Rohit Dubey @ Sunny v. State

1. In pursuance to the directions of this Court, the Superintendent, Jail is present. The updated Nominal Roll has also been filed. As per the Nominal Roll, the appellant has undergone 3 years 8 months and 28 days of imprisonment. It has been submitted that the unexpired portion of sentence is 2 years 9 months and 17 days. The Superintendent, Jail has also informed that the conduct of the appellant in jail has been satisfactory for the last 1 year. It has further been submitted that there is no report of misconduct during the interim bail/parole/furlough. The Nominal roll also indicates that the appellant has not availed any parole/furlough.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the instructions, the appeal may be modified to the extent as to the challenge to the quantum of sentence.

3. Learned Trial Court has awarded the sentence in the following terms by order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 as under:- “I have considered the submissions made by Ld. Counsel for the convicts as well Ld. Addl. P.P. in the present case, both convicts had robbed the complainant and convict Rohit Dubey @ Sunny used knife while committing robbery. In the cases of heinous crime of robbery, the proper sentence is required to be imposed. For the offence punishable u/s 397 IPC, the sentence which can be awarded cannot be less than seven years. On considering the totality of aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the ends of justices would be met by sentencing the convict in the following manner:- (a) for the offence punishable u/s 394 IPC, the both convicts are sentenced to five years Rigorous Imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/each. In default of payment of fine, both convicts shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. (b) for the offence punishable u/s 397 IPG, convict Rohit Dubey @ Sunny is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. The convicts shall be given the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.. Keeping in view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, a compensation of Rs.10,000/- is awarded to tine complainant which shall be paid by the convicts (Rs.5000/- by each convict) to the complainant and in default of payment of compensation, the convicts shall further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Amount of fine as well as compensation amount has not been deposited by the convicts. Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convicts free of costs. File be consigned to record room.”

4. It is a matter of record that accused was also convicted in FIR No.1082/2014 under Sections 392/397/394/34 IPC, P.S. Pandav Nagar. In FIR No.1082/2014, the appellant was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine. It has come on record that the appellant has completed the said sentence on 11.08.2021. However, the fine has not been paid. The offence in the present case and in FIR No.1082/2014 was allegedly committed within a span of half an hour. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the robbery was of around Rs.450 in the present case and undertakes that the appellant shall pay a fine and compensation imposed upon him in case FIR No.1081/2014 and FIR No.1082/2014.

5. Learned Addl. P.P. for the State has submitted that it is a serious crime committed by the petitioner and no lenient view should be taken on the sentence awarded.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The ultimate object of the sentencing policy is not only retributive but also reformative which assesses whether a convict displays traits of a hardened criminal beyond reform or has potential for reform. The reformative theory propounds that an opportunity should be extended for an offender to live in mainstream society and this benefit should ordinarily be extended unless the court believes that the convict is incorrigible and cannot be reformed. In the present case, the accused is around 33 years of age and has already undergone complete sentence in FIR 1082/2014. His conduct in jail has been satisfactory and there is no report of misconduct. In my considered view, the accused is ought to be given a chance to re-integrate into society, therefore the sentence awarded in the present case is reduced to period already undergone.

8. Accordingly, the present appeal along with the pending applications stands disposed of.

DINESH KUMAR SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 30, 2022