Delhi High Court
Suraj Kumar Mukhiya vs State on 7 June, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: June 07, 2017
(i) + CRL.A. 1/2015
SANJAY MUKHIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Biswajeet Kumar Patra,
DHCLSC Panel Counsel
(ii) + CRL.A. 2/2015 & Crl.M.(B) 320/2017
SURAJ KUMAR MUKHIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj,
DHCLSC Panel Counsel
(iii) + CRL.A. 469/2015 & Crl.M.(B) 403/2017
UMESH MUKHIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj,
DHCLSC Panel Counsel
(iv) + CRL.A. 504/2015 & Crl. M(B) 479/2017
RANJIT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Jatin Rajput, DHCLSC
Panel Counsel
Versus
Crl.A.1/2015 Page 1 of 6
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Sandip Shrivastava,
Police Station Maurya Enclave,
Delhi
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% ORAL
1. The above captioned four appeals arise out of a common impugned
judgment of 14th October, 2014, vide which appellants- Sanjay, Suraj,
Ranjeet and Umesh have been found guilty for the offence under Section
395/34 IPC and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
ten years with fine of `10,000/- each with default clause. Trial court has
also held appellant/accused- Ranjeet guilty for the offence under Section
397 IPC and has sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for seven years
but both the sentences awarded to appellant- Ranjeet have been directed
to run concurrently. However, appellant/accused- Ranjeet has been
acquitted for the offence under Section 27 of The Arms Act.
2. Since challenge to the impugned judgment and order on sentence
by counsel for appellants in these four appeals is on similar grounds,
therefore, with the consent of counsel representing both sides, these four
appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
judgment.
3. The facts as noted in the impugned judgment are as under:-
"In her statement to the police, the
complainant Smt. Veena Manchanda alleged that
03.05.2011 at about 3:30 PM she was alone at her
above house and her servant Sanjay was sitting in the
lobby while she was inside her room and was taking
medicine after taking her lunch. She has further
stated that the AC of her room was on and suddenly
five persons entered her room while Sanjay remained
sitting in the lobby. She has further stated that Suraj,
Pradeep, Umesh, Ranjit and Amlesh entered her
room: Umesh who was having red coloured
chemical on his hands and tried to close her eyes on
which she got afraid at the same time one of them
stated "ise farsh par leta do" after which they pushed
her on the floor and Pradeep, Suraj and Ranjeet
started maar-peet with her while Sanjay removed the
keys of the Almirah from the drawer of her bed and
he along with Umesh and Amlesh started removing
the cash and jeweleries kept in the almirah and when
she objected, the accused Ranjeet showed her a knife
and threatened her not to raise an alarm. She has
further stated that Suraj pushed her neck towards the
floor so that she is not in a position to see anything
but in that process she gave a teeth bite on the finger
of Ranjeet and blood started oozing out after which
they took her near the bathroom and tied her hands
and legs with chunnies while the others went to other
rooms and removed two laptops make Sony and HP
and after taking all the cash and jewellery, they all
fled away from the spot but before that they also lifer
her mobile phone and also cut the wire of the land
line phone. She further stated that thereafter, she
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
somehow managed to free herself and opened the
speaker of land line phone and informed her husband
about the incident who at that time was at his shop.
She has further stated that when her husband came
home and checked the Almirah, he found the cash
amount Rs.13 lacs, 15 to 20 tola jewellery, artificial
jewellery, coins and some foreign currency and other
articles missing. She has further informed the police
that Sanjay was employed by them as servant for four
days prior to the incident; Suraj and Amlesh had also
worked in her house as servant and Pardeep was
their Chacha who used to meet them (Suraj and
Amlesh). She also informed the police that about two
years back one Ganesh who was known to these
accused, had also worked in her house as servant and
these accused including Ranjeet and Umesh used to
come to meet Ganesh and hence she knew the
accused namely Sanjay, Suraj, Pradeep, Amlesh and
Ranjeet prior to the incident."
4. The appellants herein were put on trial for the aforesaid offences
and on the strength of evidence of complainant (PW-13) and her husband
(PW-12), Harjender Kumar (PW-20) a relative of complainant, SI Pukhraj
(PW-22) and Inspector Bijender Singh (PW-23), trial court has while
discarding the version of appellants-accused of false implication, held
that the prosecution case stood proved against appellants-accused
persons.
5. In paragraph No.121 of the impugned judgment, the details of
recovered robbed articles have been spelt out and it has been specified as
to from which appellant-accused, which of the robbed article was
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
recovered.
6. In pursuance to the production warrants issued against appellants,
they have been produced in court in custody.
7. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellants that
appellants-accused are poor persons and they have families to support.
They are the bread earner of their families and each one of them has been
behind the bars for past seven years. It is submitted that no minimum
sentence is provided for the offence under Section 395/34 of IPC and so,
while taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to appellants be
reduced to the period already undergone by them and quantum of fine
imposed upon appellants and also the sentence in default of payment of
fine be suitably reduced.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State supports the impugned judgment and order on sentence
and submits that the sentence awarded is just and appropriate.
9. Upon hearing and on perusal of evidence on record, I find that the
impugned judgment is well merited but order on sentence needs to be
varied. While taking into note the fact that appellants are poor persons
and are in their twenties and as per their Nominal Roll, they are not
previous convicts, the substantive sentence awarded to appellants for the
offence under Section 395/34 IPC is reduced from ten years to seven
years but the quantum of fine and period in default thereof is maintained.
However, the sentence awarded to appellant/accused Ranjit for offence
under Section 397 IPC is not interfered with and is maintained. If the
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
appellants have served out the modified sentence of seven years and have
paid fine or have already undergone the period in default of payment of
fine, then they be released forthwith, provided they are not wanted in any
other case.
10. These four appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
11. The appeals and applications are accordingly disposed of.
12. The concerned Jail Superintendent be apprised of the fate of these
appeals forthwith for compliance.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
June 07, 2017
r
Crl.A.2/2015
Crl.A.469/2015
Crl.A.504/2015
