Delhi District Court
Jullaiya vs State on 26 April, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01), CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLCT01-012977-2018
Criminal Appeal No. 376/2018
Julliaya
S/o Sh. Chote Lal
R/o Jhuggi Soniya Camp,
Prahaladpur, New Delhi.
......... Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi
......... Respondent
Date of Institution : 04.10.2018
Date of Judgment reserved on : 15.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 26.04.2024
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. The present judgment shall decide appeal filed by appellant Julliaya s/o Sh. Chote Lal under Section 374 Cr. P. C. The appeal is filed against judgment dated 18.08.2018 and order on sentence dated 29.08.2018. Notice of the appeal was given to the State and appellant was allowed bail during appeal vide Julliaya vs. State Page 1 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 order dated 12.10.2018. An application was filed by the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. During the course of proceedings learned Counsel for the appellant had submitted before the present Court recorded in order dated 04.08.2023 that appellant sought to withdraw his appeal against the judgment of conviction and he had requested that the present appeal may only be considered against the order on sentence. On such submissions the present appeal against judgment on conviction was disposed off as withdrawn and the appeal against conviction continue to be heard. The matter was kept pending for consideration in terms of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Karan vs. State of NCT of Delhi 277 (2021) DLT 195 and appellant was directed to file affidavit. Affidavit was filed and report of DLSA was called and format of victim impact report was received. The DLSA has reported that since the appellant was convicted under Section 379 IPC and Section 147 Railway Act and due to such conduct of the appellant the victim Sh. Krishan Shah 55 years old had suffered a loss of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash which is not recovered till date and about Rs.5000/- to Rs.6000/- were incurred by victim as expenses on litigation. Further physical and mental injury compensation was also not received. DLSA has recommended compensation under Section 357 Cr. P. C. as the case is not covered under Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 and Section 357A Cr. P.C. is found not applicable. Section Julliaya vs. State Page 2 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 357 (1) (a) of Cr. P. C., 1973 has laid down defraying expenses accrued in the prosecution. The loss or injury due to such crime if recoverable in Civil Court then this compensation can be awarded in the present Court. Further theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, cheating, dishonestly received or retained or voluntarily assisted in disposing stolen property with such knowledge then compensation can be given either to the bona-fide purchaser of such property or to the person entitled therein as the case may be. Under Sub-clause (1) the compensation can be given from the fine imposed and under Sub-clause (3) when the fine does not form part of sentence then appellant person can be asked to pay compensation separately. Any compensation already paid can be taken into account for the purpose of part payment under Sub-clause (5).
2. In the present case the prosecution has claimed expenses for a sum of Rs.1403/- against the appellant herein.
3. The appellant has submitted that he comes from a respectable family having clean antecedents and he has deep roots in the society. He can be given benefit of probation under the Act and it is prayed that order may be passed accordingly in the appeal.
4. The application under Section 378(5) Cr. P. C. for Julliaya vs. State Page 3 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 condonation of delay of 5 days in filing this appeal is moved by the appellant. The appeal had to be filed within 30 days from the date of passing of judgment on 18.08.2018 and therefore the due date of filing is claimed as was 28.10.2018 keeping in view the order of sentence on 29.08.2018. On 09.09.2018 the mother of the appellant had expired. After completing last rites of his mother certified copies were obtained from his Counsel on 24.09.2018. On 29.09.2018 his grandfather had expired and keeping in view the above facts it is prayed by the appellant/ applicant that condonation of delay of period of 5 days may be allowed to him. The appeal was filed on 03.10.2018. The State has not filed reply and arguments are heard. Nothing contrary to the fact disclosed by the appellant is found and death in the family of the appellant is found a reasonable ground to condone the delay in filing this appeal and subject to just exceptions the appeal as filed is allowed with condonation of delay as prayed by the appellant.
5. The appellant has therefore withdrawn contest on the conviction and submissions in his written appeal are largely based against conviction which are given up during the course of proceedings in the appeal. Hence it is futile to refer to such arguments which any more does not form part of the appeal.
6. Both the parties are heard and record perused.
Julliaya vs. State Page 4 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/20187. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.10.2017 about 12.05 PM at platform No.1 Okhla Railway Station, Delhi convict alongwith the not arrested co-accused Shibhu had stolen cash of Rs.1 lakh from the purse of wife of the complainant which they were taking to Bihar for the marriage of their daughter. During arguments before learned Trial Court it has come on record that convict is already convicted in FIR No.194/2010 under Arms Act. There are three similar cases of theft and Arms Act against the convict. The convict is using more than one name to escape detection of his previous record. convict was directed in this case to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 147 of Railway Act, 1989 and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 379/34 IPC.
8. After hearing both the parties it is noted that the convict has failed to show having contributing positively towards his family and society. His previous involvement in other case with conviction is also seen on record. As per report of DLSA it is found that he convict is earning around Rs.4000/- to Rs.5000/- per month as rag picker and that he is not even earning minimum wages. Hence the convict himself is living under penury and monetary compensation on the face of it could not Julliaya vs. State Page 5 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 be sustained by the convict either by way of imposition of fine or by awarding compensation separately. Even if a fine is imposed or compensation is awarded then in all the cases it is not seen that convict would be in a position to pay the said money and in any case the non-payment will culminate into further imprisonment of the convict. Hence the punishment is to be such that the convict is in a position to bear it and if he intentionally does not bear it then the non-compliance can be put into further imprisonment. In this case the convict's financial condition is such that it is not an intention but due to his condition of penury he would not be in a position to pay the fine or compensation if awarded. Hence in my opinion imposition of fine or awarding compensation to the prosecution or victim from the convict would not be a proper sentence keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in such view of the matter it is held that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment on the convict will serve the purpose of conviction in this matter.
9. It is noted that learned Trial Court vide order of sentence dated 29.08.2018 has not awarded any monetary compensation nor imposed any fine on the convict and therefore the same is found justifiable keeping in view the facts discussed above and on this account the judgment of learned Trial Court is upheld. The relevant law on sentencing is laid down by Hon'ble Julliaya vs. State Page 6 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 Supreme Court of India in citation referred hereasunder:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled State of H.P vs Nirmala Devi on 10 April, 2017 Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 Supreme Court 1981 has held as under:
15. Whereas in various countries, sentencing guidelines are provided, statutorily or otherwise, which may guide Judges for awarding specific sentence, in India we do not have any such sentencing policy till date. The prevalence of such guidelines may not only aim at achieving consistencies in awarding sentences in different cases, such guidelines normally prescribe the sentencing policy as well, namely, whether the purpose of awarding punishment in a particular case is more of a deterrence or retribution or rehabilitation, etc. In the absence of such guidelines in India, the courts go by their own perception about the philosophy behind the prescription of certain specified penal consequences for particular nature of crime. For some deterrence and/or vengeance becomes more important whereas another Judge may be more influenced by rehabilitation or restoration as the goal of sentencing.
Sometimes, it would be a combination of both which would weigh in the mind of the court in awarding a particular sentence. However, that may be a question of quantum.
16. What follows from the discussion behind the purpose of sentencing is that if a particular crime is to be treated as crime against the society and/or heinous crime, then the deterrence theory as a rationale for punishing the offender becomes more relevant, to be applied in such cases.Therefore, in respect of such offences which are treated against the society, it becomes the duty of the State to punish the offender. Thus, even when there is a settlement between the offender and the victim, their will would not prevail as in such cases the matter is in public domain. Society demands that the individual offender should be punished in order to deter other effectively as it amounts to greatest good of the greatest number of persons in a society. It is in this context that we have to understand the scheme/philosophy behind Section 307 of the Code.
17. We would like to expand this principle in some more detail. We find, in practice and in reality, after recording the conviction and while awarding the sentence/punishment the court is generally governed by any or all or combination of the aforesaid factors. Sometimes, it is the deterrence theory which prevails in the minds Julliaya vs. State Page 7 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 of the court, particularly in those cases where the crimes committed are heinous in nature or depict depravity, or lack morality. At times it is to satisfy the element of "emotion" in law and retribution/vengeance becomes the guiding factor. In any case, it cannot be denied that the purpose of punishment by law is deterrence, constrained by considerations of justice. What, then, is the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion in law? These are by no means comfortable questions and even the answers may not be comforting. There may be certain cases which are too obvious, namely, cases involving heinous crime with element of criminality against the society and not parties inter se. In such cases, the deterrence as purpose of punishment becomes paramount and even if the victim or his relatives have shown the virtue and gentility, agreeing to forgive the culprit, compassion of that private party would not move the court in accepting the same as larger and more important public policy of showing the iron hand of law to the wrongdoers, to reduce the commission of such offences, is more important. Cases of murder, rape, or other sexual offences, etc. would clearly fall in this category. After all, justice requires long-term vision. On the other hand, there may be offences falling in the category where the "correctional" objective of criminal law would have to be given more weightage in contrast with "deterrence" philosophy. Punishment, whatever else may be, must be fair and conducive to good rather than further evil. If in a particular case the court is of the opinion that the settlement between the parties would lead to more good; better relations between them; would prevent further occurrence of such encounters between the parties, it may hold settlement to be on a better pedestal. It is a delicate balance between the two conflicting interests which is to be achieved by the court after examining all these parameters and then deciding as to which course of action it should take in a particular case." The offences for which the respondent is convicted prescribe maximum imprisonment and there is no provision for minimum imprisonment. Thus, there is a wide discretion given to the Court to impose any imprisonment which may be from one day (or even till the rising of the court) to ten years/life. However, at the same time, the judicial discretion which has been conferred upon the Court, has to be exercised in a fair manner keeping in view the well established judicial principles which have been laid down from time to time, the prime consideration being reason and fair play. Some of the judgments highlighting the manner in which discretion has to be exercised were taken note of in Satish Kumar Jayanti Lal Dabgar v. State of Julliaya vs. State Page 8 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 Gujarat[3] and I may reproduce the same:
"18. Likewise, this Court made the following observations regarding sentencing in the cases involved in sexual offences in Sumer Singh v. Surajbhan Singh [(2014) 7 SCC 323 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 184] : (SCC pp. 337-39, paras 33-36) "33. It is seemly to state here that though the question of sentence is a matter of discretion, yet the said discretion cannot be used by a court of law in a fanciful and whimsical manner. Very strong reasons on consideration of the relevant factors have to form the fulcrum for lenient use of the said discretion. It is because the ringing of poignant and inimitable expression, in a way, the warning of Benjamin N. Cardozo in The Nature of the Judicial Process--Yale University Press, 1921 Edn., p. 114:
'The Judge even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodised by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to "the primordial necessity of order in social life".'
34. In this regard, we may usefully quote a passage from Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. v. Invest Import [(1981) 1 SCC 80] :
(SCC p. 96, para 20) "20. ... when it is said that a matter is within the discretion of the court it is to be exercised according to well- established judicial principles, according to reason and fair play, and not according to whim and caprice. "Discretion", said Lord Mansfield in R. v. Wilkes [(1770) 4 Burr 2527 :(1558-1774) All ER Rep 570 : 98 ER 327] , "when applied to a court of justice, means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule, not by humour; it must not be arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular" (see Craies on Statute Law, 6th Edn., p. 273).'
35. In Aero Traders (P) Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar Suri [(2004) 8 SCC 307] the Court observed: (SCC p. 311, para 6) "6. ... According to Black's Law Dictionary "judicial discretion" means the exercise of judgment by a Judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law; a court's power to act or not act when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a matter of right. The word "discretion"Julliaya vs. State Page 9 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018
connotes necessarily an act of a judicial character, and, as used with reference to discretion exercised judicially, it implies the absence of a hard-and-fast rule, and it requires an actual exercise of judgment and a consideration of the facts and circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair and just determination, and a knowledge of the facts upon which the discretion may properly operate. (See 27 Corpus Juris Secundum, p. 289.) When it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities, that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice and not according to private opinion; according to law and not humour. It only gives certain latitude or liberty accorded by statute or rules, to a Judge as distinguished from a ministerial or administrative official, in adjudicating on matters brought before him.' Thus, the Judges are to constantly remind themselves that the use of discretion has to be guided by law, and what is fair under the obtaining circumstances.
36. Having discussed about the discretion, presently we shall advert to the duty of the court in the exercise of power while imposing sentence for an offence. It is the duty of the court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. The paramount principle that should be the guiding laser beam is that the punishment should be proportionate. It is the answer of law to the social conscience. In a way, it is an obligation to the society which has reposed faith in the court of law to curtail the evil. While imposing the sentence it is the court's accountability to remind itself about its role and the reverence for rule of law. It must evince the rationalised judicial discretion and not an individual perception or a moral propensity. But, if in the ultimate eventuate the proper sentence is not awarded, the fundamental grammar of sentencing is guillotined. Law cannot tolerate it; society does not withstand it; and sanctity of conscience abhors it. The old saying 'the law can hunt one's past' cannot be allowed to be buried in an indecent manner and the rainbow of mercy, for no fathomable reason, should be allowed to rule. True it is, it has its own room, but, in all circumstances, it cannot be allowed to occupy the whole accommodation. The victim, in this case, still cries for justice. We do not think that increase in fine amount or grant of compensation under the Code would be a justified answer in law. Money cannot be the oasis. It cannot assume the centre stage for all redemption. Interference in manifestly inadequate and unduly lenient sentence is the justifiable Julliaya vs. State Page 10 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 warrant, for the Court cannot close its eyes to the agony and anguish of the victim and, eventually, to the cry of the society. Therefore, striking the balance we are disposed to think that the cause of justice would be best subserved if the respondent is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from the fine that has been imposed by the learned trial Judge." Likewise, stressing upon the principle of proportionality in sentencing in the case of Hazara Singh v. Raj Kumar & Ors.[4], this Court stressed that special reasons must be assigned for taking lenient view and undue sympathy for accused is not justified. It was equally important to keep in mind rights of victim as well as society at large and the corrective theory on the one hand and deterrence principle on the other hand should be adopted on the basis of factual matrix. Following paragraphs from the said judgment under the caption 'sentencing policy' need to be referred to:
"11. The cardinal principle of sentencing policy is that the sentence imposed on an offender should reflect the crime he has committed and it should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This Court has repeatedly stressed the central role of proportionality in sentencing of offenders in numerous cases.
12. The factual matrix of this case is similar to the facts and circumstances in Shailesh Jasvantbhai v. State of Gujarat [(2006) 2 SCC 359 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 499] wherein the accused was convicted under Sections 307/114 IPC and for the same the trial court sentenced the accused for 10 years. However, the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. In that case, this Court held that the sentence imposed is not proportionate to the offence committed, hence not sustainable in the eye of the law. This Court observed thus: (SCC pp. 361-62, paras 7-8) "7. The law regulates social interests, arbitrates conflicting claims and demands. Security of persons and property of the people is an essential function of the State. It could be achieved through instrumentality of criminal law. Undoubtedly, there is a cross-cultural conflict where living law must find answer to the new challenges and the courts are required to mould the sentencing system to meet the challenges. The contagion of lawlessness would undermine social order and lay it in ruins. Protection of society and stamping out criminal proclivity must be the object of law which must be achieved by imposing appropriate sentence. Therefore, law as a cornerstone of the edifice of 'order' Julliaya vs. State Page 11 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 should meet the challenges confronting the society. Friedman in his Law in Changing Society stated that: 'State of criminal law continues to be--as it should be--a decisive reflection of social consciousness of society.' Therefore, in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
8. Therefore, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc."
13. This position was reiterated by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed Saiyed v. State of Gujarat [(2009) 7 SCC 254 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 368], wherein it was observed as follows: (SCC p. 281, paras 99-100) "99. ... The object of awarding appropriate sentence should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal from achieving the avowed object to (sic break the) law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of society which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system.
100. Justice demands that courts should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment. The court will be failing in Julliaya vs. State Page 12 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which both the criminal and the victim belong." In that case, the Court further goes to state that meagre sentence imposed solely on account of lapse of time without considering the degree of the offence will be counterproductive in the long run and against the interest of the society.
14. In Jameel v. State of U.P. [(2010) 12 SCC 532 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 582], this Court reiterated the principle by stating that the punishment must be appropriate and proportional to the gravity of the offence committed. Speaking about the concept of sentencing, this Court observed thus: (SCC p. 535, paras 15-16) "15. In operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. By deft modulation, sentencing process be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy where it warrants to be. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration.
16. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The sentencing courts are expected to consider all relevant facts and circumstances bearing on the question of sentence and proceed to impose a sentence commensurate with the gravity of the offence."
15. In Guru Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka [(2012) 8 SCC 734 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 594 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 972], while discussing the concept of appropriate sentence, this Court expressed that: (SCC pp. 744-45, para 33) "33. ... It is the duty of the court to see that appropriate sentence is imposed regard being had to the commission of the crime and its impact on the social order. The cry of the collective for justice which includes adequate punishment cannot be lightly ignored."
16. Recently, this Court in Gopal Singh v. State of Uttarakhand [(2013) 7 SCC 545 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 608 : JT (2013) 3 SC 444] held as under: (SCC p. 551, para 18) "18. Just punishment is the collective cry of the society. While the collective cry has to be Julliaya vs. State Page 13 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 kept uppermost in the mind, simultaneously the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment cannot be totally brushed aside. The principle of just punishment is the bedrock of sentencing in respect of a criminal offence."
17. We reiterate that in operating the sentencing system, law should adopt the corrective machinery or deterrence based on factual matrix. The facts and given circumstances in each case, the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was planned and committed, the motive for commission of the crime, the conduct of the accused, the nature of weapons used and all other attending circumstances are relevant facts which would enter into the area of consideration. We also reiterate that undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It is the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed. The court must not only keep in view the rights of the victim of the crime but also the society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment." Following principles can be deduced from the reading of the aforesaid judgment: Imprisonment is one of the methods used to handle the convicts in such a way to protect and prevent them to commit further crimes for a specific period of time and also to prevent others from committing crime on them out of vengeance. The concept of punishing the criminals by imprisonment has recently been changed to treatment and rehabilitation with a view to modify the criminal tendency among them. There are many philosophies behind such sentencing justifying these penal consequences. The philosophical/jurisprudential justification can be retribution, incapacitation, specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or restoration. Any of the above or a combination thereof can be the goal of sentencing. Notwithstanding the above theories of punishment, when it comes to sentencing a person for committing a heinous crime, the deterrence theory as a rationale for punishing the offender becomes more relevant. In such cases, the role of mercy, forgiveness and compassion becomes secondary. In such cases where the deterrence theory has to prevail, while determining the quantum of sentence, discretion lies with the Court. While exercising such a discretion, the Court has to govern itself by reason and fair play, and discretion is not to be exercised according to whim and caprice. It is the duty of the Court to impose adequate sentence, for one of the purposes of imposition of Julliaya vs. State Page 14 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 requisite sentence is protection of the society and a legitimate response to the collective conscience. While considering as to what would be the appropriate quantum of imprisonment, the Court is empowered to take into consideration mitigating circumstances, as well as aggravating circumstances. When the Indian Penal Code provides discretion to Indian Judges while awarding the sentence, the Court will have undoubtedly regard to extenuating and mitigating circumstances. In this backdrop, the question is as to whether the respondent being a lady and having three minor children will be extenuating reasons? I may observe that in many countries of the world, gender is not a mitigating factor. Some jurists also stress that in this world of gender equality, women should be treated at par with men even as regards equal offences committed by them. Women are competing men in the criminal world; they are emulating them in all the crimes; and even surpassing men at times. Therefore, concept of criminal justice is not necessarily synonymous with social justice. Eugene Mc Laughlin shows a middle path. She finds that predominant thinking is that 'paper justice' would demand giving similar penalty for similar offences. However, when it comes to doing 'real justice', element of taking the consequences of a penalty cannot be ignored. Here, while doing 'real justice' consequences of awarding punishment to a female offender are to be seen. According to her, 'real justice' would consider the likelihood that a child might suffer more from a mother's imprisonment than that of his father's. Insofar as Indian judicial mind is concerned, I find that in certain decisions of this Court, gender is taken as the relevant circumstance while fixing the quantum of sentence. I may add that it would depend upon the facts of each case, whether it should be treated as a relevant consideration and no hard and fast rule can be laid down. For example, where a woman has committed a crime being a part of a terrorist group, mercy or compassion may not be shown.
10. In view of above, the judgment and order on sentence of ld. Trial Court is upheld for all the offence. Further, rigorous imprisonment awarded to the convict was so awarded concurrently. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the status of convict in the society when he is Julliaya vs. State Page 15 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018 living at a level below the poverty line then the sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court is upheld and stands maintained for both for the offence under Section 379/34 IPC and also under Section 147 of Railway Act, 1989. The sentence as awarded by the learned Trial Court is upheld in the same terms with benefit of imprisonment already undergone by the convict under Section 428 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Conviction warrant be prepared accordingly.
11. Copy of the judgment be sent to the learned Trial Court alongwith Trial Court record as per rules. Copy of this judgment be given to the Convict free of cost.
Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court Digitally signed by on 26.04.2024. JOGINDER JOGINDER PRAKASH PRAKASH NAHAR Date: 2024.04.26 15:25:41 NAHAR +0530 (JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01) CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURT DELHI Julliaya vs. State Page 16 of 16 Criminal Appeal No.376/2018