The appellant prays in front of the court, seeking that the guilty sentence be reduced to time served under section 392 & 411 IPC- granted by Haryana High court
TITLE: Lovepreet v UT Chandigarh
Decided On-: May 24, 2023
CRA-S-47 of 2021 (O&M)
CORAM: Hon’ble Justice Mr. Jaishree Thakur
INTRODUCTION- According to Section 392 of the IPC, the defendant has been found guilty and given a sentence of seven years of hard labour and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-; however, if the fine is not paid, the defendant will also be subjected to six months of rigorous imprisonment and a three-year sentence under Section 411 of the IPC.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
The complainant, Sanjeev Kumar, gave a recorded statement to the police stating that he was employed at Dhaba, Delhi Paranthe Wali Gali, Sector 22A, Chandigarh.
He was riding his motorbike with the registration number CH76(T)6691 home from work at around 2:00 a.m. He was riding his motorbike when a white colour car pulled up behind him and stopped in front of it in Chandigarh’s sector 22/23. He was asked to turn over anything he was holding when two boys exited the aforementioned car. While the other boy pulled out a gun-like object and struck him in the head, the first boy slapped him.
They violently took Rs. 10,000 from his pocket and a gold chain from his neck while threatening to kill him if he made any noise. The boys then escaped in the same vehicle with the HR-9671 registration number. The present FIR No. 398, dated December 26, 2017, was filed at Police Station 17 in Chandigarh based on the aforementioned statement and was filed under IPC Sections 397, 34, and 411 as well as Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. charge-sheeted under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act as well as Sections 397 and 392 of the IPC read with Sections 34 and 411. After listening to the parties’ knowledgeable solicitors and evaluating the evidence,
As per the petitioner’s conviction and punishment on the record,
COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The appellant’s knowledgeable attorney has argued that while he does not wish to contest the merits of the appellant’s conviction, he would be content if the appellant’s sentence were to be viewed favorably. Given these facts, the sentence meted out to the appellant may be reduced to the one he has already served.On the other hand, learned State counsel argued against the arguments made by learned counsel for the appellant and added a custody certificate to the record, arguing that the sentence given to the appellant was proportionate to the crime he committed. The appellant is not deserving of any indulgence.The conviction of the appellant is upheld in light of the distinctive facts and circumstances of the current case as noted above, in addition to the preceding arguments.
The sentence will be reduced to reflect the time the appellant has already served, though. The same would, however, be contingent on the petitioner depositing costs in the amount of Rs. 10,000 with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Lawyers’ Welfare Fund within a month of today. It is made clear that the appeal will be deemed to have been dismissed if the aforementioned sum of Rs. 10,000 is not deposited within the allotted time.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by– Steffi Desousa