Uttam Jit Singh @ Bobby v. State NCT of Delhi

1. Uttamjit Singh @ Bobby (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of the judgment dated 27.05.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.11/2009 arising out of FIR No.545/07 registered at Police Station Hauz Khas by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 392 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 28.05.2011 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 31.08.2007 at around 04.00 P.M. at Chirag Delhi Flyover, he robbed `48,000/-, 300 2014:DHC:322 U.S.Dollar, a golden ring and golden bracelet from the complainant- Ashwani Kumar. He used country made pistol and knife while committing robbery. During the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested from his residence on 05.09.2007 and one buttondar knife, cash `17,000/, one scooter make Bajaj bearing No.DL6SK-8229 used in the crime were recovered. Pursuant to the disclosure statement, he recovered jewellery articles from one Suresh Kumar in Karol Bagh. Suresh Kumar was apprehended from his residence and from his shop at 1383/36, Beadan Pura, Karol Bagh, one ring of golden colour and one bracelet of golden colour were recovered. After recording Ashwani Kumar’s statement (Ex.PW-4/A), the First Information Report was lodged and the investigation was entrusted to Insp.Rajiv Kumar. The appellant declined to participate in the TIP proceedings. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Suresh Kumar was apprehended for retaining or receiving stolen articles. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for committing offences under Section 392/397 IPC whereas Suresh Kumar was charged for committing offence under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish their guilt. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 392 IPC. Co-accused Suresh Kumar was acquitted of all the charges and the State did not challenge the said acquittal.

3. During the course of arguments, appellant’s counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has given up challenge to the conviction recorded by the Trial Court. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already suffered substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to that.

4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings recorded by the Trial Court on merits, in the presence of overwhelming evidence of PW-4 coupled with recovery of the robbed articles, his conviction under Section 392 IPC is affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated 29.02.2012 reveals that he suffered incarceration for one year and five months besides earning remission for three months as on 27.02.2012. The period has almost increased to four years. It is stated that the appellant was convicted in case FIR No.833/2007 under Section 392 IPC, FIR No. 838/2007 under Section 392/397/411 IPC and FIR No.371/2007 under Section 379/34 IPC. It further transpires that benefit of proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 427 Cr.P.C. was given to the appellant to give him a chance to reform. It is informed that the appellant belongs to a well off family and was involved in criminal cases due to falling in bad company. The appellant has lost his mother during trial. The order on sentence records that the appellant was repentful and promised not to repeat the mistake in future. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the period already suffered by the appellant in this case in custody is taken as his substantive sentence. Other terms of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that default sentence would be one month. The sentence order is modified accordingly.

5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of the order. Copy of the order be also sent to Jail Superintendent for information.

JUDGE JANUARY 20, 2014 sa