Ashi Devi & Ors vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

3The prosecution case in brief is that PW11 Smt. Prakash Kaur and her son PW9 Jagjit Singh were running crockery shops in premises nos. T-56 and T-57 Takriwalan, till two months prior to the riots of 1984 and the accused persons were residing in the neighbourhood of the said shops and after the riots they were informed that their shops had been looted and some persons are occupying the same and on 20.11.1984 PW11 Smt. Prakash Kaur visited the shop and found goods looted and the accused persons in possession of the shops and despite her persistent 4 complaints police did not register any case and when Jain Aggarwal Committee was constituted they filed affidavits about the incident and on its direction a F.I.R. was registered against accused persons in January 1993 and charge sheet came to be filed. The Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences and convicted and sentenced them as narrated above and the appeal preferred came to be dismissed and challenging the same the present appeals have been filed.

6The riots spearheaded at Delhi and during vandalism the occurrence had taken place and there is no ocular testimony. The premises no.T-56 and T-57 belonged to PW10 Inder Singh and his wife PW11 Smt. Prakash Kaur and their son PW9 Jagjit Singh. They have testified about the running of the crockery shops in 7 the said premises. PW12 Prem Kumar and PW14 Raj Pal Khurana were dealing with wholesale business of crockery and they have testified about supply of crockery to M/s. Jagjit Crockery House running in the said premises and invoice copies have also been marked. It stands established that PW9 Jagjit Singh and his mother PW11 Smt. Prakash Kaur were running crockery business in the said shops.

8Taking advantage of the riots the appellants broke open the locks of the shops and looted the goods and continued to be in illegal possession of the shops for nearly two decades. The Trial Court observed that any lenient view against the accused persons in sentencing shall amount to putting premium on the crime and the High Court has reiterated the same. In 9 our view the conviction and sencence imposed on the appellants are correct and proper. However, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants pleaded for leniency in sentence, considering the age of the first appellant Smt. Ashi Devi, in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009. In the Memorandum of Appeal herein her age is mentioned as 88. As on date she is aged 93 years. The jail certificate dated 1.4.2009 states that she was admitted to Tihar Jail on 5.2.2009. This Court granted bail to her by order dated 13.5.2009. The above shows that she has undergone a part of the sentence. Considering her old age we are inclined to modify the sentence awarded to her 9We accordingly direct that the sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 379 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for the conviction under Section 448 IPC imposed on Appellant No.1 Smt. Ashi Devi shall stand reduced to the period already 10 undergone by her. The conviction and sentences imposed on other appellants shall remain unaltered. Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009 is thus allowed in part and to the extent indicated above. Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2009 is dismissed.

June 9, 2014