the occurrence had taken place
due to a family dispute. The complainant, who has appeared today has
been identified by the Investigating Officer. He has reported to have
settled the dispute with the appellant and has no objection to modify the
sentence order. Status report also reveals that the complainant has
amicably settled the dispute with the convict with his free consent without
any undue pressure. Settlement deed dated 12.05.2015 is on record.
6. Considering the changed circumstances, Sentence Order is
modified to the extent that period already undergone by the appellant in
this case shall be treated as substantive sentence. He shall, however,
deposit fine `15,000/- in Court / Jail.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The
appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any
other criminal case on deposit of fine `15,000/- in Court / Jail.
8. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back immediately with the
copy of the order. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail
immediately for information.
9. Pending application (if any) also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 10, 2015 / tr
