Ramesh v. State

1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 13.9.2004 and 15.9.2004 respectively wherein the appellant Ramesh along with his co-accused Arvind @ Master had been convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as also under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Each of the accused persons had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 9 2014:DHC:4654 months for offence under Sections 307/34 of the IPC.

2 This Court has been informed that co-accused Arvind had completed his sentence. This appeal has been preferred by Ramesh.

3 Record shows that Satbir (PW-5) was friendly with the appellant Ramesh. Ramesh had promised a job to Satbir stating that he had contacts in several factories in Delhi. On 19.9.2002 appellant Ramesh took the complainant Satbir to Narela for getting him a job, where they cut their hair. Appellant Ramesh then took PW-5 to the DSIDC factory looking for job and then they came back to Kundli, Sonepat. On 20.9.2002 at about 10.00 a.m. Ramesh and Arvind came to the house of the complainant again informing him that they would try to look for a job for him. They went to Bawana. Appellant Ramesh left and returned at about 4.00 p.m. with his motorcycle and took the complainant and Arvind on his motorcycle to the DSIDC and parked the said vehicle at te pavement (Patri). When they went to urinate, at that time Ramesh told his co-accused Arvind that it was the right time to kill the complainant. Both the accused took out their country-made pistols and started their attack on the complainant. Master @ Arvind fired on the right shoulder of the complainant. The shot fired by Ramesh did not hit the complainant. Complainant was removed to the hospital. FIR was accordingly registered. 4 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Satbir (PW-5) is the star witnesses of the prosecution. The accused pleaded their innocence in their defence. They had also examined DW-1 (Maya, mother of appellant Ramesh) in support of their version.

5 On the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution accused persons were convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.

6 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that he was not arguing on the merits of the case. He was not assailing the conviction but he prayed for mercy and submitted that period of sentence already undergone by the appellant be treated as the sentence imposed upon him.

7 The sentence imposed upon him is RI for 5 years for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. Record shows that as on date (presently the appellant is in judicial custody) the appellant has undergone incarceration of about 2 years 6 months and 11 days besides remissions earned of 7 months and 25 days meaning thereby he has completed incarceration of about 3 years and more than 2 months.

8 Learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that even as per the version of the prosecution although both the accused persons had been armed with country-made pistols, the firearm of the appellant did not cause any injury to the victim and this is clear from the statement of the complainant (PW-5). This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is borne out from the record. Record substantiates that although both the accused persons were armed with country-made pistols, the fire from the firearm of Ramesh had not hurt the injured. He had sustained injuries with the firearm of the co-accused. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the record does not reflect any motive on the part of the appellant to have committed the crime is also substantiated. The version of the prosecution is that accused Ramesh was known to the complainant and promised to get him a job and on that pretext he had taken him to various factories; thereupon he along with his co-accused, while they were urinating at

7.00 p.m. in the evening, decided to kill the victim. The reason for this act has not been spelt out in the entire version of the prosecution; the complainant does not spell out any motive on the part of the appellant to have committed this crime.

9 Noting all these submissions, as also the fact that the appellant as on date is aged around 31 years with an old ailing mother and having suffered a protracted trial of more than one decade and having been incarcerated for more than 3 years and 2 months out of the period of 5 years which had been imposed upon him, it would be a fit case where the sentence already suffered by the appellant be treated as the sentence imposed upon him. The appellant be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

10 Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Crl.M.B.No.10442/2014 11 In view of the order passed in the appeal, this application has become infructuous. It is disposed of accordingly.

INDERMEET KAUR, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 ndn