Punjab-Haryana High Court
State Of Haryana vs Anshu @ Anisur Rehman And Another on 6 May, 2010
Author: T.P.S. Mann
Bench: T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Appeal No. 481-SB of 1997
Date of Decision : May 06, 2010
State of Haryana
....Appellant
Versus
Anshu @ Anisur Rehman and another
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : Ms.Hem Lata Balhara, Assistant Advocate General,Haryana
Mr. Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
None for respondent No.2.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
Challenge in the State appeal is to the order dated 21.3.1997 passed by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka to the extent of awarding inadequate sentence of imprisonment upon the respondents.
According to the prosecution, on 26.9.1995 complainant Naresh Kumar returned from Delhi and at about 9.25 p.m. after getting down from the bus, he was waiting for some conveyance for Punhana, he noticed a maruti van going towards Punhana. On enquiry, its occupants, who were four in number, informed him that they were going towards Crl. Appeal No. 481-SB of 1997 -2- Punhana and permitted him to sit in the van. When some other passengers also wanted to board the van, they were prevented on the plea that the engine of the vehicle had recently been reassembled and it was not meant for carrying passengers to its full capacity. On way towards Punhana, the occupants of the van stopped it in the area of village Khanpur Ghati and snatched currency notes of Rs.53,600/- from the complainant and, thereafter, dropped him at an isolated place after tying his hands and covering his eyes. The complainant managed to reach village Pingawa and reported the matter to the police. Accordingly, FIR No. 139 dated 27.9.1995 was registered at Police Station Nagina under Section 392 IPC.
During investigation of the case, accused-Rustum was arrested on 21.11.1995, while accused-Anshu on 23.12.1995. On completion of investigation and preparation of documents, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was submitted in the Court. Vide order dated 23.8.1996, the trial Court found a prima facie case under Section 392 IPC against the accused-respondents and charged them accordingly. However, the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After the prosecution examined Malkhan as PW1, both the accused-respondents made confessional statement on 21.3.1997. The trial Court felt convinced that the confession was voluntary, without any pressure or promise. Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused-respondents for the offence under Section 392 IPC.
While passing the order on sentence, the trial Court noticed that accused-Rustum was in custody since 21.11.1995 while accused- Crl. Appeal No. 481-SB of 1997 -3- Anshu in custody since 23.12.1995. Till 21.3.1997 when both the accused- respondents were convicted, they had already undergone a period of more than one year. The trial Court also noticed that the trial had not been delayed on account of the conduct of the accused-respondents. Accordingly, the trial Court sentenced both the accused-respondents to undergo simple imprisonment for the period already undergone by them.
The occurrence relates to the year 1995. The trial of the case went on for a period of about one year. Throughout the trial of the case, both the accused-respondents remained in custody. For the offence under Section 392 IPC, the accused could be sentenced to an imprisonment for a term upto ten years and in case the robbery is committed on the highway between sunrise and sunset, the imprisonment could be extended to fourteen years. However, there is no minimum sentence of imprisonment which could be imposed upon a convict for the offence under Section 392 IPC. The present appeal has remained pending in this Court for about thirteen years. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court upon the accused- respondents can not be termed as inadequate, requiring imposition of higher sentence of imprisonment.
Resultantly, the appeal is dismissed.
( T.P.S. MANN )
May 06, 2010 JUDGE
ajay-1