RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RAJ Kumar (the appellant), Darshan Kumar and Rahul were arrested in case FIR No. 716/99 PS Shalimar Bagh and were sent for trial for committing offences under Sections 392 /397 /411 /34 IPC on the allegations that on 07.10.1999 at about 01.30 A.M. in front of Income Tax Colony, Outer Ring Road, Delhi, they robbed Laloo and Sita Ram of cash Rs. 470/ - and Timex watch at the point of knife. At about 01.45 A.M., they were apprehended at the instance of the complainant by PCR officials and watch was recovered. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted in the Court. The prosecution examined five witnesses. In their 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 03.05.2001 in Sessions Case No. 12/2000 convicted all of them under Sections 392 /34 IPC. State did not challenge their acquittal under Section 397 IPC. By an order dated 10.05.2001, the convicts were sentenced to undergo RI for four years each with fine Rs. 500 each. During the course of arguments appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that he has opted not to challenge his conviction under Sections 392 /34 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He however, prayed to take lenient view as he has already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to him and is not a previous convict and has clean antecedents. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction and there is ample evidence on record coupled with recovery of the stolen article, conviction under Sections 392 /34 IPC stands affirmed. Nominal roll dated 21.01.2002 reveals that he has remained incarceration for one year, three months and twenty two days as on 21.01.2002. He also earned remission for two months and five days. The period has increased to about two years at the time of enlargement on bail on 12.08.2002. He has clean antecedents and was not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. He was aged 23 years and was unmarried on the day of incident. He is now married and has a family to take care of. After the appellant was enlarged on bail his involvement in any criminal activity did not surface. He has suffered the agony of trial/appeal for about fourteen years. The fine has already been deposited. Taking into consideration all these mitigating circumstances, the appellant -Raj Kumar is sentenced for the period already undergone by him in this case.

(2.) THE appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The Trial Court record be sent back forthwith. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent jail.