Delhi High Court
Kanwaljeet Singh vs State on 13 November, 2017
$~R-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: November 13, 2017
+ CRL.A. 57/2011
KANWALJEET SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Mukesh Kalia, Advocate
with Mr.Akshay Verma and
Mr.Haanumant Shakhuja,
Advocate and appellant in
person.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State with ASI Shri
Ram, PS Hari Nagar.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374
Cr.P.C. assailing the judgment dated 16th December, 2010 and order
on sentence dated 21st December, 2010 passed in Sessions Case
No.135/2009 (in case FIR No.546/2005 under Sections 452/307/506
IPC, PS Hari Nagar) whereby he has been convicted for committing
the offence punishable under Sections 452/307/506 IPC and sentenced
as under:-
(i) U/S 452 IPC : to undergo RI for three years with fine
of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for six months.
(ii) U/S 307 IPC : to undergo RI for three years with fine
of ₹5,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for six months.
(ii) U/S 506 IPC : to undergo RI for one year with fine
of ₹3,000/- and in default of payment
of fine, to undergo SI for two months.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Appellant is present in person alongwith his counsel.
3. Mr.Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
in this case, all the four public witnesses/injured did not support the
case of prosecution and were declared hostile. Despite that, the learned
Trial Court convicted the appellant for committing the offence
punishable under Section 452/307/506 IPC and sentenced him in the
manner stated above.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that
appellant is not challenging his conviction in this case. However,
prayer has been made for taking a lenient view on the quantum of
sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant
has remained in custody for about 3½ months in this case and has
already deposited the fine of ₹13,000/- imposed by the learned Trial
Court. The appellant is a poor man working as a helper in a factory to
earn his livelihood. He has to also lookafter his wife and aged
mother, who is 75 years old and suffering from neurological problems
for past many years. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appellant is not involved in any other case except this case. The
matter in this case also stands settled with the injured/public witnesses
which can be ascertained from the Trial Court Record.
5. The appellant has also filed written submissions to the above
effect and prays for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence.
6. Since the appellant is not challenging his conviction under
Section 452/307/506 IPC, the same is upheld.
7. Now coming on the quantum of sentence, taking into
consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellant that he
is not involved in any other case prior to registration of this case or
even thereafter and that he has to lookafter his aged mother who is
suffering from neurological problems, the substantive sentence
awarded to the appellant for committing the offence punishable under
Sections 452/307/506 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone
by him in this case. However, the fine imposed on the appellant is
enhanced by ₹75,000/- in addition to the fine amount of ₹13,000/-
imposed by the learned Trial Court.
8. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced fine of
₹75,000/- within four weeks, failing which he shall undergo
imprisonment for six months.
9. The appeal is allowed only to the extent of modification of
order on sentence to the above extent.
10. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this
order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.
As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel
for the appellant.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
November 13, 2017
'st'
