Delhi High Court
Pankaj @ Sandeep @ Bachcha vs State on 27 August, 2018
$~4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 663/2018 & Crl.M. (B) 995/2018
PANKAJ @ SANDEEP @ BACHCHA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. K. Parameshwar, Advocate
with Mr. M.V. Mukunda,
Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. K.S. Ahuja, APP for State
CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
ORDER
27.08.2018
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated
24th February 2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pilot Court,
North District, Rohini, Delhi in SC No.483/2017 arising out of FIR
No.382/2016 registered at PS Jahangir Puri whereby the Appellant was
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34
IPC, Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, Section 341 read with
Section 34 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 455 read
with Section 34 IPC but was acquitted for the offence under Section 324
read with Section 34 IPC. The appeal is also directed against the order dated
26th February 2018 whereby the Appellant is sentenced as under:
(i) Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and in default of payment of
fine, to further Simple Imprisonment („SI‟) for one year.
(ii) Rigorous imprisonment („RI‟) for 14 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for
the offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, and in
default of payment of fine, to further SI for one year.
(iii) RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section
455 read with Section 34 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to
further SI for six months.
(iv) SI for 1 year for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34
IPC.
(v) SI for 1 month for the offence under Section 341 read with Section 34
IPC.
2. At the outset, it is required to be noticed that the Appellant was sent up for
trial along with five other co-accused, viz. Islam (A-1), Kishan (A-2), Suresh
@ Pawan (A-3), Kali @ Sonu (A-4), and Saddaq Hussain (A-5), who were
all separately convicted in an identical fashion by the trial court by its
judgment dated 13th November 2017 in SC No.59365/2016 arising out of the
same FIR No.382/2016 and were sentenced by an order dated
18th November 2017 in an identical fashion. Against the said order of
conviction and sentence, those co-accused filed separate appeals which were
all disposed of by a judgment dated 21st March 2018 in Crl.A. Nos.34/2018,
159/2018, 162/2018, 163/2018, and 61/2018, whereby they were acquitted
of the offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 307/34, 341/34, 323/34,
and 455/34 IPC while convicting them for the offence punishable under
Section 324/34 IPC for causing simple injuries with a sharp edged weapon
to Jeet Kumar. The sentence for the said offence was confined to the period
already undergone by them.
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant points out that the case of the present
Appellant is no different except to the extent that he absconded and was
apprehended later and was sent up for trial separately.
4. Learned APP drew the attention of the Court to the specific allegation qua
the present Appellant as regards the assault on the deceased Vijay, i.e.
"Suresh and Kishan also entered the jhuggi and assaulted him on his head
and leg. In the meanwhile, Sandeep, Sonu, and Islam also climbed on the
jhuggi from the other side and they also assaulted him with the knife". The
Court sees no difference in the allegations qua the present Appellant when
compared with the allegations against the co-accused Sonu and Islam.
5. It has been pointed out that by this Court‟s judgment dated
21st March 2018 in Crl.A.139/2018 and connected appeals, this Court saw it
fit to acquit the co-accused of the present Appellant of all the offences for
which they had been convicted by the trial Court. Further, this Court saw it
fit to convict the co-accused of the present Appellant for the offence under
Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and confined their sentence to the
periods of imprisonment already undergone.
6. Since the Court finds the basic allegation against the present Appellant to
be not any different from the allegations against the co-accused and with the
evidence being common to all of them, it is not possible to take a view
different from the view taken by the court qua the other accused.
7. It is then pointed out by the learned APP that the present appellant is a
„Bad Character‟ and evidence regarding his previous involvement in other
criminal cases were already placed on record before the trial Court in a
separate status report filed. The Court has perused that status report. What is
stated there has been relevant for the purposes of sentencing of the Appellant
for the substantive crimes of serious nature if he has been found guilty of
those offences. The Court does not see it constituting evidence as regards the
Appellant‟s involvement in the present case and for crimes with which he
has been charged.
8. Since the allegations against the present Appellant are no different from
those made against the co-accused, his conviction for the offence under
Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is converted to one under Section 324
read with Section 34 IPC. The Appellant is acquitted, like the co-accused
have been, of the remaining offences with which he was charged. He is
sentenced for the offence under Section 324 and Section 34 IPC to the
period already undergone by him including the default sentence for non-
payment of fine.
9. The impugned judgment dated 24th February 2018 and the order on
sentence dated 26th February 2018 stand modified accordingly. The
Appellant shall be released forthwith unless wanted in some other case. He
will fulfill the requirements of Section 437A Cr PC to the satisfaction of the
trial Court at the earliest. The trial Court record be returned together with the
certified copy of this judgment.
10. The appeal and pending application stand disposed of.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
AUGUST 27, 2018
"shailendra"
