Delhi High Court
Harish Kumar @ Pintu vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 11 April, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
Bench: S.P.Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 11th April, 2013
+ CRL.A. 126/2011
HARISH KUMAR @ PINTU ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Open Court)
1. The appellant- Harish Kumar @ Pintu S/o Bedi Ram challenges judgment dated 16.08.2010 in Sessions Case No.89/2008 arising out of FIR No. 194/2004 PS Shahdara, by which, he and his associates were convicted and sentenced. The appellant was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 392/394/411/34 IPC. Vide order dated 19.08.2010, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years under Section 394/34 IPC with fine ` 3,000/-. CRL.A.No.126/2011 Page 1 of 4
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on the night intervening 09/10.06.2004 at 12.30 A.M. near Hanuman Mandir, Shahdara, he and his associates Sanjay, Rohtash and Deepak S/o Babu Lal and Deepak Kumar @ Deepu robbed TSR driver- Krishan Dev Pathak of cash ` 5,200/-, mobile phone, office key and I- card. They also caused injuries to him with knife while committing robbery. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused pleaded false implication. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant guilty for the offences described previously and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate, on getting instructions from the appellant stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction under Section 394/34 IPC. He however, prays to take lenient view and reduce the substantive sentence from RI for ten years to RI for six years.
4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to CRL.A.No.126/2011 Page 2 of 4 challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections 394/34 IPC, order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.
5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that allegations against the appellant are very serious whereby he and his associates robbed an innocent person during night and deprived him of cash and mobile phone. Nominal roll dated 02.02.2013 reveals that there is one FIR under Section 302/364/120B/34 registered at Police Station Shahdara is pending against the appellant. He has also been convicted in case FIR No.368/3005 under Section 394/34 IPC registered at Police Station Timarpur. The antecedents of the appellant are not clean. He deserves no leniency. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the role assigned to the appellant in the incident, in my view, interest of justice would be served if on parity with co-convict Deepak @ Deepu who was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, the appellant is sentenced to undergo RI for seven years instead of ten years. He has already remained in custody since long.
6. Considering all the facts and other circumstances of the case, the order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced from RI for ten years to RI for seven years. Other sentences are left undisturbed.
CRL.A.No.126/2011 Page 3 of 4
7. The appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in the above terms.
8. The Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE April 11, 2013 sa CRL.A.No.126/2011 Page 4 of 4