Delhi High Court
Raj Kumar vs The State (Nct) Of Delhi on 9 March, 2016
$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of hearing and order: 9th March 2016
+ CRL.REV.P. 681/2015 & Crl.M.B. 8001/2015
RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Robin Singh Sirohi, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, APP for the State
with SI Satpal, PS Pahar Ganj.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
%
P.S. Teji, J. (Oral)
1. By this petition filed under Section 397 read with Section 401
of the Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment of
conviction dated 05.12.2014 and order on sentence dated 16.02.2015
passed by learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Central),
Delhi, whereby the petitioner had been convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 356/379/411 IPC in case FIR No.116/2011
under Sections 356/379/411 IPC, Police Station Paharganj and has
been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine
of Rs.2,500/- for offence under Section 379 IPC; simple
imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,500/- for offence under
Section 356 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The petitioner also
seeks to challenge the orders dated 08.10.2015 whereby the appeal
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge Central, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
2. The case of prosecution is that on 21.07.2011 at about 11.25
p.m. when the complainant was returning back from his work and
about to enter his house, the petitioner snatched his mobile phone and
tried to flee from the spot but could not succeed. The complainant
apprehended the petitioner at the spot and made a call to police at
no.100. The police officials reached at the spot and arrested the
petitioner. The mobile phone recovered from the petitioner was
seized at the spot and statement of the complainant was recorded.
The petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section
356/379/411 IPC. The trial commenced and the prosecution had
examined 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the petitioner. After
concluding the trial the Trial Court vide judgement dated 05.12.2014
had held the petitioner guilty for the offence punishable under Section
356/379/411 IPC and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year and fine of Rs.2,500/- for offence under Section 379 IPC
and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.2,500/- for
offence under Section 356 IPC, in default of payment of fine, he shall
further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.
3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not
press the present petition on the judgment on conviction but restricts
his arguments on the quantum of sentence only. Counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone the
sentence for a period of 10 months and only 6 months are left to be
completed. The petitioner is a poor persond and has a family to
support, therefore the sentence imposed upon the petitioner be
reduced to the period already undergone.
4. Mr. Rajat Katyal, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
appears on behalf of the State and submits that the sentence imposed
upon the petitioner is justified and does not call for any interference
from this Court.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone
through the impugned judgments and orders and the nominal roll of
the petitioner.
6. After considering the submissions advanced by both the sides
and upon perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no
illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction of the
petitioner-accused. However, on the quantum of sentence, this Court
observes that the petitioner is a poor person and has a family to
support, and this Court observes that the present case is of the year
2011 and the petitioner has already faced agony of these proceedings
for about 5 years, and that he has already remained behind the bars in
this case for about 10 months. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that ends of justice would be met if the petitioner's substantive
sentence is reduced. Consequently, the period of imprisonment is
reduced from one year to 9 months for the offence under Sections 356
and 379 IPC.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present revision petition
is partly allowed on the quantum of sentence to the extent indicated
above. Trial Court be apprised of this order forthwith by sending copy
of this order.
8. The present revision petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms.
9. Application Crl.M.B. 8001/2015 is also disposed of.
P.S.TEJI, J
MARCH 09, 2016
dd
