Delhi High Court
Kanhiya vs State on 7 June, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of order: June 07, 2017
+ CRL.A. 1085/2016
KANHIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Saahila Lamba, DHCLSC
Panel Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Chandan Singh
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% ORAL
1. Impugned judgment and sentence holds appellant guilty of the
offences under Sections 307/392/394/397/34 of IPC and Section 411 IPC
and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of ten years for
offence under Sections 307/394/34 IPC with fine of `10,000/- with
default clause and for offence under Section 392/34 IPC, he has been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of `2,000/-
with default clause. Appellant has been also sentenced for rigorous
imprisonment of seven years for offence under Section 397/34 IPC and
for offence under Section 411 IPC, appellant has been sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of `1,000/- with default
clause. However, all the sentences awarded to appellant have been
directed to run concurrently.
2. The facts of the case, as noted in the impugned judgment, are as
under:-
"Stating briefly as per prosecution story, it is alleged
that on 11-1-2011, a PCR call was received from mobile
no.9810880712 that the brother of caller, who resident of
WZ-572/D, Naraina Village has been stabbed which was
recorded vide DD No. 33A and handed over to HC
Subhash. In the mean time, another DD No.34A was
received at about 11.20 p.m. on 11-1-2011 that one Jugal
Kishore, s/o Bhim Singh has been admitted in DDU
Hospital vide MLC No.565/11 and SI along with staff
reached DDU Hospital where the injured was declared
unfit for making statement and on next day, i.e. 12-1-2011
in the morning SI got recorded the statement of injured
Jugal Kishore who had stated that he is working in
Chandan Optical Eye Centre at Raja Garden as Assistant
and on 11-1-2011, he came back to his house from office at
about 9.30 p.m. and he had gone to bring Chhole Bhature
at10.15 pm from Mangal Bazar, Naraina Vihar but he
could not get the same and at about 10.30 p.m. he was
returning from the park situated behind C Block Gurdwara
then in the park he was caught hold of two young persons
and both the young persons were in their early twenties and
one of them was wearing a jeans blue colour jacket and a
ear ring in his right ear has put a knife in his stomach and
another boy in the age group of 24-25 years, who was
wearing a grey colour jacket has put the knife on the back
of victim. Both the accused persons abused him in the
name of his mother and sister and asked him to hand over
his mobile and money immediately, otherwise, he will be
finished and despite having fear, victim dared to oppose
them and, thereafter, both the accused persons stabbed the
victim in his stomach as well as in his back and they
snatched his mobile LG colour Black Model GW 300 along
with his wallet containing I- card and Rs.700/- and he kept
on crying but nobody was present at that time and on
seeing that blood was oozing out from the body of victim,
accused persons fled away and victim in the injured
condition went to Mangal Bazar but no help was provided
to him by anyone and somehow he managed to go to his
house where his brother was present and he narrated the
whole incident to him and he was taken to Behl Hospital,
Naraina where doctor referred him to DDU hospital and he
can identify the accused persons if brought before him"
3. On the strength of evidence of complainant and other witnesses,
trial court has held appellant guilty for the offences in question and has
sentenced him to the period as narrated above.
4. At the outset, learned Counsel for appellant submits that at the time
of commission of offence, appellant was in his twenties and that he is a
poor person and is sole bread earner of his family. It is submitted that by
now, appellant has undergone sentence of more than seven years and his
conduct in jail has been satisfactory and that appellant has already
undergone the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under
Section 397 IPC. It is pointed out that there is no minimum sentence for
the remaining above referred offences. So, it is submitted that the
sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period
already undergone by him.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State
supports the impugned judgment and order on sentence and submits that
the sentence awarded to appellant is just and appropriate.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of evidence on record, I find that the
conviction of appellant is well merited. However, order on sentence needs
to be varied. Considering the fact that appellant is in jail for last more
than seven years with remissions and Nominal Roll of appellant indicates
that his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and also the fact that the
status report filed by respondent-State on record does not disclose any
previous involvement of appellant, the substantive sentence awarded to
appellant for offences under Sections 307/392/394/34 of IPC is reduced
to seven years while sentence under Section 397 of IPC and the fine
imposed for remaining offences is maintained. However, on parity basis
the period in default of payment of fine for the offence under Section 394
is reduced from 06 months to 02 months. The substantive sentences shall
ofcourse run concurrently.
7. If appellant has served out the modified sentence of seven years
and has paid fine or has already undergone the period in default of
payment of fine, then he be released forthwith, provided he is not wanted
in any other case.
8. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
9. The concerned Jail Superintendent be intimated forthwith to
apprise appellant about the fate of this appeal.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
June 07, 2017
r
