Delhi High Court
Ashwani Alias Kake vs The State Govt Of Nct Delhi on 29 May, 2025
Author: Swarana Kanta Sharma
Bench: Swarana Kanta Sharma
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 29.05.2025
+ CRL.A. 792/2025
ASHWANI ALIAS KAKE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aman Panwar, Adv.
DHCLSC, Mr. Shrey
Brahmbhatt and Mr. Abhinav
Kumar, Advs.
versus
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Pant, APP for the
State with Mr. Ravinder
Kumar, Ms.Usha Rani and Mr.
Chander Kant, Advs. along
with Inspector Rajesh Verma.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA
JUDGMENT
SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J. (ORAL)
CRL.M.A. 17226/2025 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of.
CRL.A. 792/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1225/2025
3. The instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant
against the judgment dated 27.03.2025 and order on sentence dated
13.05.2025, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-03,
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereafter, 'learned Sessions
Court'), in SC No. 57856/2016, arising out of FIR bearing No.
424/2013, registered at Police Station Narela, Delhi.
4. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the complainant
had alleged that he was working as Driver with one Brij Lal @ Pappu
Bansal, who was the owner of a factory located at H-1232, DSIDC
Narela. On 24.06.2013, at around 8:30 pm, he was standing near a
white Polo Car bearing no. DL8 CX-2311 belonging to his employer,
near H-1464, DSIDC Narela, Delhi where one boy had approached
him and had asked for the score of a cricket match, upon which he
replied that the said match was held yesterday. After some time, the
said boy had come with his two associates namely Bhagat Singh and
the present appellant Ashwani @ Kake. He had pointed a pistol like
weapon towards him, and had forcibly snatched the key of the car
from him. They had then forced the complainant to sit on the rear
seat, and the boy carrying the pistol (i.e accused Rambir) had started
driving the above car, while his above two associates were pinning
him down at the rear seat. They had also gagged his mouth with a
gamchha, and were threatening to kill him in case he raised hue and
cry. The boys sitting at the rear seat with him had also robbed his
mobile phone and purse, and had thrown him out of the car near
Barish Chandra Hospital. The complainant had further stated that his
documents such as PAN Card, Adhaar Card, Pass book, cheque book
and driving license were also kept in the above car.
5. On the basis of the evidence and material collected during
investigation, the learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated
27.03.2025 had convicted the appellant for offence under Section 392
of IPC, and vide order dated 13.05.2025, the learned Trial Court had
sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six
years along with payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of
payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period
of one month.
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned orders, the present
appeal had been preferred on behalf of the appellant.
7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits, on instructions, that the appellant is not pressing the present
appeal on its merits. It is further submitted that the appellant rather
prays for leniency since the incident in question had taken place
about 12 years back. It is stated that considering the sentence already
undergone by the appellant, his sentence of imprisonment may be
reduced to the period already undergone.
8. The learned APP for the State submits that he has no objection
if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him, and the conviction is upheld.
9. This Court has heard arguments addressed on behalf of both
the parties and has gone through the material placed on record.
10. This Court notes that the present case emanates from an FIR
registered in the year 2013, pertaining to an incident dated
24.06.2013. Thus, the offence in question had taken place about 12
years ago. The appellant herein was aged about 28 years at the time
of the incident, who today is more than 40 years of age.
11. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, and after going through the nominal roll of the appellant, which
mentions that the appellant has already served sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for more than five years and six months out of the
sentence awarded i.e., rigorous imprisonment of six years, and the
fact that the conviction is not being challenged, this Court is of the
opinion that ends of justice would be met in case the sentence of
imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the period already
undergone by him in relation to the present case. However, the
conviction of the appellant is upheld.
12. Accordingly, the present appeal along with pending application
stands disposed of in above terms.
13. Bail bonds stand cancelled, and the sureties stand discharged.
14. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J
MAY 29, 2025/A
