Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar vs The State Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 12 July, 2018
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision : July 12, 2018
+ CRL.A. 335/2018
SATISH KUMAR .... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.Suraj Parkash Sharma,
Advocate
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI .... Respondent
Represented by: Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP
with SI Abodh Sharma, PS
Preet Vihar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
MUKTA GUPTA, J. (Oral)
1. Appellant Satish Kumar has been convicted vide impugned
judgment dated 9th August, 2017 for offence punishable under Section 120B
read with Section 392 IPC and Section 411 IPC and sentenced vide order
dated 19th August, 2017 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 3 years under Section 120B read with Section 392 IPC and a fine
of ₹2,000/-, in default whereof to undergo one month simple imprisonment
and for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC, rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two years and a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, to undergo 15 days' simple imprisonment.
2. Case of the prosecution hinges on the testimony of the complainant
Rekha Jain (PW-1), who deposed that her husband was a kidney patient and
was undergoing dialysis treatment. Her servant Naresh had left for his
village due to death of his brother and she was searching for a new servant.
In October, 2012, servant of a patient lying on the bed adjoining to the bed
of her husband, introduced Satish to her husband for employing him as
servant with Rekha Jain. On the next day, Satish came to their house and
left at about 8.30 p.m. She paid him ₹300/- and told him that whenever
required, she would call him. After about a week or 15 days, Satish
telephoned her and suggested a boy for the job of a servant at her house and
thereafter sent that boy who started working at the house of Rekha Jain. The
work of the boy was not satisfactory and thus he was sent back. After 3-4
days, Satish again called her and sent another boy namely Rohit, who was a
resident of Bulandshahar, U.P. to work as servant in the house of Rekha
Jain. Later, she came to know that the actual name of Rohit was Manoj.
After working for two days, Manoj asked ₹500/- from Rekha Jain on the
pretext that he wanted to go to his house as his mother was hospitalized.
However, she gave ₹200/- only to him whereafter, Rohit @ Manoj left her
house.
3. At about 8.00 p.m. Rohit @ Manoj returned and said that he was
afraid of sleeping on the first floor. On this, husband of Rekha Jain asked
him to sleep in the drawing room. Rohit @ Manoj kept his belongings
outside the gate and slept in the drawing room. In the morning when she
woke up and went to the toilet, Rohit @ Manoj entered the toilet from the
second door of the toilet which was kept open and which was not within the
knowledge of Rekha Jain. Rohit @ Manoj put a knife on the person of
Rekha Jain and pressed her mouth with his hand. He threatened her not to
raise any alarm otherwise he would cut her into pieces. He also had a
grievance that Rekha Jain did not give her ₹500/-. Rohit @ Manoj removed
her gold chain with pendant and four bangles forcibly. In the meantime, her
husband called her and Rohit @ Manoj ran away.
4. The role assigned to the appellant Satish as per the case of the
prosecution is that he is the one who employed Rohit @ Manoj in the house
of the complainant whereafter Rohit @ Manoj committed the robbery.
Rohit @ Manoj was convicted for offence punishable under Section 397 IPC
and awarded imprisonment for a period of 7 years. In Crl.A.No.965/2017
filed by Manoj Kumar, his conviction for offence punishable under Section
397 IPC has been set aside and he has been awarded imprisonment for a
period of 3½ years converting the conviction to one under Section 392 IPC.
Pursuant to the arrest of Satish, four gold bangles of victim were recovered,
which were duly identified by the victim during her deposition. Thus, from
the recovery of bangles, a case under Section 411 IPC is clearly made out
against the appellant.
5. With regard to offence punishable under Section 120B/392 IPC, it
may be noted that the only ground to draw an inference that Satish was an
accomplice is from the fact that Satish got employed Rohit @ Manoj with
the complainant. This circumstance alone would not be sufficient to come
to the conclusion of a conspiracy between Satish Kumar and Rohit @
Manoj. Thus, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 120B IPC and Section 392 IPC is set aside maintaining his
conviction for offence punishable under Section 411 IPC. This Court finds
no ground to interfere with the conviction or sentence for offence punishable
under Section 411 IPC. The appellant is now required to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of ₹1,000/-, in default
whereof to undergo sentence of 15 days simple imprisonment for offence
punishable under Section 411 IPC.
6. Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Trial Court record be sent
back.
7. A copy of this order be sent to Superintendent, Mandoli Jail for
updation of jail record and intimation to the appellant.
Crl.M.B.473/2018
Since the appeal has been disposed of, this application has become
infructuous.
Application is dismissed accordingly.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2018
rk
