MAULA BAKSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MAULA Baksh (the appellant) impugns the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 25.05.2010 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 37/2008 arising out of FIR No. 55/2008 PS Ashok Vihar by which he was convicted for committing offences under Sections 397/394/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 26.05.2010, he was awarded RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 392 IPC read with Section 397 IPC; RI for seven years with fine Rs. 10,000/ - under Section 394 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) FIRST Information Report was lodged by Nitin Mehta who disclosed to the police that on 21.02.2008 at about 05.00 P.M. he was sitting in Ashoka Park. Manmohan Bhasin came to him and informed that S.K.Chadda had received injuries and asked for the car. S.K.Chadda was taken in the car to hospital. On the way to the hospital, S.K.Chadda informed them that when he reached near Maharaja Agarsen School on foot after getting down from the bus, two boys came from behind; assaulted him with a blade; and, robbed him of his wallet containing Rs.800/ -. Mr.Chadda was taken to Dr.Singhla who was not available at his clinic. The victim was taken to Sunder Lal Jain Hospital. Police arrived there vide Daily Diary (DD) No. 21 and formal FIR No. 55/08 was recorded at PS Ashok Vihar. During investigation, accused Maula Baksh and Mohd. Shahid were arrested. A surgical blade and photograph with papers were recovered from them. S.K.Chadda expired on 21.02.2008 at 07.15 P.M. and was declared dead due to Myocardial ischaemia as a result of coronary in -sufficiency. Post -mortem on the body was conducted. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge - sheet was submitted against both in the Court; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held both of them guilty for the aforesaid offences. It is not clear if Mohd. Shahid challenged the conviction.

(3.) SINCE the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction for the aforesaid offences, the same are affirmed. Nominal roll dated 30.12.2013 reveals that he has served his substantive sentence awarded to him by the Trial Court on 23.12.2013. The default sentence started from 24.12.2013. The appellant has been awarded default sentence of total fine Rs. 20,000/ - SI for two years. In my view, the default sentence SI for two years awarded by the Trial Court is excessive and unreasonable. The appellant due to poverty is unable to pay the fine and has already served default sentence for one month. Taking into consideration Section 30 of Cr.P.C. and the judgment of 'Shahejadkhan Mahebubkhan Pathan Vs. State of Gujarat', 2012 (10) SCALE 21, where the default sentence was reduced from three years to six months, it is ordered that the appellant shall pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for three months. Other terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.