Delhi District Court
State vs . Manish Soni Etc. on 23 August, 2012
State Vs. Manish Soni Etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01(CENTRAL):DELHI
SC No. 35 of 2009
ID No: 02401R1466502008
FIR No. : 273/2007
PS. : Rajender Nagar
U/S : 328/379/411/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. Manish Soni
S/o Om Prakash Soni
R/o 71/48, Prem Nagar,
Janak Puri Delhi,
Permanent Address:
Ward No. 6,
Main Bazar, Distt. Hamirpur,
Himachal Pradesh
........Accused No. 1
2. Sachin Gandhi
S/o Madan Lal Gandhi
R/o H. No. 293, Ward No. 9,
Village Indri, Distt. Karnal, Haryana
Temporary Address:
H. No. 483, Sector-4,
PS City, Karnal, Haryana.
........Accused No. 2
3. Avinder Singh
S/o Manjit Singh
R/o H. No. 77/13,
Extn. Karnal, Haryana
........Accused No. 3
4. Sumesh Dua
S/o Ramesh Dua
SC No. 35/09 Page no. 1 of 18
State Vs. Manish Soni Etc.
R/o 6, Kohat Enclave
Pitam Pura, Delhi
........Accused No. 4
5. Vijay Kohli
S/o Harbans Lal Kohli
R/o 52/41, Ramjas Road,
Karol Bagh, Delhi
........Accused No. 5
Date of Institution : 29.02.2008
Date of Committal to Sessions Court : 15.04.2009
Date of judgment reserved on : 17.08.2012
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 23.08.2012
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State.
Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for accused
Manish Soni
Sh. K. Singhal, Advocate, cousnel for accused Avinder
Singh
Accused Sachin Gandhi in person
J U D G M E N T:
1. Briefly stated facts of prosecution case are that on December 30, 2007 complainant Preet Pal Singh had made a written complaint to the police of PS Rajender Nagar alleging that few days ago, two unknown persons met him at Old Rajender Nagar Market and offered him the job of Supervisor by stating that they required senior citizen like the complainant in their company and had taken the mobile phone number of the complainant. They asked the complainant to consider their proposal and stated that they would talk to him on phone and further informed the complainant that they had one office at Old Rajender Nagar and another office at Connaught Place. It was alleged that on December 25, 2007 SC No. 35/09 Page no. 2 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. complainant had received a call that they had made a arrangement for his job and further stated that they were waiting outside Rama Clothes House, Old Rajender Nagar, when complainant told them that he could not visit the said place, the caller had taken his address and within an hour one person reached his house, that person also met him first time in the market and stated that his Boss was standing outside his house on the road side and requested the complainant to meet him for five minutes. Accordingly, complainant accompanied that person, one Maruti Car was stationed on the road in which two persons were sitting. It was alleged that their Boss asked the complainant to see their office, consequently, complainant sat in the car and thereafter, they drove the car to Old Rajender Nagar opposite Rama Clothes House and informed the complainant that their office was located in the basement of Rama Clothes House. Thereafter, they drove the car towards the Hotel Chinar and stopped the same near juice corner. It was alleged that one of the occupants of the car had fetched four glasses of juice covered with foil paper, out of these four glass, one glass of juice was served to the complainant, consequently, complainant had taken the said juice. Other three accused persons had also drank the juice. It was alleged that at that time, he (complainant) was wearing one gold kara, one gold chain, two rings and was having ` 4000/- in cash and mobile phone make Nokia 2600 having connection No. 9871544897. It was alleged that after taking juice, complainant became unconscious and when he regained his consciousness, he found himself in Safdarjung Hospital on December 26, 2007 and at that time all the above ornaments, mobile phone and cash were found missing. It was alleged that thereafter, his family members had shifted him from Safdarjung Hospital to LNJP Hospital from where he was discharged on the next day. After recovery, complainant had reported the matter to the police.
(i) It was alleged that one of the accused was Sikh and the other SC No. 35/09 Page no. 3 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. two were addressing him as their Boss. On his complaint, an FIR for the offence punishable under Section 328/379/34 IPC was registered.
(ii) It was alleged that investigation was transferred to SOS Crime Branch on August 1, 2008. At the pointing out of PW Manoj Malik, accused Manish Soni was apprehended while he was getting down from his Maruti Car bearing registration No. DL-9C-B-9838. During interrogation, accused Manish Soni disclosed the name his other co-
accused as Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh.
(iii) It was alleged that at the pointing out of accused Manish Soni, accused Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh were also apprehended on the same day at about 7.45 PM from Delhi Singhu Border while they were coming from Haryana side in Matiz Car bearing registration No. DL-4C-M-6413.
(iv) It was alleged that during the search of house of accused Manish Soni, number of articles of other cases were also recovered from his house.
(v) It was alleged that during interrogation, all accused persons confessed their involvement in the present case. It was also revealed that the accused persons were involved in number of other cases. On January 2, 2008, all accused persons were produced in muffled face before the concerned Court for test identification parade, which was fixed for January 3, 2008. However, accused persons refused to participate in the test identification parade. Thereafter, all accused persons were taken on police remand.
(vi) It was alleged that the search of the house of accused Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh was taken and numerous articles were SC No. 35/09 Page no. 4 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. recovered from their houses which belonged to other cases.
(vii) It was alleged that on January 8, 2008 at the pointing out of accused Manish Soni and Sachin Gandhi, accused Sumesh Dua and Vijay Kohli were apprehended and at their pointing out, the ornaments which were sold to them by accused Manish Soni and Sachin Gandhi were got recovered. It was alleged that complainant Preet Pal Singh had identified the case property during test identification parade. The stolen mobile phone make Nokia 2600 having IMEI No. 354336005013727 was also recovered from accused Avinder Singh.
2. After completing investigation, challan was filed against accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 328/379/411/34 IPC.
3. After complying with the provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Court of learned ACCM (01), Central, Delhi on April 8, 2009, thereafter, the case was assigned to the Court of Sh. K.S. Mohi, the then learned ASJ. Accordingly, case was registered as Sessions Case No. 35/09.
4. Vide order dated July 14, 2010, a charge for the offence punishable under Section 328/392/394/34 IPC was framed against accused Manish Soni, Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh to which they pleaded no guilty and claimed trial. A separate charge for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC was framed against accused Vijay Kohli and Sumesh Dua to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, prosecution has examined as many as following 16 witnesses:-
SC No. 35/09 Page no. 5 of 18
State Vs. Manish Soni Etc.
PW1 Preet Pal Singh, complainant.
PW2 Sh. Samir Bajpai, the then Ld. MM, proved the TIP
proceedings.
PW3 SI Surender Singh, member of investigating team
PW4 SI Narender Singh, formal witness, took the
complainant to the hospital.
PW5 HC Jasvinder Singh, member of investigating team.
PW6 HC Raja Ram, member of investigating team
PW7 Dr. Harmanjeet Singh Heera, proved the MLC of
complainant.
PW8 ASI Puran Mal, in-charge of PCR Van took the injured
to the hospital.
PW9 HC Ram Dhari, duty officer, proved the FIR.
PW10 ASI Kanwar Pal, joined the investigation with SI
Sharat Kohli.
PW11 SI P.C. Yadav, member of investigating team.
PW12 B.S. Bhatti, proved the medical record of
complainant of LNJP.
PW13 SI Sharat Kohli, investigating officer.
PW14 Manoj Malik, joined investigation with SI Sharat Kohli.
PW15 SI Ajay Kumar, initial investigating officer.
PW16 Dr. Mukul Mangla, examined the complainant.
6. During trial, accused Vijay Kohli and Sumesh Dua had compounded the offence with complainant accordingly, they were acquitted vide order dated October 14, 2012.
7. After concluding prosecution evidence, accused persons, namely, Manish Soni, Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to which accused Manish Soni denied all the SC No. 35/09 Page no. 6 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. evidence led by the prosecution and took the plea that he was lifted from his house on December 30, 2007 and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in this case. Similarly, accused Avinder Singh denied all the evidence led by the prosecution and took the plea that he was property dealer by profession and running his business in the name and style of Chawla Estate at 38 BBM, DLF Phase-II, Gurgaon and nothing was recovered from him. It was stated that the alleged mobile phone was planted upon him. However, accused Sachin Gandhi in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. admitted numerous facts such as that he along with his co accused i.e. Manish Soni and Avinder Singh met with the complainant at Old Rajender Nagar Market and offered him the job in the Travel Agency and they had given time to the complainant to ponder over their proposal and they had taken mobile phone number of the complainant. He further admitted that on December 25, 2007, they had made a call to the complainant that they had made a arrangement for the job of complainant and when complainant refused their proposal, they told the complainant that office vehicle would pick-up him from his house and drop him at his house and thereafter, they also reached the house of complainant and sent accused Manish Soni who called the complainant from his house. He further admitted that complainant accompanied the accused Manish Soni and thereafter, they took the complainant in their car at Old Rajender Nagar and showed him their office and also admitted that they had offered the juice to the complainant and further admitted that complainant was wearing ornaments and having cash and mobile phone. However, he took the plea that after handing over the glass of juice to the complainant, he left from there. He further submitted that he did not know what happened thereafter. He further stated that he had refused to participate in the test identification parade at the advice of police. He further admitted that police had taken him to his house at Karnal on January 7, 2008 and thereafter, they had also taken him to the house of accused Avinder Singh and at that time accused Avinder Singh SC No. 35/09 Page no. 7 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. was also in the police custody. However, all the accused persons preferred not to lead any lead evidence in their defence.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the accused persons vigorously contended that there is no iota of evidence to prove the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 392/394/328 IPC as there is no admissible evidence to establish that accused persons had administered any poisonous or stupefying substance to the complainant. It was contended that in the absence of any cogent evidence, prosecution has failed to establish the charges against the the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 328/392/394 IPC. It was further submitted that the prosecution case is based on the testimony of PW1 Preet Pal Singh, but no reliance can be placed on his deposition as there is unexplained delay of about five days in lodging the FIR. It was further contended that PW1 had made substantial improvements in his deposition, which further cast doubt over his deposition. It was contended that if we exclude the testimony of PW1, there is no evidence to establish that accused persons are even guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC.
9. Per contra learned Additional Public Prosecutor refuted the said contentions by strenuously arguing that the accused persons had administered stupefying substance to the complainant Preet Pal Singh in his glass of juice and after consuming the same complainant became unconscious and this fact itself sufficient to establish that the accused persons had administered some stupefying substance to the complainant. It was further contended that since accused persons had administered stupefying substance to the complainant, thus, accused persons had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and thereafter, accused persons had removed his valuable belongings, thus, accused persons are liable for the offence punishable under Section 392/394 IPC SC No. 35/09 Page no. 8 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. besides for the offence punishable under Section 328 IPC. It was contended that though there was some delay in lodging the FIR but said delay is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner. It was further contended that there is no infirmity in the deposition of PW1.
10. I have heard rival submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
11. Prosecution case is that accused persons had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant by administering some stupefying substance in the juice at the time of committing the theft , thus, accused persons are liable for the offence punishable under Section 392/394/34 IPC. Further, prosecution case is that the said stupefying substance was administered with intention to commit offence, thus, accused persons are also liable for the offence punishable under Section 328/34 IPC.
12. To establish that the accused persons had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant while committing theft, prosecution was duty bound to establish beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts that the accused persons had given any poisonous or stupefying or intoxicating or unwholesome drug to the complainant.
13. In case Josesh Kurian Philip Jose Vs. State of Kerala (AIR 1995 SC 1), it was held that:
"In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to proved that the substance in question was a poisonous, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug etc. that the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause SC No. 35/09 Page no. 9 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. hurt or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly responsible for administering poisonous etc. or causing it to be taken by any person, through another. In other words, the accused may accomplish the act by himself or by means of another. In either situation direct, reliable and cogent evidence is necessary."
14. Now question arises as to whether there is any evidence on record to establish that accused persons had administered any poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug to the complainant or not. PW 1 in his deposition deposed that accused Sachin Gandhi had brought four glasses of juice in disposal glasses which were covered with foil paper and after consuming the said juice he became unconscious. He further deposed that when he regained consciousness he found himself in Safdarjung Hospital. In Safdarjung Hospital complainant was examined by Dr. Suman Yadav who had already left the job and prosecution has examined Dr. Mukul Mangla as PW 16 who deposed that patient was examined by Dr. Suman Yadav and thereafter, patient was referred to Surgical Department. She nowhere deposed that any poisonous, intoxicating, stupefying, unwholesome drug was administered to the complainant. Thereafter, the patient was got admitted at LNJP Hospital and in this regard, prosecution has examined Dr. Harmanjeet Singh Heera as PW 7, who in his examination-in-chief deposed that he did not find any sign of stupefying substance or poisonous in the complainant. Admittedly, neither stomach wash was preserved nor any scientific evidence was collected to establish that any poisonous or intoxicating or stupefying substance or unwholesome drug was administered to the accused. Since, there is no evidence on record to establish that any poisonous, intoxicating or stupefying substance or SC No. 35/09 Page no. 10 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. unwholesome drug was administered to the complainant by the accused persons, question of causing voluntarily hurt to the complainant does not arise. Thus, in other words, there is no scintilla of evidence to establish the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 328/392/394/34IPC.
15. Now question arises as to whether there is any delay in lodging the FIR or not. Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place on December 25, 2007 and the complainant had reported the matter to the police first time on December 30, 2007, Thus, there is delay of five days in lodging the FIR. In this regard, the testimony of PW4 SI Narender Singh is also relevant who deposed that on December 25, 2007, he had received a call from the control room consequently he reached near Samshan Ghat, Mahipal Pur, Shankar Vihar and came to know that one person who was unconscious had already been shifted to Safdarjung Hospital by the PCR Van. Thereafter, he moved an application Ex.PW4/C before Doctor who opined that patient was unfit for statement. The patient was admitted vide MLC No. C/246525. PW 8 ASI Puran Mal, in- charge, PCR Van deposed that on December 25, 2007 he had received a call from control room and reached near Shamshan Ghat, Mahipal Pur, Shankar Vihar, where one person was found in unconscious condition, consequently he removed the said person to Safdarjung Hospital. Thus, it becomes clear that police was also well aware about the admission of complainant in the Safdarjung Hospital. But, unfortunately, police failed to record the statement of the complainant at that time as he was unfit for statement and thereafter, complainant had absconded from the hospital against the medical advice. From the deposition of PW1, it is established that he was shifted from Safdarjung Hospital to LNJP Hospital by his family members and in his complaint he categorically stated that he lodged the complaint when he fully recovered. No doubt, there is some delay on the part of the complainant, but question arises as to whether SC No. 35/09 Page no. 11 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. said delay is sufficient to discard the testimony of complainant or not.
16. It is well settled law that the evidentiary value of the FIR will be reduced if it is made after such delay, which is unexplained as it would make it likely for the informant to concoct the story and falsely implicate his enemies. Similarly, it is also well settled law that even a long delay in filing the report of an occurrence can be condoned if the witness whose evidence the prosecution relies had no motive for implicating the accused. On the other hand, prompt filing of the FIR is not a unmistakable guarantee of the truthfulness of the version of the prosecution
17. Admittedly, complainant was an old retired person of about 60 years at the time of incident and he had no previous enmity with any of the accused persons. Thus, he had no motive to falsely implicate any of the accused persons. Moreover, during the cross-examination of PW1 no question was asked from him about the said delay. Thus, no opportunity was given to the complainant to explain the said delay. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the said delay is not fatal to the prosecution case is any manner.
18. Learned counsel appearing for accused persons contended that no reliance can be placed on the deposition of PW 1 as he had made substantial improvements in his deposition. It was contended that in his deposition, he deposed that accused persons met him about a month ago at Old Rajender Nagar Market prior to the date of incident and told him they were planning to open a travel agency at Connaught Place and Old Rajender Nagar but this fact is not mentioned in his complaint Ex.PW1/A. I have perused the complaint wherein he alleged that the accused persons met him at Old Rajender Nagar Market and told him that they needed senior citizen like the complainant in their company as SC No. 35/09 Page no. 12 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. Supervisor. Thus, it can not be said that there was any substantial improvement in his deposition. If we read complaint and deposition together, it will show that his deposition is nothing but mere an elaboration, Thus, to my mind the said improvement is not fatal to the prosecution case.
19. Learned counsel appearing for accused Avinder contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case and due to that reason even the time and place of his arrest is not mentioned in his arrest memo Ex.PW5/H. Admittedly, the place of arrest and time is not mentioned in the said memo. Even the name of person to whom the intimation of arrest was given, was not mentioned. Thus, there is a default on the part of investigating officer SI Sharat Kohli. But question arises as to whether the said default on the part of SI Sharat Kohli is sufficient to discard the testimony of the complainant. Perusal of the testimony of PW1 Preet Pal Singh establishes that when accused persons met him at the Old Rajender Nagar Market about months ago prior to the date of incident, they offered the job of Supervisor in their company and at that time accused persons had succeeded in obtaining the mobile phone number of the complainant. It is further established that the though complainant had expressed his unwillingness to their offer, yet accused persons had made a call to him on December 25, 2007 and thereafter, accused Manish reached his house and asked the complainant to accompany him as their Boss was waiting for him outside the house. Accordingly, when complainant accompanied the accused Manish, he found that accused Sachin Gandhi and Avinder Singh were sitting in a car and accused Avinder introduced himself as the Boss of other two accused persons and stated that the complainant was fit for the job of Supervisor. Thereafter, they took the complainant to Old Rajender Nagar Market and pointed out towards the building stating that their office was located in the basement. Thereafter, they took the complainant to a juice corner SC No. 35/09 Page no. 13 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. where they offered the glass of juice. From his testimony, it is also established that at that time complainant was wearing one gold chain, one gold kara, two gold rings and was having one mobile phone make Nokia 2600 and cash amount approximately ` 4,000/-. It is further established from his testimony that when he regained consciousness in Safdarjung Hospital said articles were found missing. Thus, it is established that it were the accused persons who in furtherance of their common intention had removed the said articles. Though, PW 1 was cross-examined, yet nothing could be extracted which may cause any dent in his deposition to that extent. Moreover, accused persons Sachin Gandhi in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. candidly admitted that they met with the complainant at Old Rajender Nagar Market and thereafter, talked to him on phone and then his co-accused Manish Soni went to his house and he and Avinder were waiting for him in the car on the road, thereafter, they took the complainant to Old Rajender Nagar Market and pointed out towards a building stating that their office was located in the basement of said building and then offered the juice and further admitted that at that time complainant was having ornaments, mobile phone and cash. No doubt, accused Sachin Gandhi did not admit that the juice was containing any stupefying or poisonous substance. No doubt, he took the the plea that he had left from the said place and he did not know what happened thereafter. But during trial, he failed to produce any evidence to that effect. Thus, the cumulative effect of the above discussion is that the accused persons had stolen the ornaments and his belongings. It is pertinent to state the ornaments were recovered from accused Sumesh Dua and Vijay Kohli, who have compounded the offence with the complainant. Though recovery of stolen articles is not essential to prove the guilt of accused under Section 379/34 IPC, yet from the testimony of witnesses examined by the prosecution, it is established that the stolen mobile phone was recovered from the possession of accused Avinder Singh.
SC No. 35/09 Page no. 14 of 18
State Vs. Manish Soni Etc.
20. Learned counsel appearing for accused Avinder Singh further raised doubt over the testimony of PW1 by contending that on December 25, 2007 another similar incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar in which accused persons were arrested. But accused persons have already been acquitted in the said case. It is contended that it is highly unbelievable that two similar incidents could be committed on the very same day. Admittedly, the present incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Rajender Nagar and alleged second incident had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar. It is matter of common knowledge that both the said areas are adjoining to each other, thus it is quite possible to commit the offences on the same day in the jurisdiction of both the police stations. Thus, to my mind the said contention is without any substance. Moreover, mere fact that the accused persons have been acquitted in another is not suffice to prove their innocence in this case also.
21. Pondering over the ongoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to establish the guilt of accused no.1 to 3 beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC. Thus, I hereby convict accused no. 1 to 3 for offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC. However, in my opinion, prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Section 328/392/394/34 IPC thus, I hereby, acquit them thereunder.
Announced in the open Court On this 23rd day of August, 2012 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge Central-01/THC/DELHI SC No. 35/09 Page no. 15 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN KUMAR JAIN, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01(CENTRAL):DELHI SC No. 35 of 2009 ID No: 02401R1466502008 FIR No. : 273/2007 PS. : Rajender Nagar U/S : 328/379/411/34 IPC STATE VERSUS 1. Manish Soni S/o Om Prakash Soni R/o 71/48, Prem Nagar, Janak Puri Delhi, Permanent Address: Ward No. 6, Main Bazar, Distt. Hamirpur, Himachal Pradesh ........Convict No. 1 2. Sachin Gandhi S/o Madan Lal Gandhi R/o H. No. 293, Ward No. 9, Village Indri, Distt. Karnal, Haryana Temporary Address: H. No. 483, Sector-4, PS City, Karnal, Haryana. ........Convict No. 2 3. Avinder Singh S/o Manjit Singh R/o H. No. 77/13, Extn. Karnal, Haryana ........Convict No. 3 SC No. 35/09 Page no. 16 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc.
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Sh.Dinesh Sharma, Advocate, Amicus Curiae for convict Manish Soni Sh. K. Singhal, Advocate, counsel for convict Avinder Singh Convict Sachin Gandhi in person ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE (ORAL):
1. Vide separate judgment dated August 23, 2012, accused no. 1, 2 & 3 have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC.
2. Learned counsels appearing for convicts request to take a lenient view as the convict no. 1 & 2 are in custody since January 2, 2008 whereas maximum punishment under Section 379 IPC is 3 years. It is submitted that convict no. 3 Avinder Singh was released on bail on February 24, 2012, thus he also remained in custody for more than four years.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor admits that convicts have remained in custody for more than 3 years.
4. I have heard submissions advanced by the counsel for both the parties, perused the record carefully and gave my thoughtful consideration to their contentions.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, convicts no. 1 to 3 are sentenced rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 379/34 IPC. Benefit of SC No. 35/09 Page no. 17 of 18 State Vs. Manish Soni Etc. Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convicts. Since, as per record convict Avinder Singh remained in custody from January 2, 2008 to February 24, 2012, he be not taken in judicial custody as he has already remained in custody for more period than the sentence period.
6. Copy of judgment along with order on the point of sentence be given to the convicts/their counsel free of cost.
7. Convict no. 1 & 2 be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.
8. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court On this 23rd day of August, 2012 (PAWAN KUMAR JAIN) Additional Sessions Judge Central-01/THC/DELHI SC No. 35/09 Page no. 18 of 18