Shibu Semol v. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

1. By a judgment dated 15.07.2010 in Sessions Case NO. 53/2009 arising out of FIR No. 543/2005 PS Kalyan Puri, Shibu Semol (the appellant) was convicted under Sections 452/307/506 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 19.07.2010, he was awarded RI for three years with fine ` 2,000/- under Section 452 IPC; RI for seven years with fine `20,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for one year under Section 506 IPC. Allegations against him were that on 18.10.2005 at about 11.45 A.M. at house no. F-73, Gali No. 2, East Vinod Nagar, Delhi, he fired twice with a country-made pistol at the victim – Richa in an attempt to murder her. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. 2014:DHC:1426

2. During arguments, appellant’s counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under the aforesaid offences in view of overwhelming evidence of the complainant / victim (PW-1 Richa @ Gudia) coupled with medical evidence. Prayer was made to modify the sentence order as the appellant has already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him. To this, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection.

3. Since the conviction under Sections 452/307/506 IPC is not under challenge and the appellant has accepted it voluntarily in view of the clinching evidence of the complainant supported by medical evidence, the findings of the Trial Court are affirmed. Nominal roll dated 13.02.2014 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for three years, nine months and seven days besides remission for one year, three months and three days as on 10.02.2014. The unexpired portion of sentence was one year, eleven months and twenty days on that day. It further reveals that he is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order dated 19.07.2010 records that the appellant was a young man with clean antecedents and had no history of any criminal nature. He was a person of clean antecedents. The offence was an outcome of his love having gone sour and was committed more out of emotion and passion than a criminal intent. The victim did not suffer any injury in the occurrence. The appellant has voluntarily offered to pay ` 25,000/- as compensation to the complainant on his own. Considering all these circumstances, the sentence order is modified and the period already spent by the appellant in custody is taken as substantive sentence. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed. The appellant shall deposit ` 25,000/in the Trial Court within 15 days and this amount shall be given as compensation to the complainant / victim after due notice. Needless to say, compensation awarded by the Trial Court shall also be given to the complainant / victim.

4. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail for information.

JUDGE MARCH 14, 2014