Crl.A. 104/2008

Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment decided on 08^th September, 2011

+

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104/2008

ABDUL SHAHZAD

....APPELLANT

Through: Appellant in J.C. with Mr. Ashutosh

Bhardwaj, Advocate.

Versus

THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

...RESPONDENT

Through: Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE

1. Whether Reporters of local papers

may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be

reported in Digest ?

AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)

1. Abdul Shahzad, the appellant herein, on being convicted for

the offence punishable under Section 394 IPC read with Section 34

IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for the period of 07 years as also to

pay fine of `5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 06

months, has preferred this appeal.

2. Briefly stated, allegations against the appellant are that he, in

furtherance of his common intention with his co-accused Mohd. Sueb

and others robbed the complainant Taufiq Mohd of `10,000/- on the

point of knife used by the accused Mohd. Sueb.

2011:DHC:4594

Crl.A. 104/2008

Page 2 of 5

3. In order to bring home the guilt of appellant and his co-

accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses,

including the complainant. Statements of the appellant and his co-

accused were recorded. Both of them denied the prosecution

version and pleaded innocence. No witness in defence was

preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, at the

outset submitted that the appellant admits his guilt on merits and

does not press his appeal against the judgment of conviction. The

appellant, however, has confined his argument to the quantum of

sentence awarded to him. Learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the sentence of RI for the period of 07 years is too

harsh and requested for a lenient view. It is contended that the

appellant is a young man aged about 27 years. He has a younger

brother and unmarried sister. His parents have expired during the

period of his incarceration and younger siblings are dependent upon

him as he is the only one to take care of them. It is also submitted

that the appellant has realized his mistake and given a chance, he

would make sincere effort to prove to be a useful member of the

society.

5. Learned APP, on the contrary, has argued in support of the

order on sentence and submitted that the sentence of 07 years RI

2011:DHC:4594

Crl.A. 104/2008

Page 3 of 5

and fine of `5,000/- awarded to the appellant is commensurate with

the offence committed by him. Thus, the learned APP has urged for

dismissal of the appeal.

6.

I have considered the rival contentions. Sentencing of an

accused in a criminal matter is a serious exercise and the quantum

of sentence imposed should be commensurate with the gravity of

the offence committed by the accused and the circumstances under

which the offence was committed. While dealing with the issue of

sentence for the offences under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Terrorist and

Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Supreme Court in the

matter of Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2001) 9 SCC

161, wherein the Supreme Court, has inter alia, observed thus:

“7. ......Punishment in criminal cases is both punitive

and reformative. The purpose is that the person found

guilty of committing the offence is made to realise his

fault and is deterred from repeating such acts in future.

The reformative aspect is meant to enable the person

concerned to relent and repent for his action and make

himself acceptable to the society as a useful social

being. In determining the question of proper punishment

in a criminal case, the court has to weigh the degree of

culpability of the accused, its effect on others and the

desirability of showing any leniency in t