Full Text
Translation output
r $^R-3&3A HIGH COURT OF DELHI i CRL.A. 506/2012
MOHD YASIN
Appellant
Through: None
MOHD YASIN
Appellant
Through: None
VERSUS
STATE
Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Ahlawat. APP with Jail Superintendent Subash Chandra
Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Ahlawat. APP with Jail Superintendent Subash Chandra
I CRL.A. 866/2017
AJAY @ SHAHID @ AKHTAR Appellant
Through: Mr .latin Rajput, Adv
AJAY @ SHAHID @ AKHTAR Appellant
Through: Mr .latin Rajput, Adv
VERSUS
STAFF
Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Ahlawat. APP
Respondent
Through: Mr Amit Ahlawat. APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
15.01.2018 These are two appeals filed by the two appellants namely Md.
Yasin and Ajay ''ct' Shahid ® Akhtar.
The nominal roll of Md. Yasin relleets that after having completed his sentence of 5 years the appellant has been released from the jail on 11.02.2014.
The nominal roll of the co-convict Ajay •a Shahid 'li .A.khtar reveals that on 26.08.2017 the appellant has undergone incarceration for 3 years 4 months and 28 days besides remission earned for 4 months and 21 days meaning thereby that as on date the substantive sentence suffered by the appellant is about 4 years and 3 months.
2018:DHC:9336 O- This would be excluding the remission earned. His jail conduct is satisfactory.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
15.01.2018 These are two appeals filed by the two appellants namely Md.
Yasin and Ajay ''ct' Shahid ® Akhtar.
The nominal roll of Md. Yasin relleets that after having completed his sentence of 5 years the appellant has been released from the jail on 11.02.2014.
The nominal roll of the co-convict Ajay •a Shahid 'li .A.khtar reveals that on 26.08.2017 the appellant has undergone incarceration for 3 years 4 months and 28 days besides remission earned for 4 months and 21 days meaning thereby that as on date the substantive sentence suffered by the appellant is about 4 years and 3 months.
2018:DHC:9336 O- This would be excluding the remission earned. His jail conduct is satisfactory.
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
ORDER
cannot be sustained for the reason that PW4 who was an eyewitness has not identified the appellant Ajay (?/; Shahid Akhtar. Ihe MLC ofthe complainant also evidences simple injuries. The conviction of the appellants under Section 392/34 IPG cannot be sustained and particularly ofthe appellant Ajay ® Shahid (a> Akhtar.
Arguments have been refuted.
Record shows that the complainant was PW6. She had deposed about the incident. She had deposed that while she was present in her house with her nephew Pankaj, four persons entered her house and committed robbery upon her and her person. Her gold bangles, cash, jewelery and other ornaments were taken away. She had identified all the accused persons on the court; this was after judicial TIP had been effected in the Rohini Jail where the SI Rakesh Kumar/ PW15 had ensured that the accused persons are produced from the jail in a muffled face. PW4 had also deposed about the incident corroborating the version of PW6. In the first part of his examination in chief although he had identified all the other accused except the appellant
Ajay (a^Sahid 'xv. Akhtar but yet in the cross examination by the learned APP he had identified the present appellant as v\ell. He had stuck to his stand in his cross examination. The fact that judicial flP had been effected of all the accused persons in which the eye witness had identified the accused and the accused had been produced in a muffled face is also a factually correct statement. fhc injuries sustained by the victim as also the fact that the recovery of the stolen articles had been effected are facts which are not disputed. The conviction ofthe appellants thus calls for no interference.
The appellant Md. Yamin has already undergone his sentence.
His appeal has become infructuous. It is disposed ofaccordingly.
Qua the second appeal i.e.. Ajay 'ci\ Shahid Akhtar the court while passing an order had sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R1 for aperiod of 5years besides atine ot Rs 20.000/- and in default of payment of fme to undergo SI for 6 months. This court notes that in case of co-convict Md. Yamin this court had granted leniency in the sentence and while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence of the appellant Md Yamin already stood completed the default sentence of non-payment of tine to one month instead of 6 months.
Noting the aforenoted precedent before this court, this court is of the view that the present appellant Ajay up, Shahid {cp Akhtar also deserves leniency in his sentence. Accordingly, substantive sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone and the default sentence for non- payment of fme is reduced from 6 months to 1month.
Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Copy of this order be sent to the .lail Superintendant for intimation to the appellant.
INDERMEET KAIJR, J JANUARY 15, 2018 SU
Arguments have been refuted.
Record shows that the complainant was PW6. She had deposed about the incident. She had deposed that while she was present in her house with her nephew Pankaj, four persons entered her house and committed robbery upon her and her person. Her gold bangles, cash, jewelery and other ornaments were taken away. She had identified all the accused persons on the court; this was after judicial TIP had been effected in the Rohini Jail where the SI Rakesh Kumar/ PW15 had ensured that the accused persons are produced from the jail in a muffled face. PW4 had also deposed about the incident corroborating the version of PW6. In the first part of his examination in chief although he had identified all the other accused except the appellant
Ajay (a^Sahid 'xv. Akhtar but yet in the cross examination by the learned APP he had identified the present appellant as v\ell. He had stuck to his stand in his cross examination. The fact that judicial flP had been effected of all the accused persons in which the eye witness had identified the accused and the accused had been produced in a muffled face is also a factually correct statement. fhc injuries sustained by the victim as also the fact that the recovery of the stolen articles had been effected are facts which are not disputed. The conviction ofthe appellants thus calls for no interference.
The appellant Md. Yamin has already undergone his sentence.
His appeal has become infructuous. It is disposed ofaccordingly.
Qua the second appeal i.e.. Ajay 'ci\ Shahid Akhtar the court while passing an order had sentenced each of the appellants to undergo R1 for aperiod of 5years besides atine ot Rs 20.000/- and in default of payment of fme to undergo SI for 6 months. This court notes that in case of co-convict Md. Yamin this court had granted leniency in the sentence and while maintaining the conviction reduced the sentence of the appellant Md Yamin already stood completed the default sentence of non-payment of tine to one month instead of 6 months.
Noting the aforenoted precedent before this court, this court is of the view that the present appellant Ajay up, Shahid {cp Akhtar also deserves leniency in his sentence. Accordingly, substantive sentence is reduced to the sentence already undergone and the default sentence for non- payment of fme is reduced from 6 months to 1month.
Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
Copy of this order be sent to the .lail Superintendant for intimation to the appellant.
INDERMEET KAIJR, J JANUARY 15, 2018 SU