Delhi District Court
Fir No. 286/08; State vs . Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 1 Of 6 on 14 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR: ADDL SESSIONS
JUDGE03: NW : ROHINI : DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 33/09
FIR No. 286/08
P.S. Mukherjee Nagar
U/S: 365/392/397/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) Akash Bansal
s/o Prem Bansal
r/o H. No. 1/14,
near Punjabi Tadka Restaurant
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
Permanent Add: H. No. 409,
Bakner Main Bus Stand,
Narela, Delhi
(2) Goverdhan Singh
s/o Major Singh
r/o H. No. 1/14,
near Punjabi Tadka Restaurant
Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi
Permanent Add: H. No. 981, Vishal Nagar,
Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab.
Order on Sentence
1.Arguments have already been heard from Ld. Defence counsel as also from Ld. APP for State. Even arguments and FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 1 of 6 submissions also heard today. It has been argued on behalf of the convicts that convict Akash Bansal is aged about 27 years and convict Govardhan Singh is aged about 41 years. The convict Akash Bansal has submitted that he is unmarried and has to look after his ailing father and mother. Convict Govardhan Singh has submitted that his father has expired during the trial of the case and now he has to look after his mother and one unmarried sister. Both convicts were doing private jobs. Nearly four years have passed since the convicts have been facing the trial of the case. The convicts have prayed for taking lenient view. The convict Govardhan Singh has also filed an application u/s 428 Cr.P.C. for releasing him for the period already undergone by him in the custody. The Ld. Counsel for the convicts, in support of their arguments, have relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Salim Khan Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2010 [1] JCC 704 wherein the Ld. ASJ, Delhi convicted the appellant u/s 392/394/397 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for two years and pay fine of Rs. 500/, in default to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC; sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/; in default to further undergo SI for 30 days for the offence u/s 394 IPC; FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 2 of 6 sentenced to undergo SI for 7 years and pay fine of Rs. 1500/; in default to further undergo SI for 60 days for the offence u/s 397 IPC. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that accordingly, appellant is acquitted for the offence u/s 397 IPC. Sentence of 7 years as awarded by the Ld. Trial Court, u/s 397, is also set aside. Sentence of petitioner u/s 394 IPC is also reduced from four years to three years. Sentence u/s 392 IPC as awarded by the Trial Court is maintained as it is. However, all the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 CrPC is also given. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi with the connected appeals 2010 (1) JCC 562, the appellants were convicted in respect of offences u/s 392 and 34 IPC. The appellants had already spent nearly 3½ years incarceration and lastly nearly five years passed since the offence was committed. Therefore, it was held that it would serve the interest of justice if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the convicts further relied upon the judgements reported in the case of Samiuddin @ Chotu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi 175 (2010) DLT 27, it was held that having regard to the fact that this Court has modified the conviction of the FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 3 of 6 appellant to one u/s 392 IPC, the order on sentence is consequently modified and he is sentenced u/s 392 IPC for a period of four years. In Mohd. Dulal @ Fazal Karim Vs. State 2010 (3) JCC 1724, it was held that considering all the facts and circumstances and the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of appellant for taking a lenient view on the point of sentence, the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant for his conviction u/s 392 IPC is reduced from 5 years to 4 years and the separate sentence awarded u/s 397 IPC stands set aside. In Rajeev Kumar and Anr. Vs. State, Crl. A. 159/1998 decided on 13032009, therein the appellants were convicted for the offence u/s 392 as well as u/s 397 IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for three years for an offence u/s 392 IPC and payment of fine of Rs. 2,000/ and in default of payment to undergo RI for 6 months and further to undergo RI for 7 years to pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/ each u/s 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that keeping in view that they have already undergone for 2½ years, it is fit case to reduce sentence awarded to appellants to period already undergone. In Ashraf @ Danny Vs. State, Crl. A. no. 11/2008 decided on 09092011 therein the appellant was FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 4 of 6 sentenced for the offence u/s 452 IPC to undergo RI for the period of four years besides fine of Rs. 5,000/ and for the offence u/s 392 IPC to undergo RI for the period of four years besides the fine of Rs. 10,000/. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that the substantive sentence awarded to the Appellant for offence u/s 452 and 392 IPC is reduced from four years RI to three years RI. In Shahzad Khan Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. A. no. 659/2008 decided 26072011 therein Appellant was convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC as also section 25 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years, besides fine of Rs. 5,000/ for the offence u/s 392 IPC and for the offence u/s 25 Arms Act, he was also sentenced to undergo RI for the period of one year, besides the fine of Rs. 1000/. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that in view of the discussion above, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant u/s 392 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act and also maintaining the sentence of fine imposed upon the Appellant, the substantive sentence awarded to the Appellant for offence u/s 392 IPC is reduced from seven years RI to 3½ years RI. The sentence for the offence u/s 25 of the Arms Act is maintained as it is. Needless to say, both the sentences shall run concurrently and the Appellant shall get FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 5 of 6 the benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.
3. Whereas, the Ld. APP for State has argued that convicts should be given appropriate sentence as per law.
4. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and also the aforesaid judgements relied upon, both convicts are sentenced with four years Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 365/34 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each, in default of payment of which they shall undergo six months SI. Both convicts are further sentenced with four years Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 392/34 IPC along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ each, in default of payment of which they shall undergo six months SI. Out of the total fine amount of Rs. 40,000/, an amount of Rs. 35,000/ shall be paid to the victim Abhinav S. Raghuvanshi/ complainant. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts shall get benefit of section 428 Cr. P. C. for the period during which they remained in custody during investigation/ trial. Copy of judgement and order on sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 14092012 FIR No. 286/08; State Vs. Akash Bansal & Anr. Page 6 of 6