Delhi High Court
State (Gnct Of Delhi) vs Pradeep @ Jaat & Anr. on 3 February, 2017
$~37
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 3rd FEBRUARY, 2017
+ CRL.A.1087/2014
STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.
Versus
PRADEEP @ JAAT & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through : Mr.Ashish Bansal & Ms.Kanika
Bhardwaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Instant appeal preferred by the State for enhancement of the
sentence is contested by the respondents.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. It is a matter of record that both the respondents were
convicted in case FIR No.168/2013 PS Dabri. Respondent No.1 was
convicted for committing offence punishable under Sections 392/397/34 IPC
whereas respondent No.2 was held guilty for committing offence punishable
under Sections 392/34 IPC. It is also a matter of record that vide order dated
17.05.2014 both the respondents were ordered to be released on probation
on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of `10,000/- each with surety in
the like amount for a period of one year. The concerned Probation Officers
were directed to keep supervision over the convicts.
3. Learned APP urged that the sentence awarded by the learned
Trial Court is inappropriate considering the gravity of the offences whereby
an innocent individual was robbed of his mobile and other articles by the
respondents along with their associates.
4. Perusal of the Sentence Order reveals that before awarding
sentence, the Trial Court had requisitioned reports from the Probation
Officers. The detailed report of the District Probation Officer,
Mujjafarnagar revealed that respondent No.1 was below 21 years of age on
the day of commission of offence; he was educated upto 10 th standard; was
presently employed in a private service on a monthly salary of `10,000/-; the
convict belonged to a lower middle class but respectable family; his father
was a farmer; his brother was well settled and sister was studying in 8 th
class; parents were keen to improve the convict.
5. Detailed report of District Probation Officer, Dwarka, revealed
that respondent No.2 was aged around 24 years and was presently employed
in a private service on a monthly salary of `6,200/-; the convict belonged to
poor strata of the society and was supporting his wife and two children being
the sole bread earner. His brother was in the business of vegetables. The
convict did not have any past criminal record.
6. Considering all these facts, the Trial Court in its wisdom,
instead of awarding minimum sentence prescribed under Section 397 IPC
preferred to grant benefit of probation to both the respondents to help them
to re-unite in the social fabric.
7. I find no illegality and material irregularity in the impugned
order. Learned Trial Court had applied its mind while awarding sentence
and had taken into consideration the detailed reports called from the
Probationary Officers. The respondents are not previous convicts and are
not involved in any other criminal case. It is relevant to note that before
grant of bail, they had remained in custody for sufficient duration.
8. It is further pertinent to note that initially the complainant did
not implicate respondent No.1 for 'using' any crime weapon; he was not
even medically examined. No harm was caused to the complainant. The
complainant did not assign any specific role to the respondents and their two
other associates who could not be apprehended during investigation. It is
further relevant to note that except mobile, nothing else was recovered from
the possession of the respondents. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement it has been
fairly admitted by the respondents that the mobile was recovered from
respondent No.1. Plausible explanation has been offered that this mobile
was purchased by respondent No.1 from someone. All these facts though
not relevant for considering respondents' guilt at this juncture in the absence
of filing any appeal by them against conviction, are nevertheless relevant to
be taken into consideration at the time of awarding the sentence. The
respondents were not apprehended at the spot.
9. It is informed that after release on probation, none of the
respondents was found indulged in any other criminal activity and they have
successfully completed the period of probation.
10. Considering all these facts and circumstances and citation
'Masarullah vs. State of Tamil Nadu', AIR 1983 SC 654, I find no merit in
the instant appeal to enhance the sentence awarded to the respondents by the
Trial Court.
11. The appeal lacks in merits and is dismissed. Trial Court record
be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 03, 2017 / tr
