Surinder @ Vicky vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

S.P. Garg, J.—Surinder @ Vicky (the appellant) questions the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 09.06.2003 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 33/2001 arising out of FIR No. 42/2001 PS Mangol Puri whereby he was held guilty for committing offence u/s 392 IPC and by an order dated 04.07.2003 awarded RI for four years with fine Rs. 2,000/-. Allegations against the appellant were that on 13.01.2001 at about 06.45 P.M. he and his associates Dharmender @ Chotu, Vikas and Sanju robbed Jitender and deprived him of cash Rs. 1,000/- and other articles. Some of the assailants were armed with weapons. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses to establish their guilt. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction.

During the course of arguments, appellant''s counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his conviction u/s 392 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has remained in custody in this case for more than two years prior to enlargement on bail. He was earlier involved in case FIR No. 41/2001 u/s 25 Arms Act PS Mangol Puri in which he has been acquitted. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order accordingly.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction u/s 392 IPC, the conviction is maintained. Nominal roll dated 11.12.2013 reveals that he has suffered incarceration in this case for one year, ten months and fourteen days as on 18.03.2005 besides earning remission for six months and twenty two days. Nominal roll further reveals that he is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. The occurrence pertains to the year 2001 and his involvement after enlargement on bail did not surface in any such criminal case. The fine is stated to have been deposited. Considering the fact that he has suffered the ordeal of trial/appeal for about twelve years and is not a previous convict, the period already undergone by him in this case is taken as the substantive sentence. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.