Vijay Pandit vs State of Delhi

Ajit Bharihoke, J.—Vijay Pandit, the Appellant herein, vide this appeal has challenged impugned judgment dated 20.08.2008 in Sessions Case No. 69/06 FIR No. 96/06 P.S. Kashmere Gate and consequent order on sentence dated 22.08.2008, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 392 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years and also to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-and in the event of default, to undergo RI for further period of one month.

Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that on 02.03.2006 at about 2:45 am, complainant Sandeep Deswal was going on his motorcycle towards Hudson Lane. His friends Rajiv and Sunil were sitting on the pillion of the motorcycle. When they reached near Hanuman Setu Police Picket, the motorcycle got punctured. They dragged the motorcycle towards the police booth and stopped to find out if there was any puncture shop nearby. In the meanwhile, two boys came on a motorcycle and they told them that there was a puncture shop nearby and on their advice, complainant and his friends took their motorcycle towards the bridge, where two other associates of those two boys were present and they robbed Rajiv of his gold ring, a mobile phone and Rs. 300/-. They also robbed Sunil of his mobile phone and Rs. 350/-and they robbed the complainant of his mobile phone, Rs. 500/-and his purse containing an ATM card and some other documents and a pair of Reebok shoes. The FIR was registered on the complaint of Sandeep Deswal.

During investigation, the Appellant and his co-accused persons Rajpal, Pardeep and Amit were identified as robbers. On conclusion of investigation, the Appellant and his co-accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 392/395/34 IPC and co-accused Pardeep was also charged u/s 397 IPC. The Appellant and his co-accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

On completion of trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found the Appellant guilty for the offence u/s 392 read with Section 34 IPC. Thus, the Appellant was convicted for the said offence and sentenced accordingly.

Learned Ms. Nandita Rao, Advocate, on the instructions of the Appellant, submitted at the outset that the Appellant admits his guilt and he does not press his appeal on merits. She, however, argued on the point of sentence and requested that a lenient view be taken on the ground that the Appellant is a common man. He is a first offender, having no past criminal antecedents and he is the sole bread earner of his family. She also contended that in the appeal filed by the co-convict Amit, his sentence has been reduced by this Court to 03 years RI. Thus, on the principle of parity and keeping in mind the similarity of circumstances, the Appellant is entitled to reduction of sentence.

Learned APP, on the contrary, submitted that the Appellant is guilty of a heinous offence of robbery. He has already been treated leniently by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Therefore, there is no reason for reducing his sentence.

I have considered the rival submissions. Perusal of nominal roll of the Appellant Vijay Pandit dated 08.09.2010 sent by Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, reveals that the Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of 04 years 05 months and 20 days as on 08.09.2010. Thus, as on date, obviously the Appellant has undergone incarceration for a period of approximately 04 years and 09 months. As per the nominal roll, there is no past criminal record of the Appellant and his conduct in Jail is reported to be satisfactory.

Appellant is a young man and a first offender. Therefore, considering the nature of offence committed by him, he deserves at least a chance to mend his ways and prove himself to be a useful member of the society. He has already undergone incarceration for a period of 04 years and 09 months (actual), which sentence, in my view, is commensurate with the nature of offence committed by him. Thus, while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed upon the Appellant, his substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by him in custody.

The appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.

The Appellant is in custody. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for information.