[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Mohd. Salman vs State on 5 February, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 03.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 05.02.2026
+ CRL.A. 993/2017
MOHD. SALMAN .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Pallavi Shamia Kansal, Mr.
Saurabh Kansal and Mr. Suraj Kr.
Jha, Advocates.
Versus
STATE .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the
State with SI Mohd. Ayyob
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) read with Section
383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,(the Cr.Pc) the first
accused in S.C No. 41/2024 on the file of the learned Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), E- Court, Shahdara Karakardooma, Delhi
challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him
for the offences punishable under Sections 394 read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code (the IPC) .
2. The prosecution case is that on 11.06.2013 at about 11:30
PM at Shiv mandir vali Gali No. 10, Maujpur Delhi, the accused
persons two in number, in furtherance of their common intention,
robbed the mobile phone and an amount of ₹ 700/- from PW1 and
in the process voluntarily caused hurt to him. Hence, as per the
charge sheet, the accused persons are alleged to have committed
the offences punishable under Sections 394, 411 read with Section
34 IPC
3. On the basis of Ext PW4/A FIS of PW4, given on
12.06.2013, Crime no.167/2013, Jaffrabad Police Station, that is
Ext PW2/A FIR was registered by PW2, Head Constable. PW 7,
Sub Inspector conducted investigation into the crime and on
completion of the same filed the charge sheet/final report alleging
commission of offences punishable under the above mentioned
sections.
4. When the accused persons were produced before the trial
court, all the copies of the prosecution records were furnished to
them as contemplated under 207 Cr.Pc. After hearing both sides,
the trial court as per order dated 01.09.2014, framed a charge
under Sections 392, 394 read with section 34 IPC, which was read
over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded
not guilty.
5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs 1 - 7 were examined
and Exts P-1, PW1/A-C, PW2/A-D, PW4/A-G, PW5/A-C,
PW6/A, PW7/A-C, CW/X, CW/X1 were marked in support of the
case.
6. After the close of the prosecution evidence the accused
persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.Pc, regarding
the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the
evidence of the prosecution. The accused persons denied all those
circumstances and maintained their innocence.
7. After questioning the accused under Section. 313 (1) (b)
CrPC, compliance of Section 232 CrPC was mandatory. In the
case on hand, no hearing as contemplated under Section 232 CrPC
is seen done by the trial court. However, non-compliance of the
said provision does not, ipso facto vitiate the proceedings, unless
omission to comply the same is shown to have resulted in serious
and substantial prejudice to the accused (See Moidu K. vs. State
of Kerala, 2009 (3) KHC 89 : 2009 SCC OnLine Ker 2888).
Here, the accused has no case that non-compliance of Section 232
Cr.P.C has caused any prejudice to him. No oral or documentary
evidence was adduced by the accused.
8. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
on record and after hearing both sides, the trial court, vide the
impugned judgment dated 18.08.2017 held the accused persons
guilty of the offences punishable under Section 394 read with
Section 34 of the IPC and hence sentenced both of them to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years for the
offences and to fine of ₹ 2,500 each and in default of payment of
fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months
each. The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
Aggrieved, the 1st accused has preferred the present Appeal.
9. It was submitted by the learned counsel/amicus for the
appellant/first accused that he does not wish to press the appeal
and prays that the substantive sentence of imprisonment may be
confined to the period undergone by him. He has further placed
reliance on the judgment dated 16.10.2025 in CRL A 1168/2017
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, which appeal has been
filed by the second accused in the case. The said appeal was partly
allowed whereby the substantive sentence of the second accused
was modified to the period already undergone by him. The
sentence of fine was confirmed. The learned counsel has submitted
that in terms of the relief granted to the second accused, the
appellant/1st accused's appeal may also be allowed on the ground
of parity.
10. The learned Additional Public prosecutor has not
objected to the submissions made and to relief sought by the
counsel for the appellant/1st Accused.
11. Heard both sides
12. In light of the judgment dated 16.10.2025 in Crl A
1168.2017 relating to the 2nd accused and in light of the direction
contained in (c) of paragraph 28 of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sonadhar v State of Chattisgarh, 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 3682, the substantive sentence of the appellant/1st
accused who as per the nominal roll, dated 21.08.2025 has already
undergone about 2 years 2 months and 8 days out of the total
sentence of 5 years is confined to the period already undergone by
him. The sentence of fine is confirmed. The appellant/1st accused
shall pay the fine amount within a period of 4 weeks before the
trial court concerned, a failure of which shall lead to the
appellant/1st accused to serve the default sentence of 3 months of
simple imprisonment as sentenced by the trial court.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as stated
aforesaid.
14. Applications(s), if any, pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 05, 2026
