Full Judgment
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI RESERVED ON :
21. t OCTOBER, 2013 DECIDED ON :
22. d OCTOBER, 2013 + CRL.A. 337/2001 K.P.SINGH ..... Appellant Through : Mr.R.M.Tewari, Advocate with Ms.Jyoti Tewari, Advocate. Versus THE STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. ASI Prabhakaran, PS Delhi Cant. AND + CRL.A. 338/2001 & CRL.M.A. 1796/2001 SUMAN LATA ..... Appellant Through : Mr.R.M.Tewari, Advocate with Ms.Jyoti Tewari, Advocate. Versus THE STATE Through : ..... Respondent Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP. ASI Prabhakaran, PS Delhi Cantt. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG S.P.GARG, J.
1. K.P.Singh (A-1), Than Singh, Suman Lata Chauhan (A-2) , Ram Nath and Brij Raj Singh were arrested in case FIR No.486/87, Police Station Delhi Cantt. and sent for trial for committing offences under Sections 120B IPC, 302/364/467/471/419 IPC read with120B IPC. By a judgment dated 09.05.2001 in Sessions Case No.56/96, A-1 and A-2 were held guilty for committing offence under Section 120B IPC. Ram Nath was convicted under Section 120B, 419/467 IPC read with Section 120B IPC. Proceedings against Than Singh were dropped as abated due to his death. Brij Raj Singh was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B IPC. By an order dated 15.05.2001, A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine ` 100/- each. It is significant to note that State did not come in appeal to challenge the judgment dated 09.05.2001. Though A-1 and A-2 were charged for hatching conspiracy to murder Ram Partap, their landlord, to grab the rented accommodation House No.RZ-14/1, Ashok Park, Sagarpur, New Delhi, but they were acquitted of the charge of said conspiracy due to lack of evidence. A-1 and A-2’s conviction is under Section 120B IPC simplicitor.
2. During the hearing of the appeals, appellants’ counsel on instructions stated at Bar that A-1 and A-2 have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court for conviction under Section 120B IPC and accept it voluntarily. He however, prayed to release the appellants for the period already undergone by them in this case. Learned APP has no objection to it.
3. Since the appellants - A-1 and A-2 have accepted their conviction under Section 120B IPC voluntarily and have given up their challenge to conviction, the findings of the Trial Court to that extent are confirmed / affirmed. The incident occurred in 1987. The appellants have suffered ordeal of trial / appeal for about twenty five years. A-1 and A-2 remained in custody for fifteen months and fourteen months, respectively, before release on bail / enlargement on bail. They are not involved in any other criminal case. They were acquitted of the charge of murder of their landlord Ram Partap. In their 313 statements, the appellants never claimed themselves to be the owner of the property in question on the basis of the forged and fabricated documents. They are not beneficiaries in the transaction as the property in question was allegedly disposed of by the relatives of Ram Partap whose whereabouts are unknown. Ram Nath was found guilty for forging and fabricating documents. It is unclear whether he challenged the judgment. In view of these circumstances, sentence order requires modification. A-1 and A-2 are sentenced to undergo the period already spent by them in this case.
4. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith if not required in any other case. Pending application also stands disposed of. (S.P.GARG) JUDGE OCTOBER22 2013/tr