Delhi District Court
Sarvan vs The State on 26 August, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2020
In the matter of:-
SARVAN
S/o Shri Gote Lal
R/o Village Chapda PS Mahaeshkhut,
Distt, Khagaria, Bihar
Presently In Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad, U.P.
(produced through V/C) ......Appellant
Versus
THE STATE
Govt of NCT of Delhi .......Respondent
FIR No. 619/2016
U/s 392/186/353/332/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act
PS NDRS
Date of institution : 06.01.2020
Date of Judgment : 26.08.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide the present appeal filed by appellant/convict against impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019 passed by Ld. MM-08, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and order on sentence dated Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.1/19 10.12.2019 passed by Ld. ACMM-02, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in case vide FIR no.619/2016 u/s 392/186/353/332/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act, PS NDRS.
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019, appellant herein was convicted by Ld. Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 392 IPC, 332 IPC and Section 27(1) Arms Act. However, vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019, Ld. Trial Court acquitted appellant for offences punishable under Section 186 and 353 IPC.
3. Vide impugned order on sentence dated 10.12.2019, appellant/convict has been sentenced as under:-
(1) For offence punishable under Section 392 IPC:- RI for a period of 3 years and is further sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant/victim and in default SI for a period of two months. (2) For offence punishable under Section 332 IPC:RI for a period of three years and is further sentenced to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to victim Rajiv Yadav and in default, SI for a period of two months. (3) For offence punishable under Section 27(1) of Arms Act:- RI for a period of three years and is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, SI for a period of two months.
Ld. Trial Court directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC was also given to appellant/convict.
Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.2/194. Aggrieved by impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019 and order on sentence dated 10.12.2019, appellant/convict has filed the present appeal.
5. I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. Vijay Kumar Jain, Ld. Counsel for appellant as well as by Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
6. The prosecution case against appellant/convict in brief is that the present FIR was registered on the statement of one Raja Ram Rai(PW-1). Complainant in his statement made to SI Ashok Kumar/IO stated that he is working as Sergent in Air Force. On 28.05.2016, he alongwith his wife namely Urmila Devi had reached platform no.-5 of New Delhi Railway Station by Mahabodhi Train. Complainant got his goods/luggage loaded in a cart(rehri) and was going towards Ajmeri Gate side alongwith his wife. While complainant and his wife were going towards Ajmeri Gate Side, at about 05.45 AM(morning), one boy snatched gold chain from the neck of his wife and started running. Wife of complainant started shouting and the complainant also started running to apprehend said boy. Meanwhile, the said boy handed over gold chain to another boy who fled away from the spot. It is further alleged that the boy who had snatched gold chain was apprehended by Constable of RPF namely Rajiv Yadav near platform no.-2. The said boy stabbed RPF Constable and the said RPF constable sustained injury on his hand. Complainant has further alleged that he alongwith constable Rajiv Yadav apprehended said boy and he was taken to PS NDRS. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, FIR in question was registered and investigation was Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.3/19 taken up.
7. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against appellant/convict herein for offences punishable under Section 392/186/353/332/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act.
8. Charge for offences punishable under Section U/s 392/186/353/332/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act was framed against accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
9. Prosecution produced and examined five witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 is Raja Ram Rai(complainant). PW-2 is constable Megh Singh. PW-3 is ASI Hari Om. PW-4 is Ct Rajiv Yadav. PW-5 is Retd. SI Ashok Kumar i.e. IO. P.E. was closed and statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 30.09.2019. Thereafter, statement of Ct Rajiv Yadav i.e. PW-4 was again recorded in court on 10.10.2019. Supplementary statement of accused was again recorded on 15.10.2019. Accused chose not to lead D.E. Final arguments were heard by Ld. Trial Court. Accused/appellant was convicted by Ld. Trial Court vide impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019 and was sentenced vide impugned order dated 10.12.2019.
10. Sh. V.K. Jain, Ld. Counsel for appellant argued that appellant/convict has been falsely implicated in this case. Ld. Counsel further argued that real Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.4/19 culprits escaped from the spot and could not be apprehended. Appellant/convict was later on picked up from his residence and falsely implicated in this case. The testimony of witnesses is full of lacunas and contradictions and the whole prosecution case is unreliable. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the points/grounds raised by him during trial and has based its judgment on conjectures and surmises. The impugned judgment is non speaking and non reasoned one. Ld. Trial Court has imposed excessive sentence upon appellant/convict. Ld. Counsel further argued that in the given facts and circumstances, neither offence punishable under Section 392 IPC is made out against appellant/convict nor offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act is made out against appellant/convict. Prosecution has failed to produce and examine its most important witness i.e. Urmila Devi without specifying any reason. Ld. Counsel further argued that neither the alleged accomplice of appellant has been apprehended till date nor the gold chain has been recovered till date. No bill etc pertaining to chain in question has been filed on record by complainant/victim and the existence of chain in itself is doubtful. The impugned judgment as well as order on sentence are liable to be set aside and appellant/convict is entitled to be acquitted in this case.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the judgment passed by Ld. Trial Court is well reasoned and no ground for setting aside the same is made out. Prosecution has examined five witnesses in support of its case and said witnesses have duly proved the prosecution case. Testimony of PW-1 i.e. Raja Ram Rai(complainant) is most important and he has supported Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.5/19 the prosecution case in totality. PW-4 i.e. Rajiv Yadav (RPF Constable) has also supported and corroborated the version of PW-1. Appellant /convict was apprehended at the spot itself and non recovery of gold chain of wife of PW-1 is not of much significance more particularly in view of the fact that PW-1 has stated that the same was handed over by appellant/convict to his accomplice. The appeal filed by appellant is without merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
12. I have duly considered the rival submissions. I have perused the record carefully.
13. Perusal of record shows that charge for offences punishable under Section 392/186/353/332/34 IPC r/w Section 27 Arms Act was framed against accused /appellant. Appellant/convict has been convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Section 392/332 IPC as well as Section 27 of Arms Act. Appellant/convict was acquitted for offences punishable under Section 186/353 IPC. No appeal has been preferred by State against acquittal of appellant/convict for offences punishable under Section 186/353 IPC, hence such acquittal has attained finality.
14. Relevant Sections of IPC are being reproduced herein for the sake of convenience and ready reference:-
"392. Punishment for robbery - whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.6/19 shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 390 IPC is also reproduced herein for the sake of convenience and ready reference:-
"390. Robbery - In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery - Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint."
Section 332 IPC:-
"332. Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".
15. As far as offence punishable under Section 392 IPC is concerned, Ld. Trial Court observed as under:-
Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.7/19"Essential ingredients of offence of robbery are as follows:-
i)Offender committed theft as defined in Section 378
ii) Offender caused or attempted to cause to any person:
"a. fear of death, or hurt or wrongful restraint, "b. fear of instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restrain "iii) Offender did such act either "a. in order to the committing of the theft "b. while committing the theft "c. in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property."(emphasis supplied)
45. In Braham Singh Vs. State(NCT of Delhi), Crl A. no.28/2008, decided on 23/11/2009, has discussed the distinction between theft and robbery. It has held as under:-
"14. The line of distinction between "robbery" as defined under Section 390 of the IPC and "theft" as defined in Section 378 of the IPC is thin but nevertheless distinct. Theft becomes robbery if in the process of committing the theft the offender causes or attempts to cause either death or hurt or a wrongful restraint............
"15.Section 390 of the IPC in fact contemplates that the accused should have from the very start the intention to deprive the complainant of the property and should for that purpose either hurt him or place him under wrongful restraint. Where A and B were stealing mangoes from a tree, C surprised them, on which A knocked him down senselesss with a stick; where a person, in snatching a nose-ring, wounded the woman in the nostril and caused her blood to flow, this offence was committed. Where the accused slapped the victim after dispossessing him of his watch in order to silence him anoffence under Section 390 was made out. These are instances of robbery for which the accused stood convicted. See Husrut Sheikh (1866) 5 WR (Cr.) 85, Teekai Bheer (1866) 5 WR (Cr) 95 and Harish Chandra AIR 1976 SC 1430".
46. Thus, if the hurt is voluntarily caused by the offender to any person in order to committing of theft, or in committing the theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by theft, such offender is stated to have committed robbery. In the present case also, the testimonies of PW-1 Raja Ram Rai and PW-4 Ct. Rajiv Yadav have proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had caused injury to Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.8/19 Constable Rajiv Yadav when Rajiv Yadav had tried to stop the accused from carrying the stolen property. It becomes clear from the material on record that the accused had an intention to cause injury to Ct Rajiv Yadav so that he would be able to run away with the stolen property. There is no other plausible explanation for causing injury to Rajiv Yadav. Thus it has been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to constable Rajiv yadav in carrying away or attempting to carry away the stolen property. The MLC Ex. A-1 of constable Rajiv Yadav has been duly proved. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of offence punishable under Section 392 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. However, there remains a doubt whether the person had taken away the chain had shared common intention with the accused to commit the offence or not."
16. Perusal of impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019 passed by Ld. Trial Court shows that appellant/convict was convicted for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC on the ground that accused/appellant had caused injury to constable Rajiv Yadav when Ct Rajiv Yadav had tried to stop the appellant/accused from carrying away the stolen property. Ld Trial Court further held that accused had an intention to cause injury to Ct Rajiv Yadav so that he would be able to run away with the stolen property. Ld. Trial Court further held that appellant had voluntarily caused hurt to Ct Rajiv yadav in carrying away or attempting to carry away the stolen property.
17. However, I am of the considered view that the aforesaid findings of Ld. Trial Court are erroneous and are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Perusal of Ex.PW-1/A i.e. statement of complainant made to police clearly shows that appellant/accused had handed over the gold chain of wife of complainant to Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.9/19 some other boy and the said boy had already escaped from the spot. Later on appellant/accused was apprehended by Ct Rajiv Yadav and appellant/convict caused injury to Ct Rajiv Yadav. PW-1 i.e. Complainant in his testimony recorded in court reiterated that the snatcher had thrown the chain and one of his associate ran away from the spot alongwith the gold chain. PW-4 i.e. Ct Rajiv Yadav in his statement recorded in Court has nowhere stated that appellant/convict was running with chain of wife of complainant and had later on thrown the same towards his accomplice. PW-4 merely stated that he saw one person was running at the end of platform no.2/3 and another person was chasing him and he apprehended the said person. PW-4 further stated that the said person tried to flee from his custody and had inflicted knife injury on his hand.
18. Perusal of material available on record and more particularly Ex.PW- 1/A, testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 clearly shows that the appellant/convict had already passed/transferred the possession of chain in question to his alleged accomplice well before he was apprehended by Ct Rajiv Yadav. It is also a matter of record that appellant/convict was not having in his possession the chain of wife of complainant at the time when he was apprehended by Ct Rajiv Yadav. Thus, the appellant/convict had not caused or attempted to cause hurt to Ct Rajiv Yadav in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property as he was not having the said property i.e. the gold chain with him at the time when he had allegedly caused hurt to Ct Rajiv Yadav. When appellant/convict had caused injury to Ct Rajiv Yadav, he was merely running Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.10/19 away/escaping from the spot and at that time, he was not carrying the stolen chain.
19. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, conviction of appellant/convict for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
20. However, Section 222(2) Cr.P.C postulates that a person can be convicted for a minor offence even if no charge has been framed against him for said offence. Relevant portion of Section 222(2) of Cr.P.C is being reproduced herein for sake of convenience and ready reference:-
"Section 222: When offence proved included in offence charged-
(1).....................
(2)When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
21. In Sanjay @ Kalu @ Sanju Vs. State of M.P. delivered by Hon'ble High Court of M.P. in Criminal Appeal No.-219 of 2012 dated 02.01.2018, it has been held as under:-
" 8.As to the question whether the act of the appellant is a theft or robbery, Section 392 IPC is an aggravated from of theft. According to Section 390 of IPC, Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.11/19 property obtained by theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. This shows that to apply the provisions of Section 392 IPC, the prosecution has to establish that during the course of commission of the offence of theft, the offender had caused or had intended to cause threat of death or hurt or to wrongful restraint. But from the statement of Seema Mishra(PW/1) it does not appear that in committing the theft, of a chain from her possession, the appellant, during the course of commission of the offence of theft had caused or had intended to cause threat of death or hurt or to wrongful restraint of Seema Mishra.
9.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court committed mistake in finding appellant Sanjay @ Kalu @ Sanju guilty of the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC instead of section 379 of IPC and hence the appeal of the appellant Sajay @ Kalu @ Sanju is partly allowed and his conviction is altered from Section 392 of IPC to Section 379 of IPC and in these circumstances his jail sentence is also reduced from 5 years R.I. To 3 years R.I and accordingly appellant appellant Sanjay @ Kalu @ Sanju is convicted for the offence punishable under section 379 of IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I and fine of Rs.500 and in default of fine further R.I of six months. He is directed to serve out the sentence accordingly. The period already undergone shall be set off from the period of substantive jail sentence. Appeal is disposed of accordingly."Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.12/19
22. In Shabaj Isaq Shaikh & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.-1057 of 2015 DOD 29.07.2016, it has been held as under:-
"9.Considering the aforesaid, the offence with which the appellants would be guilty of, would be under Section 379 r/w 34 of the IPC for committing theft and not under section 392 r/w 34. The evidence on record clearly shows that the appellants were apprehended red handed on the spot and as such, there is nothing to doubt the identity of the appellants. From the evidence, it is evident that the offence could not be one of robbery punishable under section 392 but would be an offence punishable under section 379 r/w 34 of the IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants is modified from section 392 r/w 34 to section 379 r/w 34 of the IPC."
23. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution during trial, I am of the considered view that appellant/convict is liable to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and not under Section 392 IPC. Hence, conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 392 IPC is set aside and appellant is hereby convicted for offence punishable under Section 379 IPC.
24. As far as conviction of appellant/convict for offence punishable under Section 332 IPC is concerned, I find no reason for interference in the same. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt all the essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and the reasoning given by Ld. Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.13/19 Trial Court while convicting the appellant/convict for said offence is just, proper and I find no reason for setting aside the same. Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant/convict had caused hurt to Ct. Rajiv Yadav i.e. Public Servant while he was discharging his duties to deter him/preventing him from discharging his duties. Testimony of PW-4 i.e. Ct. Rajiv Yadav has been fully corroborated by PW1 in this regard and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence, conviction of appellant for offence punishable under Section 332 IPC is hereby upheld.
25. As far as conviction of appellant/convict for offence punishable under Section 27 of Arms Act is concerned, a reference to relevant provisions of Arms Act is essential and hence the relevant provisions are reproduced herein for sake of convenience and ready reference:-
Section 27(1) of Arms Act:-
"27. Punishment for using arms, etc. (1) Whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to be fine. (2) .........................
(3)............................
Section 5 of Arms Act:-
"5. License for manufacture, sale etc. of arms and ammunition (1) No person shall-
(a)use, manufacture, obtain, procure, sell, transfer, convert, repair, test or Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.14/19 prove, or
(b) expose or offer for sale or transfer or have in his possession for sale, transfer conversion, repair, test or proof, any firearms or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed or any ammunition, unless he holds in this behalf a license issued in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder."
Section 2(1)(c) of Arms Act defines "arms" as under:-
(c) "arms" means articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons for offences, or defence, and includes firearms, sharp-edged and other deadly weapons, and parts of, and machinery for manufacturing arms, but does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural uses such as a lathi or an ordinary walking stick and weapons incapable of being used otherwise than as toys or of being converted into serviceable weapons.
26. Perusal of impugned judgment dated 02.11.2019 shows that with respect to offence/charge under Section 27 of Arms Act, Ld. Trial Court held as under:-
"53.Now, I come to the charge for the offence punishable under Section 27 of The Arms Act. The Section provides punishment, inter alia, for using any arms or ammunitions in contravention of Section 5 or using any prohibited arms or prohibited ammunitions in contravention of Section 7 of The Arms Act. Section 5 of the Act prohibits, inter alis, use of any firearm or any other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed. Section 2 (c) defines Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.15/19 "arms", means, inter alia, articles of any description designed or adapted as weapons of offence or defence and includes sharp edged and other deadly weapons. However, it does not include articles designed solely for domestic or agricultural use."
27. Ld. Trial Court further held as under:-
"54. In the present case, the knife was produced in the Court. The knife is similar to the sketch of the knife available in the judicial record which is Ex.PW-1/C. The knife produced in the Court which is Ex.P-1 is certainly not an article designed solely for domestic or agricultural use. The knife is, without any doubt, is designed as a weapon of offence or defence. It is sharp edged weapon. It therefore false category of arms as defined under the Act. It has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that the accused had used the said arm/knife in contravention of Section 5. He is therefore, found guilty of offence punishable under Section 27(1), The Arms Act 1959."
28. The sketch of knife i.e. Ex.PW-1/C shows that the total length of said knife i.e. Ex.P-1 is 33 cm. The length of blade is 22 cm and length of handle is 11 cm. Section 27 of The Arms Act 1959 postulates that whoever uses any arms or ammunition in contravention of Section 5 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 5 of said Act inter alia postulates that no person shall use any firearm or other arms of such class or description as may be prescribed unless he holds a license in this Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.16/19 behalf issued in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules made thereunder.
29. In the present case use of knife i.e. Ex.P-1 & its recovery from possession of accused/appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by prosecution. Testimony of PW-1 and PW-4 has virtually remained unchallenged and unrebutted on this aspect. Though there are some contradictions/ inconsistencies regarding place of recovery but they are minor in nature and they do not go to the root of the matter. The dimensions of knife in question i.e. Ex.P-1 clearly shows that it is not designed solely for domestic or agricultural use. Appellant/accused had caused injury to Ct. Rajiv Yadav by using that knife.
30. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant/accused for offence punishable i.e. under Section 27(1) of Arms Act. Hence, conviction of appellant/convict for said offence is also hereby upheld.
31. As far as quantum of sentence is concerned, Ld. Counsel for appellant/accused argued that accused/appellant belongs to very poor family comprising of his wife, parents as well as one school going daughter. Accused/appellant is a young boy and is not a previous convict and hence, a lenient view be taken in sentencing the appellant/convict.
Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.17/1932. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for State argued that accused/appellant is a habitual offender and previously also he was involved in several cases of similar nature.
33. I have duly considered the rival submissions. I have perused the record carefully.
34. Though, accused/appellant was previously also involved in several cases of similar nature, however, no previous conviction has been alleged/proved against him. Appellant/accused is having a family to support and he belongs to poor strata of the society. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances, appellant/accused is hereby sentenced as under:-
(1) For offence punishable under Section 379 IPC, appellant/convict is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 18 months. Appellant/convict is further sentenced to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to complainant/victim i.e. Smt Urmila Devi and in default SI for a period of 15 days. (2) For offence punishable under Section 332 IPC, appellant/convict is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 18 months. Appellant/convict is further sentenced to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- to victim i.e. Ct Rajiv Yadav and in default SI for a period of 15 days.
(3)For offence punishable under Section 27(1) of Arms Act, appellant/convict is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 03 years.
Appellant/convict is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default SI for a period of 15 days.
Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020 Sarvan Vs. State Page No.18/1935. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be also given to appellant/convict.
36. Copy of judgment be supplied to appellant/convict, through Superintendent Dasna Jail, Ghaziabad, U.P. forthwith free of cost. One copy be also supplied to Ld. Counsel for appellant/convict forthwith.
37. TCR be sent back to court concerned alongwith copy of present judgment.
38. Appeal file be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Announced in Open Court
on 26.08.2020 (DEEPAK DABAS)
Additional Sessions Judge(Central)
Delhi
Criminal Appeal No. 03/2020
Sarvan Vs. State Page No.19/19