Ravinder v. State

1 The present appeals are directed against the impugnedjudgment and order on sentence dated 25.05.2012 wherein the appellant Ravinder stands convicted under section 397/392 read with section 34ol the IPG. He is being sentenced to undergo R[1] for[7] years and to pay a Tine ofRs. 5.000 in default ofpayment offine to undergo SI for six months. The 2015:DHC:11967 r second convict Ravi has been convicted under section 392 read with section 34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R[1] for a period of[5] years and in default of payment of the fine to undergo SI for six months.

2 Nominal roll ofboth the appellants have been requisitioned.

3 The nominal roll of convict Ravi reflects that he had completed his substantive sentence on 20.10.2015. He is presently undergoing his sentence in view offine as the fine amount has not been paid.

4 Learned counsel for the appellant submits that keeping in view the aforenoted factual matrix: the fact that the appellant has already suffered substantive portion of his sentence; he being in his mid twenties leniency be awarded and the default period in view of the payment offine be reduced.

5 Without going into the merits of the case qua the role of Ravi and noting the above factual matrix and the fact that his substantive sentence of[5] years stands completed on 20.10.2015.the fine amount of Rs. 5.000/- remains unaltered but in default of payment of fine the appellant will undergo SI for a period of45 days.

6 The appellant Ravi @ Retal be released forthwith after the aforenoted period is over in case he is not required in any other case.

7 The nominal roll of the appellant Ravinder reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of about 6 years and 2 months. Learned counsel for the appellant has made a short submission. His submission is that the weapon of offence i.e. alleged knife was not recovered and in view of the judgement passed by the Co-ordinate Iknch of this Court titled Samiuddin Coj Chotu Vs. The State ofNCT ofDelhi2011 Crl.L.J. 901 it has been held that In the absence of such an evidence and particularly, the non-recovery of the weapon woidd certainly bring the case out ofthe ambit ofSection 397. The accusedcould be convicted under Section 392." Thus where the knife is not recovered the recovery becomes doubtful. On this ground alone his submission is that his sentence be modified from one under section 397to section 392 ofthe IPG.

8 Noting the above factual matrix which is the admitted position and the judgment cited supra wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has noted that where the recover} of weapon has not been effected the recovery would become doubtful, the sentence of the appellant is modified from one under section 397 to section 392 ofthe IPG. The sentence already undergone by the appellant be treated as the sentence imposed upon him. The fine, if not already paid is also directed to be waived. The appellant Ravinder be released forthwith if not required in any other ease.

9 Petitions disposed ofaccordingly.

10 Copy of the order be sent to thejJail Superintendent for intimation to the appellants.

DECEMBER 10,2015 INDERMEET KAUR,J gb