Delhi High Court
Akhilesh vs State on 7 June, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of order: June 07, 2017
+ CRL.A. 244/2016
SITA RAM ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Dinesh Malik, DHCLSC
Panel Counsel
+ CRL.A. 268/2016
AKHILESH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae
with Mr. Neeraj Bhardwaj,
DHCLSC Panel Counsel
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kamal Kumar Ghei,
Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State with SI Raj Pal,
Police Station Uttam Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% ORAL
1. The above captioned two appeals are directed against common
impugned judgment of 12th January, 2016 vide which the appellants in
these two appeals have been held guilty for the offence under Section
392/34 of IPC and vide impugned order on sentence, they have been
sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for eight years with fine of `5000/-
each, with default clause.
2. Since these appeals arise out of common impugned judgment and
order on sentence, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties,
these two appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
3. The facts as noted in the impugned judgment are as under :
"As per the case of the prosecution are that on the
intervening night of 09/10.01.2011 at about 09.45 pm, the
accused persons namely, Akhilesh, Sita Ram and Shafique Khan
alongwith their fourth associate namely Jafar (not arrested so
far) entered in the house of complainant, committed robbery of
several articles of jewellery, mobile phones and keys of shop.
They were having pistol and knives in their hands at the time of
commission of robbery. It is also alleged that after committing
robbery in the house of complainant, they also committed
robbery at the shop of witness namely Hari Kishore where gun
shots were also made. Accused Akhilesh and Sita Ram were
arrested while in possession of robbed articles on 22.01.2011
and weapons were also recovered at their instance. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet qua accused Akhilesh
and Sita Ram was filed.
Accused Shafique Khan was initially declared proclaimed
offender but he was subsequently arrested on 15.06.2012 and
one some stolen article was also recovered from his possession.
One supplementary charge-sheet was filed qua him."
4. Trial court has relied upon evidence of the complainant and other
witnesses to convict and sentence appellants for the offences as noted
herein above. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submit that
appellants are poor persons and they have family responsibilities to
shoulder. It is further submitted that appellants have already undergone
sentence of more than six years and as per Nominal Roll on record, their
conduct in jail has been satisfactory. It is also submitted on behalf of
appellants that no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence under
Section 392 IPC and so, the sentence awarded to appellants be reduced to
the period already undergone by them and the sentence of fine imposed
upon appellants and also the sentence in default of payment of fine, be
suitably reduced.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supports
the impugned judgment and submits that the sentence awarded is just and
appropriate. However, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent-State does not dispute that offence under Section 392 IPC
does not carry any minimum sentence.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the evidence on record, I find that
conviction of appellant is well merited but order on sentence needs to be
varied, as appellants are said to be poor persons and they have families to
support. As per the nominal roll of the appellants, their conduct in jail has
been satisfactory and by now, they have undergone more than six years of
sentence including remission.
7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence
awarded to both the appellants is reduced from eight years to six years,
while sentence of fine is maintained but the period in default of payment
of fine is reduced from six months to one month. It is made clear that if
appellants have served out the modified sentence of six years and have
paid fine or have already undergone the period in default, then they be
released forthwith, provided they are not wanted in any other case.
8. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed to the extent
indicated above.
9. The concerned Jail Superintendent be intimated forthwith to
apprise appellants about the fate of these appeals.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
June 07, 2017
r
