Delhi District Court
Sunil Kumar vs State on 21 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC) (RC), SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of:
CNR No. DLSW01-002287-2023
CA No. 139/2023
FIR no. 210/2000
Under Sections 420, 468, 471, 34 IPC
Police Station Uttam Nagar
Sunil Kumar
Son of Late Sh. Jagan Lal Sharma,
Resident of Village Brijnathpur, Police Station Hafizpur,
District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh,
Also at, H.No. 485, Swarg Ashram Road,
Hapur, Uttar Pradesh.
...Appellant
versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi)
... Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 04.03.2023
Date on which judgment reserved : 21.02.2025
Date on which judgment pronounced : 21.03.2025
Sunil Kumar v. State
CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 1 of 6
JUDGMENT
1. This is a criminal appeal under Section 374 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), filed by the convict, against judgment dated 15.10.2022 and order on sentence dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as learned Trial Court) in FIR No. 210/2000, under Sections 420, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC, Police Station Uttam Nagar, tilted as 'State v. Sunil Kumar.'
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 420 IPC and acquitted under Sections 174A, 468 and 471 IPC. He was sentence to simple imprisonment for a period of six months and directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default, convict was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment of one month.
3. Notice on behalf of the State was accepted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Notice was also issued to the complainant.
4. Arguments were heard from all the parties concerned. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that they were not pressing upon their challenge to the conviction order, but were praying for leniency in the sentence imposed.
Sunil Kumar v. State CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 2 of 6
5. Succinctly put, the appellant sold a property to the complainant on 22.03.1999 by way of GPA, receipt, Will, Possession letter etc. However, the complainant later came to know that the property had already been sold by the appellant on 18.03.1999 to one Chandrawati. It was further alleged that the property documents were forged and the property belonged to one Ravi Sharma.
6. After framing charge under Section 420, 468, 471 and 174A IPC, taking evidence on record, recording statement of the accused and hearing arguments, the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment.
7. The learned Trial Court noted the evidence of both the complainant as well the previous purchaser Chandrawati. In the instant matter, the Court noted that the case of the prosecution to the extent of cheating was infact admitted by the appellant. The appellant had suggested to the complainant during her cross- examination that he had returned the money that he had received from her and that a compromise had taken place between the appellant and the husband of the complainant. Furthermore, Chandrawati, as PW-3 also deposed in her testimony that the subject property was sold to her by the appellant/accused. She was further not cross-examined by the appellant. PW-3 had placed on record the earlier sale documents of the property executed between her and the appellant dated 18.03.1999. These documents directly call into question the subsequent documents executed with the complainant.
Sunil Kumar v. State CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 3 of 6 This Court agrees with the reasoning and rationale of the learned Trial Court in reaching the decision.
8. In respect to the aspect of sentencing, the learned Trial Court has noted that that the convict has suffered trial for over two decades. He is a senior citizen aged 60 years. The learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that not only was a compromise reached with the complainant, but the fine also stands paid.
9. He submits that the appellant is a senior citizen and a man with very limited means to support himself and his family. He submits that the appellant is repentful and since then the appellant led an honest life. He requests that the appellant has served nearly 2 months behind bars and that leniency be afforded to him.
10. The Supreme Court in several cases have discussed sentencing guidelines and principles which can aid the Court while deciding the quantum of sentence. Reliance is placed upon cases such as State of Punjab v. Prem Sagar and Others, 2008 AIR SCW 4805, Rattan Singh v. Satte of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719, Rajendra Prahladrao Wasmik v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2019 SC 1 amongst others. Criminal penology is largely based on two cardinal principles i.e. deterrent and reformative theories. While punishment remains the core aspect of penology, over time it has expanded to include other policies aimed at the rehabilitation, reformation and reintegration of offenders.
Sunil Kumar v. State CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 4 of 6
11. An offender who shows a genuine desire to repent, must be granted a fair opportunity for reformation so that he can be a useful citizen of the country. Simultaneously, convicts must also be awarded such a sentence, which discourages other like-minded people of the society from entering the world of crime. However, a balance is required to be maintained between the theories, while sentencing the convicts. No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. It is also essential to understand crime as a social and individual phenomenon and the need to prevent its commission or repetition by adapting an attitude conducive to the re-socialization and reformation of the criminal.
12. In the instant matter, it can be seen that 24 years have passed since the date of offence. Nominal Roll of appellant reveals that no other case is pending against appellant and that he has spent 2 months and 18 days in custody already. No criminal antecedents of the appellant that have been brought on record. It has further been informed that the appellant is still taking care of his ailing mother and has three children, one of whom is still unmarried. One is an adopted daughter who is married but he still has to step in to take care of.
13. Furthermore, the Court is mindful of the fact that a period of more than two decades is a long time in the course of which a Sunil Kumar v. State CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 5 of 6 person's condition of life and outlook can undergo significant change. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection, to consider the mitigating circumstances to modify the sentence order.
14. In light of the foregoing circumstances, the substantive sentence to be suffered by the appellant Sunil Kumar under Section 420 IPC is reduced to that already undergone by him, however the amount of fine is hereby maintained. Appeal is hereby partly allowed.
15. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order.
16. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 CERTIFIED THAT THIS JUDGMENT CONTAINS 6 PAGES AND EACH PAGE BEARS MY SIGNATURE. Digitally signed by Sadhika Sadhika Date:
Jalan Jalan 2025.03.21 16:34:43 +0530 (SADHIKA JALAN) Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC (RC) South West District, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, 21.03.2025 Sunil Kumar v. State CA No. 139/2023, Police Station Uttam Nagar Page 6 of 6