Imran @ Pehlwan v. State (NCT of Delhi)

1. Imran @ Pehlwan (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 19.08.2011 in Sessions Case No. 3/10 arising out of FIR No. 329/2009 PS Seemapuri by which he was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 01.09.2011, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 25.09.2009 at about 09.40 P.M. at road No. 62, New Indira Market, Old Seemapuri, he 2014:DHC:378 and his associate in furtherance of common intention fired three rounds in an attempt to murder Jasvinder. During the course of investigation, Imran @ Pehlwan was apprehended and arrested in case FIR No. 429/09 PS Amar Colony under Section 25 Arms Act. Pursuant to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-13/A) his involvement in the present case emerged. The Investigating Officer apprehended his associate Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan on his disclosure. TIP Proceedings were conducted in which, Imran @ Pehlwan was identified by PW-3 (Mohit Chauhan). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against both Imran @ Pehlwan and Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan. Vide order dated 26.02.2010, Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan was discharged. It is relevant to note that State did not challenge the said order. The prosecution examined twenty witnesses to substantiate the charges against the appellant. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication and denied his complicity in the crime. He examined DW-1 (Mohd. Salim) in his defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously and sentenced him accordingly. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, appellant’s counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction under Section 307 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial period of sentence awarded to him. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.

4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 307 IPC, his conviction stands affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 5,000/- each. Nominal roll dated 21.11.2013 reveals that he has already undergone four years, one month and sixteen days incarceration besides earning remission for two months and twenty two days as on 20.11.2013. The appellant was arrested in case FIR No. 265/09 PS Khajuri Khas for committing offences under Sections 307/327/506/34 IPC along with his associates Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan and Sultan. By a judgment dated 17.09.2011, in Sessions Case No. 11/10, he and Sultan were acquitted of the charges. Suleman @ Rohit @ Pehlwan was convicted under Section 325 IPC and awarded RI for three years with fine ` 2,000/- only. The complainant was unable to identify the appellant as assailant. PW-3 (Mohit Chauhan) in the Court statement was not sure about the identity of the assailant. PW-5 (Suleman), TSR driver, did not recognize the appellant as assailant. The occurrence took place all of a sudden without any specific motive. The assailant did not rob the complainant. The injuries sustained by the complainant by the fire rounds were on his left arm. Final opinion regarding the nature of injuries could not be given as the patient absconded from the hospital. Taking into consideration these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of the appellant – Imran @ Pehlwan is reduced from seven years to five years. Other terms and conditions of the sentence are left undisturbed.

5. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail.

JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2014