Crl. Appeal 173/2010 Page 1 Of 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: 10th December, 2010 Date of Order: December 22, 2010 + Crl. Appeal No.173/2010 % 22.12.2010 Vijay Kumar ...Appellant Versus State (NCT) of Delhi ...Respondent Counsels: Mr. Sumeet Verma, for appellant. Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent. JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment and order on the point of sentence passed by learned ASJ, Delhi on 17th August 2008 convicting appellant under Section 394 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act. The appellant was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment under Section 394 IPC and two years imprisonment under Section 25 of Arms Act. 2. The counsel for the appellant Vijay Kumar submits that the appellant is not assailing his conviction and he only prays for modification /reduction on sentence. The appellant has already undergone more than 6 years of sentence as awarded to him and this should be considered as sufficient punishment. Crl. Appeal 173/2010 Page 2 Of 2 3. I have perused the nominal roll of the appellant. The nominal roll of the appellant would show that the out of total 7 years of imprisonment, the appellant had already undergone six years and two months and 23 days. Thus the remaining imprisonment is only nine and a half months. The conduct of the appellant in jail as shown in the nominal roll has been satisfactory. 4. Looking into the role of the appellant in commission of crime, it is seen that the appellant had not used arms and his role was of catching hold of the victim while other accused persons had assaulted the victim and robbed him. 5. Under these circumstances, I consider that it is a fit case where the sentence of the appellant should be modified and the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent that the appellant is sentenced to undergo sentence to six years and three months imprisonment instead of seven years and the fine, as imposed by the learned Sessions Judge. 6. With above modification, the appeal stands disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to Jail Suptd. forthwith. December 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd