Full Text
Translation output
CRL.REV.P. 155/2013 Page 1
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 155/2013 & Crl.M.(B) No.540/2013
SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.REV.P. 155/2013 & Crl.M.(B) No.540/2013
SURENDER KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. M.L. Sharma, Advocate
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Raj Kumar
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-
State with SI Raj Kumar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR O R D E R 08.08.2013
Conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner for the offences under Sections 382/356 of IPC by the trial court stands confirmed by the appellate court vide order of 4th March, 2012, which is impugned in this petition.
Instead of hearing the application for suspension of sentence, it was deemed appropriate to hear the main petition itself after calling for the records as it was urged by petitioner's counsel on the first date of hearing that petitioner's application for recall of the complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) has been illegally dismissed by the trial court. Since this petition was to be finally heard, therefore, an opportunity was given to petitioners' counsel to place on record written submissions.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the written submissions placed on record on behalf of petitioner and on scrutiny of
2013:DHC:3984
Conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner for the offences under Sections 382/356 of IPC by the trial court stands confirmed by the appellate court vide order of 4th March, 2012, which is impugned in this petition.
Instead of hearing the application for suspension of sentence, it was deemed appropriate to hear the main petition itself after calling for the records as it was urged by petitioner's counsel on the first date of hearing that petitioner's application for recall of the complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) has been illegally dismissed by the trial court. Since this petition was to be finally heard, therefore, an opportunity was given to petitioners' counsel to place on record written submissions.
Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of the written submissions placed on record on behalf of petitioner and on scrutiny of
2013:DHC:3984
CRL.REV.P. 155/2013 Page 2 the evidence on record and the trial court's order, I find that no application to recall Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) filed by petitioner-accused.
It is urged on behalf of petitioner that only 75 % of the gold chain was allegedly recovered from the person of petitioner-accused and 25% of the robbed gold chain was not found at the spot. However, complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) has produced the gold chain in two parts as it was on superdari and this creates a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version.
It was pointed out on behalf of petitioner that it has not come in evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) that he has not shown in the site plan of spot as to at what distance from the spot petitioner was apprehended. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that no public person had signed the arrest memo which casts a grave doubt on the prosecution's case as place of incident was a crowded place and the incident had taken place in broad day light and the case property had been identified by the complainant only.
Thus, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner is unwarranted and so it deserves to be set aside. On the quantum of sentence, it was submitted that petitioner is in custody since 4th March, 2013 and the heart of petitioner is functional to the extent of 60% and he is being treated at
RML Hospital and his wife is physically handicapped. Nothing else had been submitted on behalf of petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supported the impugned order and had submitted that the discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case are not at all material and that it stands
It is urged on behalf of petitioner that only 75 % of the gold chain was allegedly recovered from the person of petitioner-accused and 25% of the robbed gold chain was not found at the spot. However, complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) has produced the gold chain in two parts as it was on superdari and this creates a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution version.
It was pointed out on behalf of petitioner that it has not come in evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-7) that he has not shown in the site plan of spot as to at what distance from the spot petitioner was apprehended. It was submitted on behalf of petitioner that no public person had signed the arrest memo which casts a grave doubt on the prosecution's case as place of incident was a crowded place and the incident had taken place in broad day light and the case property had been identified by the complainant only.
Thus, it was submitted on behalf of petitioner that impugned conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner is unwarranted and so it deserves to be set aside. On the quantum of sentence, it was submitted that petitioner is in custody since 4th March, 2013 and the heart of petitioner is functional to the extent of 60% and he is being treated at
RML Hospital and his wife is physically handicapped. Nothing else had been submitted on behalf of petitioner.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State supported the impugned order and had submitted that the discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case are not at all material and that it stands
CRL.REV.P. 155/2013 Page 3 noted in the impugned
JUDGMENT
that no application for recall of complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) was made and the submissions made before this Court have been duly considered in the impugned judgment and that the conviction and sentence imposed upon petitioner is well merited.
Now-a-days, public witnesses seldom come forward to join investigation of the case like the instant one. The alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case are not at all material. The incident in question had taken place in broad day light and petitioner was apprehended at the spot and the robbed chain and a knife was recovered from him. Above all, the deposition of complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) remains unchallenged and in view of thereof, conviction of petitioner is well deserved.
On the quantum of sentence, on perusal of the status report placed on record by respondent-State, I find that petitioner already stands convicted in another case and a case under Arms Act is already pending against petitioner and so, the substantive sentence already awarded to petitioner is quite reasonable and there is no further scope of reduction of substantive sentence awarded to petitioner.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and the trial court's decision, this revision petition and the application are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 08, 2013 s
Now-a-days, public witnesses seldom come forward to join investigation of the case like the instant one. The alleged discrepancies in the prosecution's case are not at all material. The incident in question had taken place in broad day light and petitioner was apprehended at the spot and the robbed chain and a knife was recovered from him. Above all, the deposition of complainant-Dr. Kavita Taunk (PW-2) remains unchallenged and in view of thereof, conviction of petitioner is well deserved.
On the quantum of sentence, on perusal of the status report placed on record by respondent-State, I find that petitioner already stands convicted in another case and a case under Arms Act is already pending against petitioner and so, the substantive sentence already awarded to petitioner is quite reasonable and there is no further scope of reduction of substantive sentence awarded to petitioner.
Finding no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and the trial court's decision, this revision petition and the application are dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge AUGUST 08, 2013 s