VIJAY PANDIT Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 under Section 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 `1000/- and in the event of default, to undergo RI for further period of one month.

(2.) 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 `300/-. They also robbed Sunil of his mobile phone and `350/- and they robbed the complainant of his mobile phone, `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.

(3.) 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.