Full Text
Translation output
$-2 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 1268/2012 &CRL.M.A. 12420/2013
MOINUDDIN @ CHHOTU Appellant
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, APP.
CRL.A. 1268/2012 &CRL.M.A. 12420/2013
MOINUDDIN @ CHHOTU Appellant
Through: Ms. Nandita Rao, APP.
VERSUS
STATE
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP.
Respondent
Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP.
Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
05.12.2013 Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code
(IPC) by the Trial Court. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to, undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He has been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
I
I
I As per the prosecution, on 04.03.2009 at about 11p.m. at Chitragupta
IRoad, the appellant along with co-convict Sajid Alam in furtherance of their
I jcommon intention attempted to kiU Ashfaq Alam in the manner that the
I
Iappellant threw acid on him and the co-convict Sajid stabbed him by means of
Iknife. The complainant, one Mohd. Masir, was present and tried to rescue the
Iinjured and subsequently took him to hospital. The FIRwas lodged on the basis
; CRLA. 1268/2012 Page I of3 2013:DHC:8329 of the statement of Mohd. Mask wherem the convicts were specifically named
I for committing the offence. Based, inter alia, on the testimony of PWl Ashfaq
I Alam, the victim and Mohd. Masir PW2, the appellant was convicted as i aforesaid.
The co-convict Sajid Alam preferred an appeal being Crl.A. 30/2012 which was disposed of by this court by way oforder dated 05.07.2013. Order on sentence in respect of the co-convict Sajid Alam was modified and he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years instead of six years as
I imposed upon him bythe impugned order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she has instructions fi-om the appellant not to challenge his conviction on merits. However, she contends that a lenient view may be taken and the appellant may be released on the period already undergone by him which is aknost 4 years including remission out of the sentence of 6 years. It has also been contended that the appellant has dependents includmg aged ailing mother, younger sister of marriageable age
I iand a younger brother who are being deprived of his care and support. It is also
I
]contended that the appellant has no past criminal record. Thus it is argued that leniency be shown in the sentence awarded to him and he be released on the sentence already undergone by him.
I have perused the nominal roll ofthe appellant. His conduct in Jail has been satisfactory. Appellant has remained inincarceration for aperiod ofalmost
CRL^. 1268/2012 Page 2 of3 4 years including remission out of the sentence of 6 years awardedto him.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of fme and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months in lieu of six months as imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant shall be set Jfree if not wanted in any other case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for i^nformation and compliance.
Dasti.
DECEMBER 05, 2013 mh
05.12.2013 Appellant has been convicted under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code
(IPC) by the Trial Court. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to, undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He has been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
I
I
I As per the prosecution, on 04.03.2009 at about 11p.m. at Chitragupta
IRoad, the appellant along with co-convict Sajid Alam in furtherance of their
I jcommon intention attempted to kiU Ashfaq Alam in the manner that the
I
Iappellant threw acid on him and the co-convict Sajid stabbed him by means of
Iknife. The complainant, one Mohd. Masir, was present and tried to rescue the
Iinjured and subsequently took him to hospital. The FIRwas lodged on the basis
; CRLA. 1268/2012 Page I of3 2013:DHC:8329 of the statement of Mohd. Mask wherem the convicts were specifically named
I for committing the offence. Based, inter alia, on the testimony of PWl Ashfaq
I Alam, the victim and Mohd. Masir PW2, the appellant was convicted as i aforesaid.
The co-convict Sajid Alam preferred an appeal being Crl.A. 30/2012 which was disposed of by this court by way oforder dated 05.07.2013. Order on sentence in respect of the co-convict Sajid Alam was modified and he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years instead of six years as
I imposed upon him bythe impugned order.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she has instructions fi-om the appellant not to challenge his conviction on merits. However, she contends that a lenient view may be taken and the appellant may be released on the period already undergone by him which is aknost 4 years including remission out of the sentence of 6 years. It has also been contended that the appellant has dependents includmg aged ailing mother, younger sister of marriageable age
I iand a younger brother who are being deprived of his care and support. It is also
I
]contended that the appellant has no past criminal record. Thus it is argued that leniency be shown in the sentence awarded to him and he be released on the sentence already undergone by him.
I have perused the nominal roll ofthe appellant. His conduct in Jail has been satisfactory. Appellant has remained inincarceration for aperiod ofalmost
CRL^. 1268/2012 Page 2 of3 4 years including remission out of the sentence of 6 years awardedto him.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him subject to payment of fme and in default of payment of fine the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for three months in lieu of six months as imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant shall be set Jfree if not wanted in any other case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for i^nformation and compliance.
Dasti.
DECEMBER 05, 2013 mh
CRLA. 1268/2012 k
SIDDfiARTH MRIDUL, J Page 3of3
SIDDfiARTH MRIDUL, J Page 3of3
JUDGMENT