State vs . Pintoo Mandal & Ors. on 28 May, 2014

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Pintoo Mandal & Ors. on 28 May, 2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW
   DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI


Case ID No. 024030499022009
State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.
Session Case No. 53/2013


State vs.   Baldeesh Singh
            S/o Sumer Singh
            r/o Village Mitrao
            PS Najafgarh,
            Delhi.


FIR no.32/2009
PS: Spl. Cell
U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act


Date of institution of the case             :     12/11/2009
Date of announcement of judgment            :     28/05/2014


JUDGMENT

1. As per prosecution, from the mid of June 2009 to 05.07.2009 accused persons agreed to do an illegal act i.e to eliminate Sh Siddarth Luthra, Senior Advocate for Sh Varun Gandhi Member of Parliament, BJP and in pursuance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy, procured the weapon and specified the target by way of recee in order to execute the said criminal conspiracy and alleged to have committed State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

FIR no.32/2009 //2// the offence u/s 120B IPC. Accused Baldeesh Singh on 03.07.09 had fraudulently and dishonestly used the Mobile Phone No. 9278392566 which was obtained on fake identity and used the same as genuine and thereby he was alleged to have committed the offence u/s. 471 IPC.

2. During the course of trial PW 1 SI Chandrika Prasad, PW 2 ASI Sensor Pal Singh, PW 3 HC Dalip Sethi, PW 4 ASI Surjeet Singh, PW 5 Mohd. Wasim, PW 6 Sh. N.B. Vardhan, PW 7 Ms. Sangeeta Mathur, PW 8 Javed, PW 9 Mujeed, PW 10 Girish Kr. Sharma, PW 11 Ct. Ravi Dutt, PW 12 Susheel Kumar, PW 13 Sh. A.K. Jha, PW 14 SI Umesh Barkhwal, PW 15 Ct. Satish, PW 16 Ramesh Kumar, PW 17 HC Kishan Kumar, PW 18 Mr. V. Vumlunmang, PW 19 SI Kalicharan, PW 20 Sh. G.S. Patnayak, PW 21, Sh. P.N. Aggarwal, PW 22 Sh. M.K. Jain, PW 23 M.N. Vijayan, PW 24 Israr Babu, PW 25 Sh. N.D. Tiwari, PW 26 HC Devi Dayal, PW 28, Mr. Siddharth Luthra, PW 29 Mehul Milin, PW 30 Dr. S.K. Chaudhary and PW 31 Sh. Ajeet Kumar were examined.

State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

FIR no.32/2009 //3//

3. Before further evidence accused Baldeesh Singh filed an application for pleading guilty. Accordingly, further proceedings with respect to accused Baldeesh Singh stopped. Statement of Baldeesh Singh u/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded to which he pleaded guilty to the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 471 and 120B IPC.

4. Keeping in view the plea of guilt by the accused Baldeesh Singh as well as the evidence on record, accused Baldeesh Singh is hereby convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and 471 IPC.




Announced in the open court                  (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                         ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                              28/05/2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 024030499022009 Session Case No. 53/2013 State vs. Baldeesh Singh S/o Sumer Singh r/o Village Mitrao, PS Najafgarh, Delhi.

FIR no.32/2009

PS: Spl. Cell U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act ORDER ON SENTENCE 28/05/2014 Present: Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. APP for the State Convict Baldeesh Singh is produced from JC Sh Asim Ali, Legal Aid Counsel for the convict. Convict Baldeesh Singh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 471 and 120B IPC.

I have heard the counsel for the convict as well as the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of sentence.

It is stated by Legal Aid counsel Sh. Asim Ali that convict Baldeesh Singh was a agriculturist and his whole is depend upon the agriculture income. Convict is having a wife and minor child to look after. Convict has already lost his parents. It is further submitted that convict Baldeesh Singh is in JC since 5/7/2009 and hence, be sentenced for the period already undergone.

FIR no.32/2009

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of offences committed by convict Baldeesh Singh, maximum sentence be awarded to him.

I have considered the prayer of the convict Rama Baldeesh Singh as well as submissions made by the Ld. APP. Keeping in view the economic status of convict and pleading of guilt by convict, convict Baldeesh Singh is hereby convicted as follows:-

1. 3 years RI for the offence punishable u/S. 471 IPC

2. 1 year 10 months RI for the offence punishable u/S. 120B IPC.

3. No fine or penalty is being imposed keeping in view that convict is a poor person depending upon the agriculture income.

4. All the sentences to run alternatively. Benefit of 428 Cr.P.C.

be given to convict Baldeesh Singh.

Since all the above mentioned sentences have already been undergone of convict Baldeesh Singh, let convict Baldeesh Singh be set at liberty if not required in any other case.





Announced in the open court                      (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                            ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                                  28/05/2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 024030499022009 State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

Session Case No. 53/2013

State vs. Dilshad Hassan S/o Sayad Hassan r/o Room No. 240,, Ram Garh Chawl Subash Express Highway, Jogehwari East, Mumbai.

FIR no.32/2009 PS: Spl. Cell U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act Date of institution of the case : 12/11/2009 Date of announcement of judgment : 28/05/2014 JUDGMENT

FIR no.32/2009 //2// order to execute the said criminal conspiracy and alleged to have committed the offence u/s 120B IPC. Accused Dilshad Hassan on 03.07.09 at about 4pm at the entry gate New Delhi Railway Station, he was found in possession of one .32 pistol alongwith five live cartridges of KF-7.65 bore without any valid licence or permit issued by the Competent Authority and thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s. 25/54/59 Arms Act.

State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

FIR no.32/2009 //3//

3. Before further evidence accused Dilshad Hassan filed an application for pleading guilty. Accordingly, further proceedings with respect to Dilshad Hassan stopped. Statement of Dilshad Hassan u/s 313 Cr.P.C. recorded wherein he pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 120B IPC and under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.

4. Keeping in view the plea of guilt by the accused Dilshad Hassan as well as the evidence on record, accused Dilshad Hassan is hereby convicted for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act.




Announced in the open court                  (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                         ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                              28/05/2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 024030499022009 Session Case No. 53/2013 State vs. Dilshad Hassan S/o Sayad Hasan r/o Room No. 240,, Ram Garh Chawl Subash Express Highway, Jogehwari East, Mumbai.

FIR no.32/2009

PS: Spl. Cell U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act ORDER ON SENTENCE 28/05/2014 Present: Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. APP for the State Convict Dilshad Hassan is produced from JC Sh Asim Ali, Legal Aid Counsel for the convict. Convict Dilshad Hassan has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120B IPC as well as under Section 25/54/59 Arms Act.

I have heard the counsel for the convict as well as the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of sentence.

It is stated by Legal Aid counsel Sh. Asim Ali that convict Dilshad Hassan belongs to a very poor family. He was doing the embroidery work. Convict has to look after his aged old parents. It is further submitted that convict Dilshad Hassan is in JC since 03.07.2009 FIR no.32/2009 and hence, it is prayed that he be sentenced for the period already undergone.

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of offences committed by convict Dilshad Hassan, maximum sentence be awarded to him.

I have considered the prayer of the convict Dilshad Hassan as well as submissions made by the Ld. APP. Keeping in view the economic status of convict and pleading of guilt by convict, convict Dilshad Hassan is hereby sentenced as follows:-

1. 2 years RI for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.

2. 3 years RI for the offences punishable u/S. 25 Arms Act.

3. No fine or penalty is being imposed keeping in view that he is a poor person and he is in JC last more than 4 years.

4. All the above mentioned sentences to run concurrently.

Benefit of 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict Dilshad Hassan.

Since all the above mentioned sentences have already been undergone of convict Dilshad Hassan, let convict Dilshad Hassan be set at liberty if not required in any other case.



Announced in the open court                      (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                            ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                                  28/05/2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 024030499022009 State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

Session Case No. 53/2013

State vs.     Rama Shankar @ Raam
              S/o Ram Lal
              r/o Village & Post Bhatora,
              Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar,
              Uttar Pradesh
FIR no.32/2009
PS: Spl. Cell

U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act Date of institution of the case : 12/11/2009 Date of announcement of judgment : 28/05/2014 JUDGMENT

FIR No.32/09 //2// Colony Parking opposite MCD office and obstructed the raiding team of special cell comprising 18/20 police officials who were discharging their duties as public servants and accordingly alleged to have committed the offence punishable u/s.186 read with Section 34 IPC. Accused accomplice were further alleged that on the aforesaid date, time and place accused alongwith other accused in furtherance of their common intention used criminal force against the raiding team of Special Cell comprising of 18/20 police officials who were in order to prevent the said police officials from discharging their duties as such they alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s 353 r/w. Sec 34 IPC. Accused accomplice on the said date, time and place accused alongwith other accused in furtherance of common intention fired shots on the raiding team of special cell and if the act successful would have caused death of any of the police officials and thus have alleged to have committed offence u/s 307 IPC alongwith other co- accused. Accused Rama Shankar @ Raam on 03.07.09 had fraudulently and dishonestly used the Mobile Phone No. 9278392566 which was obtained on fake identity and used the same as genuine and thereby alleged to have committed the offence u/s. 471 IPC. Prior to 03.07.09, accused Rama Shankar @ Raam has also alleged to have dishonestly procured the Sim Card of Mobile Phone No. 9754231418 on fake identity and used the same as genuine and alleged to have committed offence u/s. 471 IPC. Accused Rama Shankar @ Raam on 03.07.2009 at about 10pm at State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

FIR no.32/2009 //3// Goombadwala Park, Besides Defence Colony Market Parking, Opp. MCD Office fired shots at the raiding team of Special Cell comprising 18/20 police officials from 7.6 bore pistol, which was recovered from his possession in loaded condition alongwith four live cartridges and thus, alleged to have committed an offence punishable u/s. 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

3. Before further evidence accused Rama Shankar @ Raam filed an application for pleading guilty. Today, further proceedings with respect to accused Rama Shankar @ Raam stopped. Statement of Rama State vs. Pintoo Mandal & Ors.

FIR no.32/2009 //4// Shankar @ Raam u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded guilt to the charge for the offences under Sections 307/471/186/353/34 IPC, 120B IPC and under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

4. Keeping in view the plea of guilt by the accused Rama Shankar @ Raam as well as the evidence on record, accused Rama Shankar @ Raam is hereby convicted for offence punishable under Sections 307/471/353/186/34 IPC, Section 120B IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.



Announced in the open court                  (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                        ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                              28/05/2014

IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH, ASJ-02/FTC, NEW DELHI DISTRICT PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, DELHI Case ID No. 024030499022009 Session Case No. 53/2013 State vs. Rama Shankar @ Raam S/o Ram Lal r/o Village & Post Bhatora, Distt. Sant Kabir Nagar, Uttar Pradesh FIR no.32/2009 PS: Spl. Cell U/s: 186/353/307/34/471/120B IPC and 25/27 Arms Act ORDER ON SENTENCE 28/05/2014 Present: Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. APP for the State Convict Rama Shankar @ Raam is produced from JC Sh Asim Ali, Legal Aid Counsel for the convict. Convict Rama Shankar @ Raam has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/471/186/353/34 and 120B IPC as well as under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.

I have heard the counsel for the convict as well as the Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the point of sentence.

It is stated by Legal Aid counsel Sh. Asim Ali that convict Rama Shankar @ Raam belongs to a barber community and doing the work of barber. Convict has to look after his aged parents as well as his wife and two children. It is further submitted that convict Rama Shankar FIR no.32/2009 @ Raam is in JC since 03.07.2009 and hence, be sentenced for the period already undergone.

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP submitted that keeping in view the seriousness of offences committed by convict Rama Shankar @ Raam , maximum sentence be awarded to him.

I have considered the prayer of the convict Rama Shankar @ Raam as well as submissions made by the Ld. APP. Keeping in view the economic status of convict and pleading of guilt by convict, convict Rama Shankar @ Raam is hereby convicted as follows:-

1 For the period already undergone for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.

2 Three months RI for the offence punishable under Section 186/34 IPC.

3 Two years RI for the offence punishable under Section 353/34 IPC.

4 3 years RI each for the offence punishable under Section 471 IPC and under Sections 25 and 27 Arms Act. 5 1 year 10 months RI for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.

FIR no.32/2009

6 No fine or penalty is being imposed keeping in view that he is in JC since 03.07.09 and belongs to a poor family. 7 The sentence as awarded under Section 471 IPC and under Section 25/27 Arms Act as well as u/s. 186/353/34 IPC, 120B IPC be run concurrently but alternatively under Section 120B IPC. 10 Benefit of 428 Cr.P.C. be given to convict Rama Shankar @ Raam.

Since all the above mentioned sentences have already been undergone of convict Rama Shankar @ Raam, let convict Rama Shankar @ Raam be set at liberty if not required in any other case.





Announced in the open court                     (DAYA PRAKASH)
on 28th May, 2014                           ASJ-02/FTC, PHC/ND
                                                 28/05/2014

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . Pintoo Mandal & Ors. on 28 May, 2014