CRL.A./395/2011 of ASHFAQ & ORS Vs STATE & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+CRL.A. 395/2011

ASHFAQ & ORS

..... AppellantsThroughMr. Ranjan Roy, Proxy Counsel.versus

STATE & ORS

..... RespondentThroughMr. Mohit Mudgal, Proxy CounselwithSISanjivKumar,P.S.Connaught Place and ASI BijenderSingh, Spl. Staff, New DelhiwithSISanjivKumar,P.S.Connaught Place and ASI BijenderSingh, Spl. Staff, New Delhi

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R%11.05.2015

1.This appeal has been filed by the three appellants, namely, Ashfaq,Mohabbat @ Bauna and Mr. Sabbu.Appellants Ashfaq, Mohabbat @Bauna and Mr. Sabbu have been convicted under Sections 393/34 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 by the trial court and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for period of five years with fine of `2,000/- and in defaultof payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for period of twomonths.

2.On 29[th]September, 2014, Ashfaq was produced in Court from the jailand he gave up the challenge to his conviction on merits. He stated that he

had almost completed the substantive sentence, thus, was not interested inpursuing the appeal any further.His sentence was reduced to the periodalready undergone by him. He was directed to be released subject to depositof the fine. Appellant Sabbu also gave up the challenge to his conviction onmerits. Accordingly, appeal qua appellant nos. 1 and 3 was disposed of videorder dated 29[th]September, 2014.

3.Appellant no. 2 Mohabbat @ Bauna is present in Court along with hiscounsel and submits that he is also not challenging his conviction on merits.He also submits that his sentence may be reduced equivalent to the period,he has already undergone in jail. perusal of nominal roll shows that hehas completed substantive sentence of imprisonment of more than threeyears.He has completed three years and three months.He has no pastcriminal record.Vide order dated 24[th]July, 2013 his sentence wassuspended during the pendency of appeal. He has not indulged himself inany other crime during the last about two years, which indicates that he hasreformed himself. Appellant no. 2 is aged about 40 years and has familycomprising of his wife and six minor children. He is the sole bread-earner inthe family. Fine has already been deposited by him, as is evident from aperusal of his nominal roll.

4.Keeping in mind the totality of circumstances, his sentence is reduced

to the period already undergone by him while affirming his conviction under

Sections 393/34 IPC.Personal bond and surety bond of appellant no. 2

Mohabbat @ Bauna are discharged.

5.Appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

MAY 11, 2015rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.