ROHTASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, the appeal is heard on merits as the appellant has undergone five years' incarceration.

(2.) Deepak Kumar @ Deepu, Sanjay, Harish Kumar @ Pintu, Rohtash and Deepak s/o Babu Lal were arrested by the police of Police Station Shahdara in case FIR No.194/04 and sent for trial. Allegations as projected in the charge-sheet against them were that on the night intervening 09/10.06.04, the complainant-Krishan Dev Pathak was robbed by them of his mobile phone make Sony Ericson, Rs. 5,200/-, office key and one Delhi Govt.card at knife point when he was travelling in TSR at Tikona Park, Kabool Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi at around 01.30 a.m. During investigation, some recoveries were effected at their instance. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against all of them in the court. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 14 witnesses to establish their guilt. In 313 statement, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime. They, however, opted not to lead any evidence in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction (except accused Deepak s/o Babu Lal) under Section 392 and 394 read with Section 34 IPC and accused Deepak @ Deepu s/o Bharat Singh was further convicted under Section 411 IPC by a judgment dated 16.08.2010 of District Judge-VII/NE-cum-ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Deepak s/o Babu Lal was convicted under Section 411 IPC. By an order on sentence all the accused except Deepak s/o Babu Lal, were awarded RI for ten years each with fine Rs. 3,000/- each and Deepak Kumar @ Deepu s/o Bharat Singh was further sentenced to undergo RI for three years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 411 IPC and his sentences were to operate concurrently. Deepak s/o Babu Lal was awarded RI for two years with fine Rs. 2,000/- under Section 411 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

(3.) During the hearing of the appeal, the appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant-Rohtash has opted to give up challenge to the findings recorded by the trial court on conviction. She, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has undergone the substantive portion of substantive sentence awarded to him. To this, learned APP for the State has no objection.