Delhi District Court
Amit vs The State on 17 August, 2017
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH PANDIT,
ASJ-03, NEW DELHI DISTRICT, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS,
NEW DELHI
CA No. 168/17
Amit
S/o Sh. Phool Singh
Village Hastinapur, Tehsil Hastinapur,
District Meerut, UP.
(Present Confined at
Central Jail no. 4, Tihar, New Delhi). ..... Revisionist
Vs.
The State .....Respondent
Date of filing of appeal : 20.07.2017
Date of Arguments : 17.08.2017
Date of Judgment : 19.08.2017
JUDGMENT
1 By this judgment, I will dispose off appeal filed on behalf of appellant against judgment dated 12.01.2017 and order on sentence dated 28.01.2017 passed by the court of Sh. Harvinder Singh, Ld. MM in case based on FIR no. 244/16 PS South Campus.
2 The brief facts of the case as per prosecution are that there is a complainant namely Gulshan Kapuria who reported to CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 1 of 4 2 SHO PS South Campus that on 26.06.2016 at about 2.00 p.m. at H. No. 58, Third Floor, Satya Niketan, New Delhi, accused entered into his house, committed theft of one VCD and was apprehended at the spot.
3 After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and vide judgment dated 12.01.2017 was convicted.
4 Vide order dated 28.01.2017 accused was directed to undergo following punishment:-
(i) For the offence u/sec.380 IPC, RI for two years.
(ii) For the offence u/sec.454(II) IPC, RI for two years.
Benefit u/sec.428 Cr.P.C. was given.
5 Vide this appeal, the convict had assailed the judgment and order on various grounds.
6 During the course of the arguments, Ld. counsel for convict submits that considering the trial court record, he wants to confine his arguments on the point of sentence only.
7 Arguments were heard on the point of sentence.
8 Considering the fact that Ld. counsel for convict had conceded on the merits, the conviction of the accused for the offence u/sec.380 IPC and u/sec.454(II) IPC is upheld.
CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 2 of 4 3 9 As far as the sentence is concerned, it appears that when the order on sentence dated 28.01.2017 was passed, complainant was present.
10 In the said order, it is mentioned "the complainant/owner submits that the convict had suffered sufficient punishment for his deeds, therefore lenient view be taken against him"
11 From the perusal of the record, it appears that convict had argued that his child has already expired. He is having a child of 8 years who now resides with grand parents. He belongs to the poor strata and does not having any income.
12 Considering this, I take lenient view and the order on sentence of trial court is modified to the following extent:-
(i) Convict is directed to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him for the offence u/sec.380 IPC. He is further directed to pay fine of Rs.10.
In case of default of fine he is directed to undergo imprisonment for 2 days.
(ii) Convict is directed to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him for the offence u/sec.454(II) IPC. He is further directed to pay fine of Rs.10. In case of default of fine he is directed to undergo imprisonment for 2 days.
Benefit u/sec.428 Cr.P.C. is given.
13 Warrants be prepared.
CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 3 of 4 4 14 Appeal disposed off.
15 It is submitted by convict that nobody is coming forward to meet him. So bonds u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. are dispensed with.
16 TCR be sent back with copy of the order.
17 File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED In the open Court (RAKESH PANDIT) today i.e. 19.08.2017 Special Judge : MCOCA/TADA/POTA ASJ-03 /PHC/New Delhi District CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 4 of 4 5 CA No. 168/17 Amit Vs. State 19.08.2017 Present: Sh. Ravi Qazi LAC with appellant.
Sh. Ravindra Kumar Ld. APP for State.
Vide separate order announced and dictated in open court the appeal filed by the appellant is disposed off.
The order on sentence dated 28.01.2017 of trial court is modified to the following extent:-
(i) Convict is directed to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him for the offence u/sec.380 IPC. He is further directed to pay fine of Rs.10. In case of default of fine he is directed to undergo imprisonment for 2 days.
(ii) Convict is directed to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him for the offence u/sec.454(II) IPC. He is further directed to pay fine of Rs.10. In case of default of fine he is directed to undergo imprisonment for 2 days.
Benefit u/sec.428 Cr.P.C. is given.
Warrants be prepared.
Appeal disposed off.
It is submitted by convict that nobody is coming forward to meet him. So bonds u/sec.437A Cr.P.C. are CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 5 of 4 6 dispensed with.
TCR be sent back with copy of the order.
File of appeal be consigned to Record Room.
(Rakesh Pandit) Special Judge : MCOCA/TADA/POTA ASJ-03/PHC/New Delhi District 19.08.2017 CA NO. 168/17 Amit Vs. State page 6 of 4