Mohd. Rabool v. State

1. Present a|plication stands d[isposed ofin view ofthe following order passed in the mam appeal§"v^,^ M % ' \ iRRv. " >. /'■

2. Application'stands disposediOfi:Pv>; CRL.A.265/2016 ' ^ ^ ^

3. Present appeal has 6oen preferred by the"appellant under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure impugning the judgment dated 28.01.2016 whereby the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (North), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Session's Case No. 154/1 held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 411 of the Indian Penal Code and vide order dated 18.02.2016 sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment Crl. A. No. 265/2016 Page1of 5 2016:DHC:8904-DB for two months for the offence under Section 411 ofthe Indian Penal Code,

4. The prosecution ease in a nutshell is that on 02.02.2010 at about 2:00 p.m., Raju, domestic help of Sh. Praveen Thakur, husband of the deceased,came to Smt. Anjali and informed her that he had come to collect the lunch for Praveen Kumar but Smt. Mamta Thakur (since deceased) was not opening the door despite ringing the doorbell on which Smt. Anjali sent her maid servant to call the house of Sh.Praveen Thakur on intereptn,^J^fter sometime, Smt. Anjali was informed by her maiB^ihatlinfefebm^^had been picked up by male riJ """' person who told her-tliat boyi^-should be senf after 15-20 minutes to collectthe lunch:' On thi§ Smt.Anjali gotsuspicious and rushed to the house ofj:§h.>#raveen Kumar:ahd^found blood'51yiri| on floor of fi u ^j p drawing-eiim-dining room "and^^ also found the dead body of Smt.Manfta Thakur lying nnJ4^|D|ol of blood in the bedroom. Suddenly,Accused back^ind locked her inside the l5athroom;^ifeig^^?Afetds/Kumari'Vidhi Thakur, •>x. n daughter ofSh.Praveen,^timmifiaiMe«iffside the house and opened the door ofthe bathroom'^^^Jpli^^SsSSs^^^'W'^^^^^^^ revealed that cash amount of Rs.8,00,000/- and jewellary articles had been robbed from the house. One blood stained knife was found lying beneath the bed in the bedroom. Another knife having no blood stain was also found below the sofa in the drawing room. During investigation, on 05.02.2010 Special Staffarrested the accused Mohd. Rabool from Rohini, Sector-1, Delhi who made a disclosure that on 02.02.2010,he along with co-accused Gulshan Taneja wentto Friends Tower Apartment, Sector-9, Rohini, Delhi. He remained present Crl. A.No.265/2016 Page2of[5] outside the said apartment whereas co-accused Gulshan Taneja committed the crime. Two gold bangles and cash amount of Rs.41,940/- were recovered from the accused Mohd. Rabool. On an secret information accused Gulshan Taneja was also apprehended from the Patna Railway Station,Patna.

5. To bring home the guilt of the accused and to prove its case, the prosecution examined 33 witnesses in all. The statement of the ^ accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he rei^d^^sj^frmocence and examined one witness m his defence: M

6. Mr.Nigam,learned counselforthe appellant atthe outsetsubmitsthat he has instructions notto press the present appeal on merits by which # VT'. 1 he has been convicted under Section 411 ofthe Indian Penal Code and B mm'm'm'mm i to contest the quantum ofsentence, which has been awarded to him; i y II II If/M! 3 that outofthe sentence ofthree years awarded to the appellant,he has already undergone two years three months and twelve days as on the date offiling ofthe appeal, besides he has earned remission; that the ¥ appellant belongs to a poor family and he is the only bread winner of his family; that the appellant is a married man and has three minor children (two daughters and one son) with nobody to support the family; that the appellant is a first-time offender and has no criminal background; that so far assentenceof three years is concerned, the same is harsh and disproportionate to the guilt of the appellant and hence, leniency may be shown to the appellant by imposing thesentencealready undergone by him.

7. Per contra, Ms.Aasha Tiwari, learned counsel for the State contends that the appellant has committed an offenceunderSection411 ofthe Cil. A.No.265/2016 Page3of[5] Indian Penal Code by receiving stolen goods knowingly which was looted by accused Gulshan Taneja after committing a murder, therefore, no leniency may be shown to the appellant so far as imposition ofsentenceis concerned.

8. The appellant has been convicted under Section 411 Indian Penal Code,which reads as under: "411.Dishonestly receivingstolen property- Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment ofeither descriptionfora term which may extendto threeyears, or withfine, or with both."

9 The Trial Court has returned the fmding against the appellant after proper appreciation ofthe evidence available on record. The pieces of evidence ultimately connecting the appellant with the partly robbed s n n | articles i.e.two bangles belongingftowne deceased and cash amountof il ifl-lllJj.lF S Rs.41,940y- have been seized from his possession.These bangles were identified by PW[5] Praveen fhakur during the Test Identification Parade as belongin^toflhe^dSSSi^ied.^ H&b'eyrwe find no reason to interfere in the impugned judgment.^mOTCs^'^a also does not wish to challenge the same.'^isi-.- --'

10. So far as the aspect ofsentence is concerned, as per the nominal roll of the appellant, the appellant has already spent two years three months and twelve days in incarceration besides remission earned. The appellant is a young man aged about 36 years having the entire responsibility of his family including three minor children. The appellant has a clean antecedent and is not involved in any other criminalcase. His overalljail conductis satisfactory.Keeping in view the totality ofthe facts and circumstances ofthe case, we are ofthe Crl. A.No.265/2016 Page4of[5] n

10. considered view that the interest of justice shall be served if the sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced to that of the period already undergone. Accordingly, the sentence awarded to the appellant under Section 411 ofthe Indian Penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone by him and alsoto pay a fine as directed by the Trial Court. Resultantly, the present appeal is partly allowed. The appellant is in jail.Heshall bereleased forthwith unlessrequired insome other case. Let a copy of this^order be sent to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail, l 1 Delhi. r

4. l I G.S.SISTANI,J,fA|s ^ ■?.{} "O " APRIL 19, 2016 gr Jiff « ''•"A Vc'>l ■ y f:! 'A.-.[1] ^E?». IN SEHGAL, J