Karan v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
In appeals against conviction for snatch theft and theft, the High Court upheld convictions for Sections 392/394/397/34 IPC and 411 IPC but set aside conviction under Section 397 IPC due to doubt over seizure memo inconsistencies, modifying the sentence to time served.
What did the court decide?
Conviction under Section 397 IPC set aside; sentences modified to period already undergone with release from custody.
What the court decided
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Reserved on: January 10, 2018 Decided on: 6th September, 2018 + CRL.A. 69/2016 DEEPAK ..... Appellant Represented by: Mr. H.S. Arora, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with ASI Badluram, PS Janakpuri. + CRL.A. 510/2016 KARAN ..... Appellant Represented by: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Advocate versus STATE ..... Respondent Represented by: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State with ASI Badluram, PS Janakpuri
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
- Vide impugned judgment dated 1st December, 2015, the appellants Deepak and Karan were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392/411/34 IPC and Karan was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. Vide order on sentence dated 5th December, 2015 Deepak and Karan were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/-
Page 1 of 8
CRL.A.69/2016 & CRL.A.510/2016
each for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each; rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and to pay a fine of ₹1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each. Karan was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of ₹3,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the link evidence consisting of a recovered ustara sealed with a disputed seal warrants a benefit of doubt for the conviction under Section 397 IPC.
Whether the procedural discrepancies regarding the recovery of articles and mobility of the accused vitiate the convictions for snatch theft.
Whether the appellants are entitled to restoration of sentence to the period already undergone given the benefit of doubt on one count.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Deepak
- appellant
Karan
- respondent
STATE
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court