Delhi High Court
Mohd. Rabool vs State on 19 April, 2016
Author: G. S. Sistani
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. A. 265/2016
% Judgment dated 19 th April, 2016
MOHD. RABOOL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. Smrat K. Nigam and Mr. Abhimanyu
Walia, Advocates.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State with
Inspector Parveen Kumar, SHO, PS-
Prashant Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
Crl. M.(B) 577/2016
1. Present application stands disposed of in view of the following order
passed in the main appeal.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL. A. 265/2016
3. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugning
the judgment dated 28.01.2016 whereby the Additional Sessions
Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Session's Case No. 154/1
held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 411
of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 18.02.2016 sentenced
him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment
for two months for the offence under Section 411 of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The prosecution case in a nutshell is that on 02.02.2010 at about 2:00
p.m., Raju, domestic help of Sh. Praveen Thakur, husband of the
deceased, came to Smt. Anjali and informed her that he had come to
collect the lunch for Praveen Kumar but Smt. Mamta Thakur (since
deceased) was not opening the door despite ringing the doorbell on
which Smt. Anjali sent her maid servant to call the house of
Sh.Praveen Thakur on intercom. After sometime, Smt. Anjali was
informed by her maid that intercom had been picked up by male
person who told her that boy should be sent after 15-20 minutes to
collect the lunch. On this Smt. Anjali got suspicious and rushed to the
house of Sh. Praveen Kumar and found blood lying on floor of
drawing-cum-dining room and also found the dead body of
Smt.Mamta Thakur lying in a pool of blood in the bedroom.
Suddenly, accused Gulshan Taneja came from the back and locked her
inside the bathroom. After few minutes, Kumari Vidhi Thakur,
daughter of Sh.Praveen Kumar came inside the house and opened the
door of the bathroom. Police was called at the spot. It was revealed
that cash amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and jewellary articles had been
robbed from the house. One blood stained knife was found lying
beneath the bed in the bedroom. Another knife having no blood stain
was also found below the sofa in the drawing room. During
investigation, on 05.02.2010 Special Staff arrested the accused Mohd.
Rabool from Rohini, Sector-1, Delhi who made a disclosure that on
02.02.2010, he along with co-accused Gulshan Taneja went to Friends
Tower Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi. He remained present
outside the said apartment whereas co-accused Gulshan Taneja
committed the crime. Two gold bangles and cash amount of
Rs.41,940/- were recovered from the accused Mohd. Rabool. On an
secret information accused Gulshan Taneja was also apprehended
from the Patna Railway Station, Patna.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused and to prove its case, the
prosecution examined 33 witnesses in all. The statement of the
accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure wherein he reiterated his innocence and examined one
witness in his defence.
6. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset submits that
he has instructions not to press the present appeal on merits by which
he has been convicted under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and
to contest the quantum of sentence, which has been awarded to him;
that out of the sentence of three years awarded to the appellant, he has
already undergone two years three months and twelve days as on the
date of filing of the appeal, besides he has earned remission; that the
appellant belongs to a poor family and he is the only bread winner of
his family; that the appellant is a married man and has three minor
children (two daughters and one son) with nobody to support the
family; that the appellant is a first-time offender and has no criminal
background; that so far as sentence of three years is concerned, the
same is harsh and disproportionate to the guilt of the appellant and
hence, leniency may be shown to the appellant by imposing
the sentence already undergone by him.
7. Per contra, Ms. Aasha Tiwari, learned counsel for the State contends
that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 411 of the
Indian Penal Code by receiving stolen goods knowingly which was
looted by accused Gulshan Taneja after committing a murder,
therefore, no leniency may be shown to the appellant so far as
imposition of sentence is concerned.
8. The appellant has been convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal
Code, which reads as under:
"411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property -
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen
property, knowing or having reason to believe the same
to be stolen property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."
9. The Trial Court has returned the finding against the appellant after
proper appreciation of the evidence available on record. The pieces of
evidence ultimately connecting the appellant with the partly robbed
articles i.e. two bangles belonging to the deceased and cash amount of
Rs.41,940/- have been seized from his possession. These bangles were
identified by PW5 Praveen Thakur during the Test Identification
Parade as belonging to the deceased. Hence, we find no reason to
interfere in the impugned judgment. Moreso, appellant also does not
wish to challenge the same.
10. So far as the aspect of sentence is concerned, as per the nominal roll
of the appellant, the appellant has already spent two years three
months and twelve days in incarceration besides remission earned.
The appellant is a young man aged about 36 years having the entire
responsibility of his family including three minor children. The
appellant has a clean antecedent and is not involved in any other
criminal case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Keeping in view
the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the
considered view that the interest of justice shall be served if the
sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to that of the
period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the
appellant under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to the
period already undergone by him and also to pay a fine as directed by
the Trial Court.
11. Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is in
jail. He shall be released forthwith unless required in some other case.
12. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail,
Delhi.
G. S. SISTANI, J
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
APRIL 19, 2016
gr
