Crl.A. No. 11/2008

Page 1 of 5

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: September 09, 2011

+

CRIMINAL APEAL NO.11/2008

ASHRAF @ DANNY

....APPELLANT

Through: Appellant in custody with Mr. Ajay

Verma, Advocate/Amicus Curiae

Versus

STATE

.....RESPONDENT

Through: Ms. Jasbir Kaur, 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. Ashraf @ Danny, the appellant herein on being convicted and

sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 452 and 392 IPC vide

impugned judgment dated 29.10.2007 and the consequent order on

sentence dated 02.11.2007 has preferred this appeal.

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

with his co-accused trespassed into the house of Afsana Praveen, gagged

her mouth and one of the co-accused took out a dagger and abused and

criminally intimidated the complainant Afsana Praveen and thereafter

they robbed her of `1,50,000/- in cash besides gold ornaments.

2011:DHC:4611

Crl.A. No. 11/2008

Page 2 of 5

3. Appellant along with other co-accused was charged for the offence

punishable under Section 452, 392, 397 read with Section 120 B IPC. The

appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, prosecution examined as

many as 12 witnesses, including the complainant. Statement of accused

under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied the

prosecution story and claimed innocence.

5. On consideration of the evidence on record as well as submissions

made on behalf of the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge found the

appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 452 and 392 IPC

and convicted him accordingly. The appellant was sentenced for the

offence under Section 452 IPC to undergo RI for the period of 04 years

besides fine of `5,000/- and for the offence under Section 392 IPC to

undergo RI for the period of 04 years besides fine of `10,000/-.

6. 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 submissions to the point of sentence awarded to him. It

is contended that the appellant is a young man of 27 years. He is the only

earning member of his family comprising of his widowed mother and his

brother aged 8 to 9 years, who are dependent upon him. He has no

history of any previous criminal record. Learned counsel submits that the

appellant realises his mistake and he is inclined to mend his ways and

become a useful member of the society. Thus, learned counsel for the

2011:DHC:4611

Crl.A. No. 11/2008

Page 3 of 5

appellant has prayed this court to take a lenient view and submitted that

sentence of 04 years RI is too harsh and presses for reduction of his

sentence.

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

sentence and submitted that the sentence of 04 years RI and fine

awarded to the appellant is commensurate with the offence committed by

him. Thus, the learned APP has urged for dismissal of the appeal.

8.

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, wherei