RAFIQ Vs. STATE (N C T OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rafiq (the appellant), Mujahid and Javed were arrested in case FIR No. 174/99 PS New Usmanpur on the allegations that on 16.12.1999 at about 09.00 P.M. at 4 th Yamuna Pusta towards Northern side, they voluntarily caused hurt to Maman Singh while committing robbery and deprived him of purse containing Rs. 54/- and visiting card. It was further alleged that Mujahid was armed with knife at the time of incident. The present case was registered after recording statement of victim Maman Singh (Ex.PW-2/A) on 16.12.1999. The complainant was medically examined. Statements of the witnesses were recorded during investigation. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Mujahid and Rafiq in the Court whereas Javed being juvenile faced trial before Juvenile Justice Board. The prosecution examined ten witnesses. In their 313 statements, the accused persons denied complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW-1 (Mohd. Yaseen) and DW-2 (Ganga Ram) appeared in defence. The trial resulted in conviction of both Rafiq and Mujahid. By an order dated 18.01.2001, Rafiq was given RI for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/-.

(2.) During arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has suffered the agony of trial/appeal for about fourteen years and has no criminal antecedents. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order considering the mitigating circumstances.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Since the appellant Rafiq has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 392 IPC read with Section 394 IPC, the conviction stands affirmed. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine Rs. 1,000/-. He has suffered the agony of trial / appeal for about fourteen years. He is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. After his release on bail pending appeal, his involvement in any other criminal case did not surface. The appellant was aged about twenty years on the day of incident. The robbed amount was Rs. 54/-. The appellant was not armed with any weapon and did not use it while committing robbery.