Full Text
Translation output
$-7 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A. 339/2011
IRFAN & ORS. Appellants
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate Appellant
No.l.
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate for Appellant No.2
CRL.A. 339/2011
IRFAN & ORS. Appellants
Through: Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate Appellant
No.l.
Ms. Saahila Lamba, Advocate for Appellant No.2
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through: Mr. Mahipal Malik, APP.
Through: Mr. Mahipal Malik, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
05.12.2013 Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code
(IPC) by the Trial Court. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7years with fme of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of paymentoffme to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Theyhave been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
As per the prosecution, on 13.07.2007 the injured Amir Ahmed came to the Police Station with gunshot wounds. The injured disclosed that at about
11.30a.m. on the said date he was standing at shop near park of Bagwali Masjid when the appellant Irfan came to him and took him inside the park where appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu and two other accomplices were present.
05.12.2013 Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34 Indian Penal Code
(IPC) by the Trial Court. They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7years with fme of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of paymentoffme to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Theyhave been granted benefit of Section 428 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
As per the prosecution, on 13.07.2007 the injured Amir Ahmed came to the Police Station with gunshot wounds. The injured disclosed that at about
11.30a.m. on the said date he was standing at shop near park of Bagwali Masjid when the appellant Irfan came to him and took him inside the park where appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu and two other accomplices were present.
CRL.A. 339/2011 ''"S" '
2013:DHC:8648 Appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu fired at him with a country made pistol. The bullet hit the injured Amir Ahmed on his left leg and he raised an alarm and thereafter they all ran away.
The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 15 witnesses including PW2 Amir Ahmed, who was the complainant and consequently the appellants were convicted as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they have instructions from the appellants not to challenge their conviction on merits. However, they contend that a lenient view may be taken and the appellants may be released on the period already undergone by them which is more than 5 years and 2 months including remission out of the sentence of 7 years imposed on them by the Trial
Court. It has also been contended that appellant Irfan has one physically challenged brother and aged parents who are living in penury in his absence. It has been contended that appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu has dependents including twoyounger sisters, two eldersisters and old aged parents. Thusit is argued that leniency be shown in the sentence awarded to them and they be released on the sentence already undergone by them.
I have perused the nominal roll ofthe appellants. Their conduct inJail has been satisfactory. Appellants have no past criminal record. Appellants have remained in incarceration for a period of over 5 years and 2 months including remission out of the sentence of sevenyears awarded to them. In their absence
2013:DHC:8648 Appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu fired at him with a country made pistol. The bullet hit the injured Amir Ahmed on his left leg and he raised an alarm and thereafter they all ran away.
The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as 15 witnesses including PW2 Amir Ahmed, who was the complainant and consequently the appellants were convicted as aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the appellants submit that they have instructions from the appellants not to challenge their conviction on merits. However, they contend that a lenient view may be taken and the appellants may be released on the period already undergone by them which is more than 5 years and 2 months including remission out of the sentence of 7 years imposed on them by the Trial
Court. It has also been contended that appellant Irfan has one physically challenged brother and aged parents who are living in penury in his absence. It has been contended that appellant Tehseen @ Shabhu has dependents including twoyounger sisters, two eldersisters and old aged parents. Thusit is argued that leniency be shown in the sentence awarded to them and they be released on the sentence already undergone by them.
I have perused the nominal roll ofthe appellants. Their conduct inJail has been satisfactory. Appellants have no past criminal record. Appellants have remained in incarceration for a period of over 5 years and 2 months including remission out of the sentence of sevenyears awarded to them. In their absence
CRLA. 339/2011 ^ their dependents are living in penury.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to payment of fine and in default of paymentof fine the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in lieu of one year as imposed by the Trial Court. The appellants shall be set free if notwanted in any other case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for information and compliance.
Dasti.
SIDDJIARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 05, 2013 Wlh CRLA.339/20IJ Page3of3
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, while upholding the conviction, sentence of appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them subject to payment of fine and in default of paymentof fine the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months in lieu of one year as imposed by the Trial Court. The appellants shall be set free if notwanted in any other case.
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail for information and compliance.
Dasti.
SIDDJIARTH MRIDUL, J DECEMBER 05, 2013 Wlh CRLA.339/20IJ Page3of3
JUDGMENT