Delhi High Court
Pawan Kumar vs State on 3 February, 2020
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 03.02.2020
+ CRL.A. 222/2010
PAWAN KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. M.L.Yadav, Advocate.
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. G.M.Farooqui,
Additional Public Prosecutor
for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
JUDGMENT
BRIJESH SETHI,J(Oral)
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. filed by the appellant
Pawan Kumar against Judgment dated 12.01.2010 vide which the
appellant was convicted under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC
and under Section 27 Arms Act and also against the Order on sentence
dated 21.01.2010 vide which the appellant was sentenced to undergo 5
years RI with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 393 read
with Section 398 IPC and in default of payment of fine, he shall further
undergo SI for six months. Appellant was also sentenced to undergo 3
years RI with fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 27 Arms
CRL.A. 222/2010 Page no. 1 of 3
Act and in default of fine, SI for one month.
2. Nominal Rolls in respect of appellant has been filed in compliance
of previous order. Sentence of the applicant was suspended vide order
dated 12.04.2010.
3. The facts giving rise to the impugned conviction and sentence
awarded to appellant stand already noted in the impugned Judgment and
need no reiteration.
4. At the outset, Learned counsel for the appellant states that he does
not want to argue on the merits of the case and will confine his
arguments on the order on sentence only. He prays for release of the
appellant on the ground that appellant is the first offender and is not
previous convict. It is further submitted that appellant is sole bread
earner of his family and his old aged parents are dependent upon him. It
is further submitted that appellant is of young age of 37 years and there
are chances of his mending his ways. It is further submitted that alleged
incident is of the year 2007 and the appeal is pending before this court
since 2010. He has, therefore, prayed for a lenient view.
5. Learned APP for the State opposes the above submissions and
states that the offence committed by the appellant is serious in nature
and, therefore, he does not deserve any leniency. Ld. APP for the State
submits that the FIR was registered under Section
392/394/397/398/411/34 IPC & under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act but
appellant was sentenced under Section 393 read with Section 398 IPC
and for an offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act only. Ld.
CRL.A. 222/2010 Page no. 2 of 3
APP further states that as per Nominal Roll, the appellant has already
served the sentence for two years, seven months and seventeen days as
on 16.04.2010. Fine has been paid by the appellant.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Learned counsel for
appellant has not made any submissions on merits of this case. Keeping
in view the fact that appellant is the first offender and sole bread earner
of his family consisting of old aged parents and also considering the fact
that the purpose of sentencing is reformative and appellant has already
undergone sentence for the period as mentioned above, it would be in the
interest of justice if his sentence is reduced to the period already
undergone. Accordingly, the order on sentence dated 21.01.2010 is
modified to the effect that appellant is sentenced to the period already
undergone by him in jail.
7. Copy of this Judgment be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information.
8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
BRIJESH SETHI, J
FEBRUARY 3, 2020
AK
CRL.A. 222/2010 Page no. 3 of 3
