[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Chandeshwar Alias Sunil vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 3 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 07.01.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 03.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 460/2025 & CRL.M.A. 10798/2025
CHANDESHWAR ALIAS SUNIL .....Appellant
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
+ CRL.A. 1098/2025
CHANDESHWAR @ SUNIL .....Appellant
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
+ CRL.A. 809/2025 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1246/2025
CHANDESHWAR ALIAS SUNIL .....Appellant
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through:
+ CRL.A. 845/2025
CHANDESHWAR ALIAS SUNIL .....Appellant
versus
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SHIKHA
SEHGAL CRL.A. 460/2025 and connected matters Page 1 of 9
Signing Date:03.02.2026
20:04:54
THE STATE GOVT OF NCT DELHI .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishesh Wadhwa, Ms. Swadha Gupta
& Mr. Aditya Singh, Advs.
For the Respondent : SI Lokesh Kumar, PS Govind Puri.
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals are filed challenging the following
judgments respectively:
1.1. CRL.A. 460/2025 has been filed against the judgment on
conviction dated 09.04.2024 and order on sentence dated
09.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No.
1137/2016 arising out of FIR No. 138/2014 registered at Police
Station Govind Puri for offences under Sections 328/379/34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').
1.2. CRL.A. 1098/2025 has been filed against the judgment
on conviction dated 09.04.2024 and order on sentence dated
09.01.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No.
1138/2016 arising out of FIR No. 960/2013 registered at Police
Station Govind Puri for offences under Sections 328/379/411/34
of the IPC.
1.3. CRL.A. 809/2025 has been filed against the judgment on
conviction dated 23.12.2024 and order on sentence dated
15.02.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No. 164/2024
arising out of FIR No. 263/2023 registered at Police Station
Safdarjung Enclave for offences under Sections 328 and 379/75
of the IPC.
1.4. CRL.A. 845/2025 has been filed against the judgment on
conviction dated 28.09.2024 and order on sentence dated
20.03.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court in SC No.
1846/2016 arising out of FIR No. 42/2014 registered at Police
Station Chitranjan Park for offences under Sections
328/379/411/34 of the IPC.
2. Briefly, the respective FIRs were registered against the
appellant essentially pertaining to the allegations of theft. The learned
counsel for the appellant, at the outset, submitted that the appellant
does not wish to press challenge to the impugned judgments and that
he will be satisfied if the respective sentences of the appellant are
commuted to the period already undergone by him in the respective
cases. Affidavit indicating the mitigating circumstances has also been
placed on record.
3. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the appellant
belongs to a poor strata of the society. The family of the appellant
comprises of his wife, who as the affidavit manifests, is suffering from
respiratory ailments and the appellant also has to provide for his two
minor children who are stated to be 2 and 4 years of age. The affidavit
indicates that the appellant is the breadwinner of the family and that
they are facing severe financial hardships.
4. During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State had submitted that considering the mitigating
circumstances, he had no objection if the sentences of the appellant are
commuted to the period already undergone by him in the respective
cases.
5. From the record, the particulars of the impugned sentences and
the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant in the
respective cases emanates as follows:
Sl. Case No. FIR No. Particulars Sentence Period
No. of conviction undergone
1. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 328 IPC - Sentence
460/2025 138/2014 conviction RI 6 years and completed
PS- Govind dated fine of on
Puri 09.04.2024 ₹20,000, in 01.12.2025,
Order on default of fine sentence in
sentence SI for 60 days default of
dated fine pending.
u/s 379 IPC -
09.01.2025
RI 3 years and
fine of
₹5,000/- and in
default of fine,
SI for 20 days
2. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 328 IPC - Sentence
1098/2025 960/2013 conviction RI 6 years and undergone: 5
Order on in default of days (as on
sentence fine SI 60 02.01.2026),
dated days. sentence in
09.01.2025 default
u/s 379 IPC -
pending.
RI 2 years and
fine of Sentence
₹5,000/- and in suspended
default of fine, vide order
SI 20 days. dated
19.09.2025.
u/s 411 IPC -
RI 2 years and
fine of ₹5,000,
and in default
of fine SI 20
days.
3. CRL.A. FIR No. Judgment on u/s 328 IPC - Sentence
809/2025 263/2023 conviction RI 7 years and undergone
dated fine of while trial: 2
Order on in default of months,
sentence fine, RI 6 Remaining
dated months Sentence to
15.02.2025 commence
after
IPC - RI 10
completion
years.
of sentence
in FIR No.
960/2013.
4. CRL.A. FIR No. judgment on u/s 379/75 - Sentence
845/2025 42/2014 conviction RI 6 years and undergone: 5
Order on default of days (as on
sentence payment of 02.01.2026).
dated fine SI for 30
Sentence
20.03.2025 days.
suspended
vide order
dated
19.09.2025.
6. On such a conspectus of facts, this Court is now faced with a
conundrum as to whether the respective sentences of the appellant
ought to be commuted to the period already undergone by him. The
table produced supra indicates that the appellant has already
undergone the sentence in FIR No. 138/2014 [CRL.A. 460/2025] and
only the sentence in default of payment of fine is pending. Similarly,
in FIR No. 960/2013 [CRL.A. 1098/2025], the appellant has already
undergone more than 5 years and 2 months of imprisonment out of the
total awarded sentence of 6 years. The sentence in CRL.A. 1098/2025
was suspended by this Court vide order dated 19.09.2025. In FIR No.
42/2014 [CRL.A. 845/2025], out of the total awarded sentence of 6
years, the appellant has already undergone imprisonment for around 5
years 10 months 23 days. The sentence in CRL.A. 845/2025 was also
suspended vide order dated 19.09.2025. It is apparent that the
appellant has already undergone a substantial portion of his sentence
in FIR Nos. 960/2013 and 42/2014.
7. Insofar as FIR No. 263/2023 is concerned, it is pertinent to note
that the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 10 years for the offence under Section 379/75 of the IPC.
The appellant was also directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of 7 years alongwith fine for a sum of ₹25,000/- for the
offence under Section 328 of the IPC. The sentences were directed to
run concurrently and the appellant is stated to have undergone
incarceration for a period of approximately 2 years and 3 months out
of the total awarded sentence. It is relevant to note that no minimum
sentence is prescribed for the offences under Sections 379 or 328 of
the IPC. While an enhanced punishment was awarded to the appellant,
at this juncture, this Court deems it apposite to take note of the
reformative purpose of sentencing as well as the mitigating
circumstances. It is pertinent to note that the aspect of sentencing is
not merely a mechanical endeavour. The same demands a balancing of
the nature of the offence, the overarching principles of criminal
jurisprudence as well as the circumstances of the offender. In the
present case, as noted above, the appellant is stated to belong to a poor
strata of the society and is the sole bread earner of the family. The
appellant is also responsible to provide for his family which comprises
his ailing wife and two minor children.
8. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and considering the
circumstances as listed above, this Court is of the opinion that no
purpose would be served by subjecting the appellant to undergo
further incarceration. In the opinion of this Court, interests of justice
would be met if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to
the period already undergone by him in the respective cases.
9. In view of the above, without interfering with the conviction of
the appellant in the respective cases, the respective sentences are
reduced to the imprisonment already suffered by the appellant.
10. The present appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.
11. The appellant is directed to be released from custody forthwith.
The bail bond and sureties furnished by the appellant shall stand
discharged.
12. A copy of the judgment be placed in all the matters.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
FEBRUARY 3, 2026
'SS'
