ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In case FIR No. 428/99 registered at police station Malviya Nagar under Sections 393/ 457/34 Ashok Kumar and Rajinder Kumar were prosecuted for offences under Section 393/457 read with Section 34 IPC. The petitioner, Ashok Kumar, in addition was also persecuted for the offence under Section 27 of Arms Act.

(2.) Both the accused entered the house of the complainant, Madan Lai Arora in the night of 20. 12.1989 and attempted to rob Madan arora and his relative Tara Chand. Ashok, with knife in his hand, approached the complainant and advised the co-accused Raju to take care of Tara Chand. Ashok is alleged to have threatened the complainant of murder unless he complied with the demands of the robbers. The attempt to rob was resisted successfully. One of the accused was apprehended at the spot and the other was subsequently arrested on the disclosure statement of the first. The conviction for the offence of lurking house trespass and for the attempt to commit robbery have been upheld in appeal. So has been the conviction for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms act. For the offence under Sections 457 and 393 read with Section 34 IPC, both the accused were sentenced to imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. In addition Ashok was sentenced to simple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The two revision petitions are preferred by the two accused against the conviction and sentence.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners, mr. K. K. Manan, prays for leniency in the sentence rather than challenging the concurrent findings of the M. M. and the ASJ on the point of conviction. He does not dispute that the offence is serious and that in the interest of the society every attempt should be made to prevent occurrence of such crimes. Yet he submits that the petitioners have undergone the agony of trial till the date of final conviction for about 14 years and that at the time of the commission offence, he was young and immature. It is stated that during these long years, the petitioners have not been involved in any other offence and had not been involved in any previous offence.