Shamim Ahmed & Anr. v. State

(2) Cr.P.C. feeling aggrieved from the impugned judgment dated 17.04.20 14 and order on sentence dated 21.04.2014 passed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge (Central), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, vide which the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months. Pursuant to the production warrants issued against the appellants, they CRLA. 1009/2014 Page 1 of[4] 2016:DHC:8503 have been produced from J/C. They are represented by Ms.Pallavi S.Kansal and Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Advocates. Both the appellants have submitted in writing that they are not challenging their conviction. However, they pray that lenient view may be taken on the point of sentence and substantive sentence awarded to them may be reduced. They further submit that they are very poor. They were depending on legal aid provided to them during trial of the case and even this appeal has been filed from Jail and they are being represented by legal aid counsel. Vide impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II/34 IPC for committing the murder of an unidentified person. Vide order on sentence dated 31.04.2014, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months. On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that they have no criminal antecedents. At the time of their conviction in this case, while appellant Santosh was aged about 25 years, appellant Shamim was aged about 29 years and both were having family responsibilities for the reason that while father of appellant Santosh had already expired, wife of appellant Shamim had already expired and he had four children, out of them three are daughters. They have further submitted that they were the sole bread earners of the family at the time when they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years in this case and now their families are on the verge of starvation. They further submit that since their financial condition does not permit them to pay the fine of Rs.20,000/- each imposed on them, the sentence to be CRL.A. 1009/2014. ( 7, undergone by them in default of payment of fine may also be reduced. While making submissions regarding the occurrence, both the appellants have submitted that they had no acquaintance or enmity with the deceased who was a vagabond and even his identity could not have been established till date. They further submit that the deceased wanted them to give the tube of solution free of cost for which they refused. On their refusal, it was the deceased who attacked them with knife and while trying to save themselves, they happened to cause injury to the deceased which proved fatal though there was only injury by knife. Both the appellants before this Court are praying for a lenient view on the quantum of sentence. They have been sentenced to undergo sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of 20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months. Both the appellants come from lower strata of society and at the time of occurrence, they were quite young. Indeed both the appellants appeared to be poor as during trial, they were represented by legal aid counsel and even now the appeal has been filed from Jail Visiting Advocate. They have no criminal antecedents. The quarrel was not premeditated and single injury was received by the deceased though on vital part, hence proved fatal. S 9. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I am of the view that the sentence awarded to both the appellants to undergo RI for ten years is on higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants by learned ASJ from 10 years to 5 years with benefit under Section 428 CrPC.

10. In view of their poor financial condition, it is further directed that while maintaining the fine amount of Rs.20,000/- each, the sentence to be CRL.A. 1009/2014 Page 3 of[4]