Delhi High Court
Shiraj @ Sirajuddin vs State on 13 June, 2017
$1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 13th June, 2017
+ CRL.A. 635/2015
SHIRAJ @ SIRAJUDDIN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S. Azad, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for
the State with SI G.P. Pal, PS
Civil Lines.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
JUDGMENT(ORAL)
1. Appellant Shiraj @ Sirajuddin stood trial in the court of
sessions in Sessions Case No. 26/2010 on the basis of report under
Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C)
submitted on conclusion of investigation into first information report
(FIR) No. 165/2009 of police station Civil Lines. Besides him, six
other persons had been sought to be prosecuted out of which one
Gulzar Albi (second accused), however, was discharged by order
dated 21.07.2010 of the trial court. On conclusion of the trial, by
judgment dated 09.04.2015, all the six persons including the appellant
were held guilty and convicted. The appellant herein, shown in the
array before the trial court as fifth accused, was found guilty and
convicted for offences punishable under Sections 341/365/392 read
with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1960 (IPC). By subsequent
order dated 29.04.2015 he, besides similarly placed other convicted
persons, was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one month for
offence under Sections 341/34 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for four
years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Sections 365 read with
Section 34 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of
Rs. 5,000/- for offence under Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC.
The learned trial judge accorded benefit of set off in terms of Section
428 Cr.P.C.
2. By the appeal at hand, challenge was brought to the judgment
finding the appellant guilty and convicting him as also to the order on
sentence.
3. When the appeal has come up for hearing, the learned counsel
for the appellant submits that he does not press the appeal on merits so
as to challenge the finding of guilty or conviction for the above-
mentioned offences, restricting his prayer, on instructions, only for
reduction of sentence. This being the first appeal, and consequently
this Court being the final forum on facts, the evidence has nonetheless
been gone through with the assistance of the learned counsel to record
satisfaction as to the correctness of the findings returned.
4. The case before the trial court was based primarily on the
evidence of Rajender (PW-5), the victim of the offence and the first
informant. He was engaged as a driver on a commercial vehicle,
described variously as a truck or tempo, bearing No. DL ILG 4278.
He had picked up cargo in the nature of 225 tins of Palmoline oil and
100 tins of refined Soyabean, all of Ambuja brand besides other
articles from the godown of one Kulbhushan Gupta of Saraspur Gaon,
which was to be delivered at the premises of Ram Lal Bhatia and
Sons, Jheel Khuranja, Geeta Colony, Delhi. PW-5, while driving the
said vehicle, had reached near Majnu Ka Tila at Outer Ring Road by
9.30 p.m. on 30.10.2009 when the said vehicle was intercepted by a
car make Scorpio colour black. The evidence shows that the first
informant was forced to get down from the vehicle and make to sit in
the rear seat of the car whereupon he was rendered unconscious. His
vehicle with Cargo was taken away. Upon regaining consciousness in
a remote village, he returned and reported the incident to the police.
During investigation, the role of four persons, including the appellant
herein was revealed, they having participated in the waylaying of the
vehicle and relieving PW-5 of the said vehicle and its cargo. Pursuant
to the disclosures made, recoveries of part of the stolen goods were
effected from co-accused persons namely Shan Mohammad,
Riyazuddin and Anil. During the trial, the appellant was positively
identified by PW-5.
5. Given the clear and cogent evidence to above effect, the
conclusions reached by the trial court, holding the appellant guilty and
convicting him as above, cannot be faulted.
6. The offence was committed on 30.10.2009. The appellant was
arrested on 16.12.2009 and remained in custody during the period of
trial for almost nine months. After the trial court had found him guilty
he was taken in custody whereafter he remained in jail from
29.04.2015 till he was released on bail suspending the sentence on
01.04.2017. The nominal roll shows that he has suffered incarceration
for two years nine months and sixteen days and on account of good
conduct has earned remission to the extent of seven months and seven
days. It is noted that the appellant does not have any past criminal
record. He is married and has two children in the family who depend
on him for sustenance.
7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
opinion of this Court, it would be just and proper to modify the period
of sentence for offences punishable under Section 365 read with
Section 34 and Section 392 read with Section 34 IPC to rigorous
imprisonment for three years each, with fine as imposed by the trial
court. Ordered accordingly. Since the appellant has already
undergone the sentence including on account of the period of
remission, he need not surrender to custody.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JUNE 13, 2017
nk
