Delhi High Court
Deepak vs State on 12 February, 2016
Author: S. P. Garg
$
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 04, 2015
DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 12, 2016
+ CRL.A. 1713/2014 & Crl. M A No. 16274/2015
DEEPAK ..... Appellant
Through : Mr. S K Sethi with Ms. Dolly
Sharma Advocates
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Vinod Diwakar, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
Deepak to impugn a judgment 18.10.2014 of learned Additional Sessions
Judge in Sessions Case No.56/13 arising out of FIR No.15/10 PS New
Delhi Railaway Station whereby he was convicted along with his
associates under Section 392 read with Section 397 and 411 IPC. By an
order dated 18.10.2014, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for seven
years under Sections 392/397 IPC with fine `5000/- and Rigorous
Imprisonment for two years under Section 411 IPC. Both the sentences
were to operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant and his associates were that
on 28.01.2010 at about 2.00 a.m. (night) on a running train, he and his
associates committed robbery of various articles belonging to Sukhdeep
Singh and his family members travelling in coach No.D-I of Himalayan
Queen Express at the point of knives.
3. During pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed
Crl.M.A.No.16274/15 for release on the period already undergone by
him. Learned counsel for the appellant stated at Bar that the appellant has
opted not to challenge the findings recorded by the Trial Court under
Section 392/411 IPC. He urged that offence under Section 397 IPC is not
proved as no deadly weapon was 'used' by the appellant in the crime. He
prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellant is not a previous
convict and is not involved in any other criminal case.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. On perusal of the statements of the material
witnesses/victims, it stands established that the appellant and his
associates were armed with deadly weapons and had robbed them by
putting them in fear. The police was able to recover knives from two co-
convicts during investigation. PW-1 (Sukhdeep Singh), complainant and
victim, specifically deposed that all the assailants including the appellant
were armed with knives and they used deadly weapons to commit
robbery. In the cross-examination, no suggestion was put to the witness if
the appellant was not armed with any such weapon. Similar are the
testimonies of PW-2 (Ranjeet Kaur), PW-3 (Baljeet Kaur), PW-5
(Manjeet Kaur), PW-6 (Simran Kaur), PW-8 (Raman Mehta) and PW-10
(Pawan Kumar). There are no sound reasons to disbelieve their
statements. They did not nurture any grievance against the appellant to
falsely implicate him in the crime. The appellant and his associates were
duly identified by them in the court. Certain robbed articles were also
recovered from the appellant's possession. Non-recovery of the crime
weapon from the appellant is not fatal as he was arrested after
considerable period. I find no illegality or material irregularity in the
impugned order, whereby the appellant was convicted with the aid of
Section 397 IPC. Even otherwise, the offence committed by the appellant
and his associates in a running train is very serious and grave. No
adequate and sufficient reasons exist to take lenient view. Minimum
sentence for seven years prescribed under Section 397 IPC cannot be
modified. The sentence order is modified only to the extent that the
default sentence for non-payment of fine of `5,000/- will be Simple
Imprisonment for one month instead of two months. Other terms and
conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial
Court record along with the copy of the order be sent back forthwith.
Intimation be also sent to the Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 12, 2016
sa
