JAUDDIN @ PAPPU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is listed today for directions and with the consent of the parties, is disposed of today.

(2.) JAUDDIN @ Pappu (the appellant) is aggrieved by a judgment dated 12.09.2001 in Sessions Case No.169/2001 arising out of FIR No.389/98 registered at Police Station Rohini by which he and his associate Kali Charan were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 458/392 read with Section 397 IPC and 27 Arms Act.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions from the appellant 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 had remained in custody for substantial period. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on conviction in the presence of overwhelming evidence, his conviction for offences mentioned in the judgment is confirmed. Nominal roll dated 22.05.2013 reveals that the appellant remained in custody for five years besides earning remission for eight months and fourteen days. He was enlarged on bail on 24.01.2004. He has clean antecedents and was not involved in any criminal case. Nothing has emerged if after enlargement on bail he was involved in any criminal activity or misused the liberty granted to him. The appellant has suffered ordeal of trial/appeal for about 15 years. Regarding modification of order on sentence, it reveals that he was awarded minimum sentence under Section 397 IPC i.e. seven years. However, this case has peculiar circumstances and interest of justice compels the Court to reduce the sentence. The appellant preferred the appeal against the impugned order of 2001 from jail. The appeal was admitted on 20.05.2003. Trial Court record was requisitioned vide order dated 30.04.2003. The substantive sentence of the appellant was suspended till the disposal of the appeal as the appellant had already undergone actual imprisonment of about four years and four months and had earned a remission of over five months vide order dated 20.05.203. It is relevant to note that the original record was not traceable. Attempts were made to reconstruct the original record to appreciate the appeal on merits. However, the Trial Court was unable to reconstruct the original record to scrutinize the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses on merits. The documents on record are not at all sufficient to finally decide the appeal on merits.