Full Text
Translation output
/ V $-8 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 366/2012
PRADEEP Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate.
CRL.A. 366/2012
PRADEEP Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogendra Singh Chaudhary, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Mahipal Malik, APP.
Through: Mr. Mahipal Malik, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
05.12.2013 Appellant has been convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Trial Court. He has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 411 IPC. He has been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2010 at about 5.30a.m. the complainant
(PWl) Ritesh Jindal boarded a bus going towards Tikri. The convicts are also stated to have been travelling in the said bus and when the said bus reached near
Surajmal Stadium, one of the convicts took out a laiife and put on the waist/abdomen of the complainant forcing him to get down the bus at Nangloi.
The convict persons, at the point of knife, removed Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant. Thereafter they ran away. The allegation against the appellant was that one mobile phone and an amountofRs.25,000/- was received by him after
05.12.2013 Appellant has been convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the Trial Court. He has been sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 411 IPC. He has been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
As per the prosecution, on 07.03.2010 at about 5.30a.m. the complainant
(PWl) Ritesh Jindal boarded a bus going towards Tikri. The convicts are also stated to have been travelling in the said bus and when the said bus reached near
Surajmal Stadium, one of the convicts took out a laiife and put on the waist/abdomen of the complainant forcing him to get down the bus at Nangloi.
The convict persons, at the point of knife, removed Rs.4 lakhs from the complainant. Thereafter they ran away. The allegation against the appellant was that one mobile phone and an amountofRs.25,000/- was received by him after
CRL.A. 366/2012 Page I of3
2013:DHC:8331 the commission of the crime. On the basis of the evidence recorded, the Trial
Court has convicted the appellant as aforesaid. It is also observed that the co- convict Mehmud Khan has already undergone the sentence imposed on him and has been released.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions from the appellant not to challenge his conviction on merits. However, he contends that a lenientview may be taken and the appellant may be releasedon the period already undergone by him which is more than 8 months out of the sentence of 2 years. It has also been contended that the appellant has dependents including aged widowed mother, young wife and two minor children who are being deprived ofhis care and support. Thus it is argued that leniency be shown inthe sentence awarded to him and he be released on the sentence already undergone by him.
I have perused the nominal roll of the appellant. His conduct in Jail has been satisfactory and he has no past criminal record. Appellant has remained in incarceration for a period of almost 8 months including remission out of the sentence of 2 years awarded to him. In his absence, his family is living in penury.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant shall be set free ifnot wanted in any other case. The appeal
2013:DHC:8331 the commission of the crime. On the basis of the evidence recorded, the Trial
Court has convicted the appellant as aforesaid. It is also observed that the co- convict Mehmud Khan has already undergone the sentence imposed on him and has been released.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has instructions from the appellant not to challenge his conviction on merits. However, he contends that a lenientview may be taken and the appellant may be releasedon the period already undergone by him which is more than 8 months out of the sentence of 2 years. It has also been contended that the appellant has dependents including aged widowed mother, young wife and two minor children who are being deprived ofhis care and support. Thus it is argued that leniency be shown inthe sentence awarded to him and he be released on the sentence already undergone by him.
I have perused the nominal roll of the appellant. His conduct in Jail has been satisfactory and he has no past criminal record. Appellant has remained in incarceration for a period of almost 8 months including remission out of the sentence of 2 years awarded to him. In his absence, his family is living in penury.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant shall be set free ifnot wanted in any other case. The appeal
CRL.A. 366/2012 Page 2of3 is disposed of in the above terms.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for information and compliance.
Dasti.
SIDl&HARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 05, 2013 wih
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for information and compliance.
Dasti.
SIDl&HARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 05, 2013 wih
CRLA. 366/2012 P^Se 3 of3
JUDGMENT