Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath v. State; Neelu Lunga v. State

1. Appellants-Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath and Neelu Lunga challenge judgment dated 16.03.2011 in Sessions Case No.211/1/10 arising out of FIR No.15/2010 registered at Police Station 2013:DHC:2030 Paschim Vihar by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Section 394/308/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga was further convicted under Section 411 IPC. Vide order dated 22.03.2011, they were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone with fine of `10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for six months each under Section 308/34 IPC; RI for five years with fine of `10,000/- each and in default to undergo SI for six months each under Section 394/34 IPC. Neelu Lunga was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone under Section 411 IPC. All the sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 17.01.2010 at about 01.45 P.M. at house No.B-5/101, Paschim Vihar, they robbed Neeta Pathak and deprived of her mobile phone make Sony Ericsson, lady purse containing debit card, license and some other papers and money. In the process of committing robbery, they also caused injuries to her with a wooden log of a cot. On 08.01.2010, Neelu Lunga recovered the mobile phone and other articles belonging to the complainant-Neetu Pathak. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313 Statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellants as mentioned previously and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the appeals.

3. During the course of arguments, Mr.Ajay Verma, counsel for Neelu Lunga, on instructions, stated that she has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view and to modify the sentence and fine. Ms.Rakhi Dubey, learned counsel for appellant- Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath, on instructions from him (he was present in the court in custody) stated that he too has opted not to challenge the conviction under Section 308/394 IPC. She also prayed to modify the sentence as the appellant is not involved in any criminal case and has three minor children to take care of them.

4. I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the appellants and have examined the record. Since the appellants have not opted to challenge the findings on conviction, their conviction under Section 308/394/34 IPC and conviction of the appellant- Neelu Lunga under Section 411 IPC stand affirmed.

5. Regarding sentence, it appears they have been sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine of `10,000/- under Section 394 IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo sentence for the period already undergone by them with fine of `10,000/- under Section 308 IPC. Nominal roll dated 08.01.2013 reveals that the appellant- Ramesh @ Ramu @ Dudh Nath has already undergone substantive sentence of two years, eleven months and twenty days. He earned remission for six months and three days. Nominal roll dated 16.04.2013 reveals that the appellant-Neelu Lunga has already undergone substantive sentence of three years, two months and twenty eight days. She earned remission for seven months and fourteen days. The crime committed by the appellants is very serious. Appellant-Neelu Lunga was maid in the house and the complainant had reposed trust in her. She was treated like a family member. She with her associate Ramesh not only committed robbery but also caused grievous hurt to the innocent lady. The Trial Court has already taken lenient view and no further reduction is justified. Substantive sentence awarded by the Trial Court to the appellants is maintained.

6. Regarding fine, the appellants have been order to pay a total fine of `20,000/- each and in default they are to undergo SI for one year. The appellants are in custody and have undergone substantial part of the substantive sentence. Due to their poverty, they are unable to pay the fine. Considering these circumstances, the fine of `20,000/- each is reduced to `5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine they shall undergo SI for 15 days each.

7. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

JUDGE APRIL 23, 2013 sa