Delhi High Court
Mohd. Sakeel vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 7 March, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
Bench: S.P.Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 7th MARCH, 2014
+ CRL.A.No. 1080/2012 & Crl.M.A.No.3932/2014
MOHD. SAKEEL ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.S.B.Dandapani, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Mohd. Sakeel (the appellant) questions the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 31.03.2012 in Sessions Case No.137/11 arising out of FIR No.267/08 registered at Police Station Dabri by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 395/412 IPC.
By an order on sentence dated 09.04.2012 he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 12.05.2008 at about 11.45 A.M. at house No.RZ-B-2, Raghu Nagar, Pankha Road, Dabri, he and his associates committed decoity and deprived the Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 1 of 6 complainant Smt.Seema Sharma and her family members of cash and gold/silver ornaments using deadly weapons. Daily Diary (DD) No.22 (Ex.PW-6/A) was recorded at 01.05 P.M. at Police Station Dabri regarding the incident. The investigation was assigned to SI Narender Singh who with Const.Amar Singh went to the spot. After recording complainant-Seema Sharma's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) he lodged First Information Report. Efforts were made to find out the culprits but in vain. On 31.08.2008 SI Narender Singh received DD No.111-B (Ex.PW5/A) dated 30.08.2008, which was recorded pursuant to the information received from SOS/Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony, New Delhi informing that one of the offenders namely Rajan Saha was arrested under Section 41.1(d) of Cr.P.C. and would be produced before Duty M.M. next day i.e.31.08.08. It was further informed that Rajan Saha had made a disclosure statement regarding his involvement in the decoity in question. Accordingly Rajan Saha was arrested on 31.08.2008. When he declined to participate in the TIP proceedings, he was taken on remand. TSR mini door for `2,10,000/- and Hunk motorcycle for `59,000/- purchased out of the booty in the name of his brother-in-law Manoj was recovered pursuant to his disclosure statement. The looted mobile phone bearing IMEI No.359945000295694 of make-Fly with sim No.9910211900 was also Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 2 of 6 recovered from him. He disclosed the names of the associates and it led to the apprehension of Mohd. Sakeel (the appellant), Mohd.Vakil, Zaved @ Mukesh and Guddu. They were also arrested and recoveries were effected at their instance. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded and after completion of investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them for committing offences under Sections 395/397/412 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act. Vide order dated 07.08.2009, the appellant and his associates were charged under Sections 395/412/397/34 IPC. The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to prove the charges. In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. Rajan Saha examined his brother-in-law Manoj Kumar as DW-1 in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted all of them under Section 395/34 IPC. The appellant, Aziz, Rajan Saha and Vakil were also convicted under 412 IPC. They were, however, acquitted under Section 397 IPC and the State did not challenge the said acquittal. It is unclear if other convicts Mohd.Jahangir Khan and Mohd. Aziz have challenged their conviction.
Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 3 of 6
3. It is relevant to note that convict - Rajan Saha preferred Crl.A.No. 673/2012 which was disposed of by this Court on 23.01.2014. While maintaining conviction under Sections 395/412 IPC recorded by the Trial Court, Sentence order qua Rajan Saha was modified and the substantive sentence awarded for ten years was reduced to seven years. The default sentence for non-payment of `25,000/- each under Section 395 and 412 IPC was reduced to three months each.
4. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant moved Crl.M.A.No.3932/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for release on the period already undergone by him in custody. Learned counsel for the appellant on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant - Mohd. Sakeel has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial portion of the substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a previous convict. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to treat the case of the appellant at par with that of Rajan Saha.
5. Since the appellant - Mohd. Sakeel has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 395/412 IPC and accepts it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 4 of 6 statements of PW-1 (Seema Sharma), PW-2 (Rajbala) and PW-3 (Noor Alam), inmates of the house, who identified him as one of the assailants coupled with recovery of robbed articles at his instance, his conviction is affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine `25,000/- each under Section 395/412 IPC. Nominal roll dated 27.02.204 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for five years, four months and twenty seven days besides remission for seven months and twenty six days. He is not involved in any criminal case and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He is the only bread earner of the family consisting of his wife and two minor sons. He has lost his only brother during trial. The appellant has no criminal past history/antecedents and is the first offender. Though the assailants were armed with deadly weapons, no physical harm was caused to any of the inmates. Considering these mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to seven years each under Sections 395 and 412 IPC. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed except that the default sentence for non-payment of fine of ` 25,000/-each under both the heads would be three months each.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 5 of 6 immediately with the copy of the order. Copy of the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 07, 2014/tr Crl.A.No.1080/2012 Page 6 of 6