Delhi District Court
State vs (1) Swaran Singh on 23 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.K. SARVARIA
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-01- SOUTH
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Session Case No. 22/06
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0698712005
State Versus (1) Swaran Singh
S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh
R/o H. No. 32, Sector - 31,
Faridabad, Haryana.
(2) Dinesh
S/o Sh. Rameshwar
R/o A- 386, Nehru Camp,
Govind Puri, Kalkaji,
New Delhi
(3) Shankar
S/o Sh. Udai Singh
R/o D-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
(4) Shakeel Alam
S/o Abdul Gani
R/o E-65, Suman Colony,
Chhattar Pur, New Delhi
(Already convicted)
FIR NO. - 1101/05
Police Station - Kalkaji
Under Section - 399/402 IPC
Date of institution
of the case : 21/01/2006
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page1/20
Date on which
judgment was reserved : 17/07/2010
Date of pronouncement : 22/07/2010
Session Case No. 117/07
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0574652006
State Versus Swaran Singh @ Khachcha
S/o Sh. Gurcharan Singh
R/o H. No. 32, Sector - 31,
Faridabad, Haryana.
FIR NO. - 1102/05
Police Station - Kalkaji
Under Section - 25/54/59 of Indian Arms Act.
Date of institution
of the case : 11/09/2007
Date on which
judgment was reserved : 17/07/2010
Date of pronouncement : 22/07/2010
Session Case No. 21/06
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0694672005
State Versus Shankar
S/o Sh. Udai Singh
R/o D-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
FIR NO. - 1104/05
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page2/20
Police Station - Kalkaji
Under Section - 25/54/59 of Indian Arms Act.
Date of institution
of the case : 21/01/2006
Date on which
judgment was reserved : 17/07/2010
Date of pronouncement : 22/07/2010
JUDGEMENT
The SHO of Police Station Kalkaji has filed challan against the accused persons in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi for the trial of the accused persons for the offences under Sections 399/402 IPC. After supplying the copies to the accused persons and compliance of provisions of the section 207 Cr. P.C. the learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr. P.C. for trial of the accused persons. In another challan filed by the SHO, PS Kalkaji titled as State Vs. Swaran Singh in FIR No. 1102/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 117/07 the accused Swaran was challaned for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. In yet another case, titled St. Vs. Shankar in FIR No. 1104/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 21/06 the accused Shankar was challaned for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. These two cases were also committed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate as the same are connected with the main case under Sections 399/402 IPC.
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page3/20BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24/10/05 at about 6.45 PM at Paras Park Chowk, Kalkaji all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention were found making preparation for committing dacoity and they have also assembled at the said place for committing dacoity. A secret information was received by SI Prabhu Dayal. A raiding party of the police was organized consisting police official and raid was conducted and accused persons were arrested and from the possession of accused Swaran Singh one country made pistol was recovered. From the possession of accused Shankar one gararidar knife was recovered. During the investigation the site plan was prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and on completion of the investigation, accused persons were challaned, as referred before. By the preset common judgment, I am deciding case belong to FIR No. 1101/05 under Sections 399/402 IPC bearing Sessions Case No. 22/06 titled as St. Vs. Swaran Singh and ors., in FIR No. 1102/05 under Section 25/54/59 of Indian Arms Act Sessions Case No. 117/07 titled as St. Vs. Swaran Singh and in FIR No. 1104/05 under Section 25/54/59 of Indian Arms Act Sessions Case No. 21/06 titled as St. Vs. Shankar. I am dictating this judgment in case FIR No. 1101/05 and the other two cases shall be disposed off, accordingly and a copy of this common order be placed in the other two cases also.
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page4/20CHARGES AND PLEA OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS In Sessions Case No. 22/06 bearing FIR No. 1101/05 prima facie case for the offences punishable under Sections 399/402/34 IPC was made out against accused Dinesh, Swaran and Shankar. Accordingly charges were famed against these three accused persons on 25/05/07 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Shakeel were proclaimed offenders who was later on arrested and connected with the case on 29/03/2010 and charge under Section 399/402 IPC against accused Shakeel was framed to which he pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced on the same day.
In another case titled as State Vs. Swaran Singh in FIR No. 1102/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 117/07, prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 25 Indian Arms Act against the accused Swaran Singh was found to be made out. Accordingly charge was framed against the accused Swaran Singh on 27/11/2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In yet another case, titled St. Vs. Shankar in FIR No. 1104/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 21/06 the prima facie case for the offence punishable under Section 25 Indian Arms Act against the accused Shankar was found to be made out. Accordingly charge was framed against the accused Shankar on 25/05/2007 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENE In support of its case, prosecution has examined nine SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page5/20 witnesses in all in the main case Sessions Case NO. 22/06 bearing FIR No. 1101/05 to which accused persons were charged for the offence under Section 399/402/34 IPC.
In the main case Sessions Case NO. 22/06 bearing FIR No. 1101/05, prosecution case is best reflected in the examination in chief of PW8 Prabhu Dayal. PW8 is SI Prabhu Dayal who on 24/10/05 who was posted in PS Kalkaji. On that day he was present in the police station a secret informer came to the PS and informed that near Paras Chowk 4-5 persons would plan to commit dacoity in chartered bus. He informed senior officers regarding this information and on the direction of the SHO to proceed immediate to raid. He prepared raiding party comprising SI Sanjiv, HC Shashi , Ct Sanjay, Ct Sandip, Ct Jitender and Ct Harish and proceeded to the spot in private vehicles and reached near the Paras flyover. He along with Ct Harish and secret informer went near the park by concealing themselves to hear the conversation between the persons where the secret informer told him that those were the persons who were planning to commit dacoity. One of them told that "Yar khacchar ki bason me jeb katte hue kafi din huye, kuch hath nahi lag raha hai, kuch mota hath marte hain" on which khacchar told that people were carrying ATM card with them and they didn't keep money with them and police was quite vigilant now a days and as such there was difficulty in robbing the buses. Another persons told that Khacchar was having katta and Shankar told SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page6/20 that he was having knife and rest of them were having knives. People had got Diwali bonus so they might carry money with them and the same could be robbed. On being satisfied after hearing the conversation PW8 SI Prabhu Dayal he along with the Constable Harish Chand and the secret informer returned back and informed the other members of the raiding party and requested 4-5 passer byes to join the raiding party but nobody joined and left without telling their names and addresses. Keeping in view the time SI Sanjeev Kumar and Constable Sanjay were deputed in the East side. HC Rajiv and Constable Sanjeev in the south side and HC Shashi Bhushan and Constable Jitender in the West side and he along with Constable Harish Chand came from the North side and raided the persons sitting in the corner of the park and they gave Lalkara that they were surrounded by the police and asked them to surrender but those persons started running in different directions. He apprehened with the help of Constable Harish accused Dinesh. Dinesh was then present in the court and correctly identified by the witnesses. SI Sanjeev Solanki and Constable Sanjay apprehended accused Swaran who was then present in the court and correctly identified from whose possession katta was recovered. HC Rajiv caught Saleem who was proclaimed offender. HC Shashi Bhushan and Ct. Jitender apprehended Shankar then present in the court and correctly identified and knife was recovered from accused Shankar. From accused Shakeel also knife SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page7/20 was recovered. One accused managed to abscond from the spot whose name later on he came to know as Dharmender. He prepared ruqqa which is Ex. PW 8/A which was in his handwriting and bears his signature and he sent Ct. Harish Chander for registration of the FIR to the PS Kalkaji. Proceedings regarding recovery of weapons were conducted by separate IOs. After sometime Ct. Harish Chander came back to the spot along with original ruqqa and carbon copy of the FIR and handed over the same to him. He prepared site plan Ex. PW 8/B and after interrogating the accused persons, he arrested them in the case accused Shankar vide arrest memos Ex. PW 8/C and accused Shakeel Alam Ex. PW 8/D, Dinesh Ex. PW 8/E and Swaran Singh Ex. PW 8/F. He also conducted their personal search vide memo Ex. PW 5/A of Swaran Singh, Shankar Ex. PW 5/B, Shakeel Alam Ex. PW 5/C, Dinesh Kumar Ex. PW 5/D. He recorded statement of the witnesses U/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on completion of the proceedings at the spot they returned back to the PS and the accused persons were produced in the court and remanded to JC. He completed the investigation and filed the challan.
Statement of PW1 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, PW3 HC Rajiv Kumar, PW4 Ct. Jitender, PW5 HC Harish Chander, PW6 HC Shashi Bhushan, PW7 Ct. Sandeep and PW9 SI Sanjeev Solanki is also similar to the statement of PW8 SI Prabhu Dayal.
PW2 HC Kalyan Parsad is a formal witness who was SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page8/20 working as Duty Officer and proved copy of Ex.PW2/A and other two FIRs is proved as Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C recorded by him.
In Sessions Case No. 21/06 titled as State Vs. Shankar bearing FIR NO. 1104/05 the prosecution has examined 2 witnesses i.e. PW1 HC Kalyan Prasad who has proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and PW2 Ct. Jitender, the Investigating Officer who arrested the accused accused Shankar and proved the recovery memo of knife Ex. PW2/A and its sketch Ex. PW 2/B. He also proved the arrest memo of accused Shankar Ex. PW2/C and personal search memo Ex. PW2/D. He identified the knife recovered as Ex.PA.
In yet another case titled as State Vs. Swaran Singh in FIR No. 1102/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 117/07, the prosecution has examined 3 witnesses i.e. PW1 HC Kalya Prasad who proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A. PW2 SI V N Shammy has arrested accused Swaran Singh vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW2/B. He also proved the site plan Ex.PW2/C. PW3 SI Sanjeev Solanki joined investigation of this and proved the apprehension of accused Swaran Singh and co accused persons and also the recovery of country made pistol and live cartridges from him. He proved the sketch of fire arm and the live cartridge as Ex.PW3/A and the seizure memo Ex.PW3/B. He prepared rukka Ex.PW3/C. He identified the fire arm Ex.PX1 and the cartridge Ex.PX2.
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page9/20STATEMENT AND PLEAS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS:
In their statements under Section 313 CrPC in the case in which accused persons were charged under Section 399/402 IPC, the accused persons in response to the questions put to them with regard to the incriminating evidence from prosecution case have either denied these questions or have expressed their ignorance about the questions put to them.
They have taken plea that they were falsely arrested. The witnesses have deposed falsely against them and are interested witnesses. Accused Swaran Singh has stated that he is innocent. He was called outside his house and taken to the police station where he found Shakeel, Dinesh and Shankar already in the police station . He had never been involved in any case of theft or dacoity. He was implicated in this case falsely in no manner he was planning to commit any robbery nor was any fifth person was with them even in the police station.
Accused Dinesh has stated that he was innocent. He was lifted from Subzi Mandi Govind Puri and taken to the police station where he found Shakeel, Swaran Singh and Shankar already in the police station . He had never been involved in any case of theft or dacoity. He was implicated in this case falsely in no manner he was planning to commit any robbery nor was any fifth person was with them even in the police station.SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page10/20
Accused Shankar has stated that he was falsely apprehended and he was innocent. He was lifted from Bus Stand Nehru Place and taken to the police station where he found Shakeel, Swaran Singh and Dinesh already in the police station . He had never been involved in any case of theft or dacoity. He was implicated in this case falsely and stated that in no manner he was planning to commit any robbery nor was any fifth person was with them even in the police station. Accused persons did not lead any evidence in defence.
In another case titled as State Vs. Swaran Singh in FIR No. 1102/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 117/07, accused Swaran Singh has denied the prosecution case and has taken the similar plea as in the other case, as referred before. The same is the position with statement under Section 313 CrPC of accused Shankar in case titled St. Vs. Shankar, FIR No. 1104/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 21/06.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS:
I have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned counsel for accused persons and have gone through the record of the three cases and relevant provisions of law.
Whether a case falls under s 402 or s 399 depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It is not always easy to find out with what intention and purpose the persons had assembled because very rarely there would be direct evidence in this respect. The purpose SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page11/20 or intention, with which the crime is committed, has to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of each case. If persons merely assemble with the object of committing a dacoity, the case may be covered by s 402, but may not be covered by s 399 without there being any preparation in that direction. Essential requirements of s 399 are that the accused had made some preparation and that the preparation was for the purpose of committing dacoity. As to what particular act or kind of steps would constitute preparation, no hard and fast rule can be laid down. Once the circumstances make out that the persons assembled had conceived the design of committing dacoity, then any step, taken with the intention or purpose of forwarding that design, would justify the court in coming to the conclusion that there had been preparation within the meaning of s 399, IPC. (See Singha v State 1972 PLR 176) From the above discussion, it is clear that in order to establish an offence punishable under S. 399, I.P.C. some act amounting to preparation must be proved and what must be proved further is an act for which preparation was being made was a dacoity, that is to say, robbery to be committed by five or more persons. The prosecution has to establish under S. 402, I.P.C. that there had been an assembly of five or more persons constituted for the purpose of committing dacoity and that the accused persons were members of that assembly. If there is no clear and acceptable evidence of any SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page12/20 assemblage of the appellants with five or more persons for the purpose of committing dacoity then the appellants cannot be held liable under S. 402, I.P.C. (See Asgar v. State of Rajasthan 2003 Cr LJ 1997 (Raj)) For the offence of dacoity, assembly of the persons for the purpose of dacoity or preparation of dacoity, the essential requirement is that there should be involvement of 5 or more persons. In the present case although the majority of prosecution witnesses have stated that four accused persons were arrested on the spot by overpowering them and the 5th person had ran away who could not be apprehended, at the same time PW1 Ct. Sanjay Kumar has not stated that there were five accused persons present at the spot and he has also talked about only four accused persons. Further Ct. Jitender, who is examined in case FIR No. 1104/05 Sessions Case No. 21/06 titled as St. Vs. Shankar, as PW2 has also stated in his statement in the Court that the four accused persons were arrested at the spot. In the cross examination also he has spoken about the four accused persons and not about the five accused persons.
This creates somewhat doubt in the prosecution case according to which five persons were assembled in making preparation of dacoity. However, the fact remains that the majority of the witnesses of fact though police officials have stated about the presence of five persons out of which one has ran away from the spot and the SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page13/20 remaining four accused persons were arrested by the police. Therefore, by talking that there were five persons present at the spot, further analysis of the prosecution case is being done.
The allegations against the accused persons are that accused Swaran was having country made pistol in his hand while the other accused persons were having one knife each in their possession. The question is whether possession of deadly weapons is sufficient to raise an inference that these persons were assembled for the purpose of making preparation of dacoity?
The possession of chopper or knife or an axe or a dagger or a spear, by itself, is not sufficient to show that persons possessing such weapons are the members of a gang of dacoits and had assembled for committing dacoity. Since the possession of such day to day use weapons can be properly explained, specially by villagers/labourers, some more natural evidence, credible and specific evidence is necessary to attract offences under s. 399, s. 402.(See Sadashiv v. State of Maharashtra 2003 Cr LJ 3661 (Bom)) The mere fact that the accused were arrested together and some of them were in possession of unlicensed weapons, but not in possession of any material required for committing house-breaking, would not necessarily lead to the inference that they had collected for the purpose of committing dacoity or that they had made preparation to commit dacoity.(See State v Ghissu Khan AIR 1956 All 464, 1956 SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page14/20 Cr LJ 956; Nathwa v State AIR 1951 All 452; Tirkha v State 1965 AWR 844; Hari Bijal v Emperor AIR 1915 Bom 247; Bachinta v Emperor AIR 1916 Lah 380; Nijamudien v State of Kerela 2002 Cr LJ 3266 (Ker)) In Chaturi Yadav and others Vs State of Bihar AIR 1979 S.C. 1412 the following observations were made:
"The courts below have drawn the inference that the appellants were guilty under both the offences merely from the fact that they had assembled at a lonely place at 1 AM and could give no explanation for their presence at that odd hour of the night. Mr. Misra appearing for the appellant submitted that taking the prosecution case at its face value, there is no evidence to show that the appellants had assembled for the purpose of committing a dacoity or they had made any preparation for committing the same. We are of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is well founded and must prevail. The evidence led by the prosecution merely shows that eight persons were found in the school premises. Some of them were armed with guns, some had cartridges and others ran away. The mere fact that these persons were found at 1 AM, does not by itself,prove that the appellants had assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity or for making preparation to accomplish that object. The High Court itself has, in its judgment, SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page15/20 observed that the school was quite close to the market, hence it is difficult to believe that the appellants would assemble at such a conspicuous place with the intention of committing a dacoity and would take such a grave risk. It is true that some of the appellants who were caught hold of, by the Head Constable are alleged to have made the statement before him that they were going to commit a dacoity but this statement being clearly inadmissible has to be excluded from consideration. In this view of the matter, there is no legal evidence to support the Under Sections 399 and 402 against the appellants. The possibility that the appellants may have collected for the purpose of murdering somebody or committing some other offence cannot be safely eliminated. In these circumstances, therefore, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the High Court.
For the reasons given above, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against them. The appellants will now be released forthwith".
Therefore, the mere fact that the accused persons were having deadly weapons in their possession does not necessarily establish that they assembled on the spot for the purpose of committing dacoity or they were making preparation for committing dacoity. More so, when accused Swaran did not fire at the raiding party inspite SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page16/20 of allegedly having country made pistol in his possession.
This is rather unlikely when bad characters had actually assembled and were preparing to commit dacoity, they would keep their arms and ammunitions in their jholas or not take out the same even on being challenged by the station officer particularly when they were beaten with lathis in the process of arrest. (See Ram Kishan & anor v State of Uttar Pradesh 2000 Cr LJ 867 (All)) The fact that in spite of the alleged possession of arms, the accused did not use them after the police fired two shots, (See Amar Singh & ors v State of Uttar Pradesh 2003 Cr LJ 1321 (All)) or the dacoits did not notice the presence of the police and did not open fire is difficult to believe and makes the prosecution case unreliable. (See Ram Sewak v State 1999 Cr LJ 4680 (All); Punni & ors v State of Uttar Pradesh 1999 Cr LJ 4641 (All); Ram Kishan v. State of UP 2006 Cr LJ 1775 (All).) Another shortcoming in the prosecution case is non examination of the Malkhana Mohram.
Non-examination of moharir malkhana and failure of the prosecution to even file his affidavit to testify to the safe custody of the recovered country-made pistol is also a serious lacuna in the prosecution version. (See Des Raj alias Das v State 2000 Cr LJ 2083 (Delhi); Nand Kishore v State of Haryana 1998 SCC (Cri) 568) In the light of the above discussion and since the conviction slips of the accused persons also show that they were not previously SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page17/20 convicted for any crime earlier, so, in the given facts and circumstances of the case benefit of doubt goes to the three accused persons so far as charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC are concerned.
As regards the charge under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act against accused Shankar in case FIR No. 1104/05, only one witness was examined by the prosecution PW2 Ct. Jitender who in his statement has stated that the knife Ex. PA was recovered from accused Shankar vide memo Ex. PW2/A and the statement of this witness is credit-worthy as regards the recovery of the knife from the possession of accused Shankar and there is nothing in the cross examination which may discredit the statement made by him in the examination in chief. He has specifically identified accused Shankar and has stated that he overpowered him and one gararidar knife was recovered from the right pocket of his trouser. The said knife recovered from the accused Shankar is covered by the prosecution by Notification No. F13/293/79-Home [G] dated 17/02/1989 copy which is placed on record to be published Inpart IV of the Delhi Gazette Delhi Administration Delhi so its judicial notice can be taken. Therefore, accused Shankar is liable to be convicted under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act.
As regards recovery of country made pistol from accused Swaran Singh, the requisite condition for his prosecution is that the SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page18/20 Sanction of the appropriate authority for prosecution should be proved by the prosecution. This is not done in this case. The Sanction of the prosecution given by the concerned authority in respect of firearm is required to be proved by leading evidence in the Court. As regards FIR No. 1102/05, charge of one country made pistol and cartridges without licence under Section 25 Arms Act was framed against accused Swaran Singh and accused Swaran Singh, in my view, cannot be convicted for want of Sanction of prosecution under Section 39 of Indian Arms Act. Therefore, accused Swaran Singh is entitled to be acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act for alleged possession of country made pistol, a firearm.
RESULT OF THE CASE:
In view of the above discussion the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the three accused persons namely Swaran Singh, Dinesh and Shankar for the charges under sections 399 and 402 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Also the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused Swaran Singh for the charges under sections 25 of Indian Arms Act. Hence all the three accused persons are acquitted of the charges under Sections 399 and 402 IPC and accused Swaran is also acquitted of the charge under Section 25 of Indian Arms Act. But prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Shankar for the charges under sections 25 of Indian Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page19/20 Shankar is convicted under section 25 of Indian Arms Act. Let accused Shankar be heard on the point of sentence. A copy each of this common judgment be placed in the other two cases belong to FIR No. 1102/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 117/07 titled as State Vs. Swaran Singh and FIR No. 1104/05 bearing Sessions Case No. 21/06 titled as St. Vs. Shankar.
Announced in the open court on 22/07/2010 (S.K.Sarvaria) Additional Sessions Judge-01/South Patiala House Courts, New Delhi SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page20/20 IN THE COURT OF SHRI S.K. SARVARIA ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-01- SOUTH PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI Session Case No. 21/06 Unique Case ID No. 02403R0694672005 State Versus Shankar S/o Sh. Udai Singh R/o D-90, West Vinod Nagar, Delhi.
FIR NO. - 1104/05Police Station - Kalkaji Under Section - 25/54/59 of Indian Arms Act. ORDER ON SENTENCE
By my common judgment dated 22/07/2010 in three cases the convict Shankar was convicted for the offence under Section 25 Indian Arms Act.
Ld. Addl PP has argued for deterrent punishment against the convict, keeping in view the serious nature of the crime committed by convict.
On behalf of the convict Shankar, it is argued that convict is a sole bread earner of his family and on account of poverty his family is facing hardship. So, lenient view be taken in his favour.
I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor and SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page21/20 learned Counsel for the convict and have gone through the record of the case and the relevant provisions of law carefully.
Nominal roll of convict was called from Supdt Jail in which it is mentioned that convict remained in judicial custody for trial of this case for about five months in total w.e.f. 12.04.07 to 12.09.07 and for 2 months w.e.f. 25.10.05 to 24.12.05. Therefore, convict remained in custody for 7 months during investigation and trial of the case.
Due to the reasons explained by Ld. Counsel for the convict, in my view, are adequate and sufficient reasons for awarding the imprisonment less than 1 year to the convict. The convict is awarded seven months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 25 of Indian Arms Act. In addition, he is also directed to pay fine of Rs 100/- each, in default of payment of fine he will undergo Simple Imprisonment for 10 days.
The period of detention already undergone by the convict/accused during the period of investigation and trial of this case shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed against the convict by this order, as provided under section 428 Cr.P.C. As convict had already undergone the sentence of imprisonment awarded to him, he be not sent to jail provided he pays fine imposed.
Judgment dated 22/07/2010 and this order on sentence be sent to server (www.delhidistrict courts. nic.in). Copy of judgment and order of sentence be supplied to convict/accused free of cost.
SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page22/20File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 23/07/2010 ( S.K. SARVARIA ) Additional Sessions Judge-01, South Patiala House Courts/New Delhi SC No. 22/06, 117/07, 21/06 Page23/20