Delhi District Court
Ashwani Singh Sisodiya vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 15 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDRA SHEKHAR, ASJ02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Old Criminal Appeal No. 33/15
New Criminal Appeal no. 54877/16
CNR No. DLCT010049412015
In the matter of:
Ashwani Singh Sisodiya
S/o Sh. Kishan Singh
R/o H. No. H173, Desu Colony,
Gud Mandi, Model Town, Delhi.
Present Address:
Gaon Sonahati Bujurug
Post Sabdal Kala
Distt. Basti (UP)
............Appellant
VERSUS:
The State (NCT of Delhi)
Through its Secretary
............Respondent
Date of Institution : 19.05.2015
Date of reserving judgment : 15.07.2017
Date of pronouncement : 15.07.2017
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 16.04.2015 passed by Sh. Vinod Kumar Gautam, Ld. ACMM, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi convicting the appellant u/s 420 IPC and 171 IPC and order on sentence dated 28.04.2015 awarding sentence of simple imprisonment for one and half years and fine of Rs. 50,000/ for offence u/s 420 IPC, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for four Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 1 of 6 months and awarding sentence of SI for three months for the offence u/s 171 IPC with benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.
2. In brief, the relevant facts are that the appellant used to wear uniform of Delhi police and used to go to the shop of one Santosh Kumar a Hairdresser, who was running his shop in the name of "Modern Hairdresser" for haircut and shave. He disclosed to the said hairdresser that he is a resident of district Basti in U. P. and is posted in police station Ashok Vihar. The said Hairdresser was also a resident of district Basti, therefore they became friends. The appellant started visiting the room of the said Hairdresser of and on and one day, the appellant asked the Hairdresser if he needs a vehicle, he may get the one for him in cheap rates in auction by Delhi Police. At that time, one Bishram Gupta who was from the village of that Hairdresser and was residing in neighbourhood on rent, also came to the house of the Hairdresser and asked from the appellant about the vehicle,which he may arrange. The appellant informed that at that time one Scorpio and one Innova were available for auction which may be arranged in auctionsale for them for Rs. One lac each but, they will have to deposit money in advance and after 45 days and completion of formalities of documentation, rest of the amount may be paid and the said vehicles may be registered in their respective names thereafter. On 04.04.2007 the Hairdresser paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/ (rupees fifteen thousands only) and his friend paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/ (rupees thirty thousands only) to the appellant as advance. On the same day at about 03:00 pm the appellant took them to PS Ashok Vihar and asked them to remain present outside and he himself went inside the PS and after sometime brought temporary receipts and gave to them telling them that the Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 2 of 6 Officers were busy in a meeting and hence proper receipts shall be given later on and after some times vehicles standing in the police station Civil Lines shall also be shown. Thereafter, he alongwith Hairdresser and his friend Bishram Gupta came to the room of Hairdresser. After sometime, friend of Hairdress went away. The appellant and the Hairdresser took cold drink at about 06:00 pm and thereafter, Hairdresser went out of his room to ease himself and when he came back to his room, he found that the appellant had left without informing him and his articles were scattered. In the evening, one Arun Kumar Gupta who used to reside in the room of his friend Bishram, told that his camera of Kodak company is missing. They became suspicious about the appellant and went to PS Ashok Vihar to know about the appellant, where they came to know that there was none in the name of Ashwani Singh Sisodia from district Basti, U. P. posted as Constable in the said Police Station. On 08.06.2007 they saw the appellant at the bus stand, Subzi Mandi, Ghantaghar with camera in his hand. They reported the matter to the police and on the statement of said Santosh Kumar, a case bearing FIR No. 238/07 u/s 171/420/379 IPC PS Roop Nagar was registered. The appellant was chargesheeted, tried, convicted and sentenced as per the aforesaid impugned orders.
3. The appeal has been filed on the grounds that the judgment passed by the Ld. ACMM is based on surmises and conjectures; is arbitrary and unjustified; is against the principles of natural justice. Ld. ACMM did not give opportunity to the appellant during examination to cross examine PW5 ASI Ravi Bhan and PW8 Inspector Rakesh Kumar; the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, they have not corroborated each other; recovery of camera and receipts were not effected Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 3 of 6 in the presence of any public witness therefore, case of the prosecution has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the appellant deserves benefit of doubt.
4. The order on sentence has been challenged on the grounds that the appellant should have been awarded probation as it is the first offence of the appellant and he is a responsible person having deep roots in the society.
5. I have considered the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Ld. Counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
A perusal of record shows that the Ld. ACMM has considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the appellant and has passed a detailed and reasoned judgment. The prosecution public witnesses have corroborated the testimonies of each other. The fact that the appellant posed himself as police constable by wearing uniform of Delhi Police in front of PW3 Santosh Kumar and PW1 Bishram a number of times, has been duly proved from the depositions of aforesaid witnesses on oath and nothing contrary has come on record during cross examination of these two witnesses. The witnesses seem to be reliable and trustworthy on this aspect. Their testimonies have been corroborated from the fact of recovery of police uniform from the room of the appellant and from the deposition of PW4 Naval Singh who deposed that appellant had represented himself to be in Delhi Police when he had taken his house on rent therefore, offence u/s 171 IPC has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant.
PW3 Santosh Kumar and PW1 Bishram Gupta have specifically stated on oath that the accused had taken the amount of Rs. 15,000/ and 30,000/ respectively from them for arranging the Scorpio and Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 4 of 6 Innova cars in the auction conducted by Delhi Police and had also given temporary receipts. The appellant had become their friend therefore, they believed him readily and delivered the aforesaid amount on his inducement therefore, ingredients of the offence u/s 420 IPC have also been duly proved.
The record shows that the point of joining public witness during recovery, has already been adequately dealt with in the impugned judgment. The appellant was given opportunity to cross examine PW5 ASI Ravi Bhan and PW8 Inspector Rakesh Kumar but, he did not avail the same therefore, it seems that there is no merit in the appeal as the appellant has failed to show from the judicial record any illegality in the impugned judgment.
I have also considered the submissions of Ld. Counsel for the appellant that instead of sentencing the appellant, benefit of probation would have been given to the appellant on the grounds that the appellant is first offender, he is the sole bread earner of the family and he has minor daughters and parents to support.
It is observed that offence u/s 420 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and with fine and the offence u/s 171 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs. 200/ or with both. Ld. ACMM has already taken a lenient view and awarded the simple imprisonment of one and half years with fine of Rs. 50,000/ (rupees fifty thousands only) for offence u/s 420 IPC and simple imprisonment of three months for offence u/s 171 IPC with benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is apparent that Ld. Counsel for the appellant has failed to show that granting Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 5 of 6 probation was essential as per law, hence, it seems that the impugned order on sentence passed by the Ld. ACMM is also just and proper and requires no interference. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed and disposed of accordingly.
The appellant is directed to surrender before the Ld. Trial Court on 21.07.2017 at 02:00 pm to undergo further period of sentence as per the impugned order on sentence.
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court to proceed further as per law.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (CHANDRA SHEKHAR)
COURT ON 15th of July, 2017 ASJ02 (Central)/THC/Delhi
Crl. Appeal no. 33/15; Ashwani Singh Sisodiya v. The State Page 6 of 6