LAWS(DLH)-2014-5-312

DHARMENDER Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Decided On May 05, 2014
DHARMENDER Appellant
V/S
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Dharmender has filed the present appeal to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 02.06.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge: Dwarka Courts in Sessions Case No.88/11 registered at Police Station Dhaula Kuan by which he was held guilty under Section 392/411/34 IPC. By an order dated 07.06.2012, he was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 392 IPC and RI for one year under Section 411 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) Allegations against the appellant were that on 23.08.2010 at about 10 pm near underpass of Ring Road, Dhaula Kaun, Nw Delhi, he and his associate Chandan @ Kalu robbed the complainant Kamal of Rs. 50/- and a mobile phone at knife point. DD No.44A was recorded and assigned to HC Rakesh Kumar for necessary action. On reaching at the spot, he did not find any eye-witness and came to know that the injured had been taken to Safdarjung hospital by PCR. He lodged First Information Report after recording complainant's statement. The appellant was arrested on 27.08.2010 from Maya Puri Phase-I by Special Staff, Delhi Police and a mobile phone was recovered from his possession. His involvement in the present case emerged in the disclosure statement made by him. During investigation, statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed; the appellant was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses and finally the trial resulted in the appellant's conviction.

(3.) During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings on conviction and has prayed to modify the sentence order as he has already suffered custody in this case for more than four years. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.