Page 1

1

Non-Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49/2016 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10404 of 2014)

Parveen                     …Appellant

Versus

The State of  Haryana                          …. Respondent

O R D E R

Uday Umesh Lalit J.

1.   Leave granted.

2.  This  appeal  challenges  the  judgment  and  order  dated

21.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Crl.

Appeal  No.  S-1793-SB  of  2011  confirming  the  conviction  and

sentence of the appellant and one Jaswant under Sections 398

and 401 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act.

On 18.12.2014 this Court was pleased to issue notice limited to

the question of sentence.

Page 2

2

3. According  to  the  prosecution,  the  police  had  received

specific  information  that  the  appellant  and  one  Jaswant  were

planning to loot passing vehicles near Agma Gas Agency Store

situated  in Sector 21D, Faridabad. This information was received

on 09.02.2009 after 9:30 p.m. PW2 Ishwar Singh, ASI was already

present in Sector 21D, Faridabad on patrol duty. On receipt of the

information, he along with raiding party proceeded towards the

spot. According to PW2 Ishwar Singh and PW4 Head Constable

Yaseen Khan, they saw a white coloured  Indigo car parked at a

deserted  spot.  They  further  saw  that  the  appellant  and  said

Jaswant tried to stop a passing Maruti car but the driver evaded

them and sped away. The police overpowered the appellant and

said Jaswant and on their personal search recovered a knife from

the appellant and an iron rod from Jaswant. On search of the car,

the police found two number plates, one having car registration

number of Madhya Pradesh.  The photographer was called and

photographs of the vehicle and the site in question were taken.

4. During  investigation  it  was  discovered  that  said  car  was

actually  owned  by  LIC  and  was  a  stolen  vehicle.  Neither  the

Page 3

3

appellant nor said Jaswant could come up with any explanation

how that car was found in their possession. Further, both these

persons  were  statedly  residents  of  Distt.  Gonda,  U.P.  and  not

residents of Faridabad.

5. The  Trial  Court  after  considering  the  material  on  record

found that the case as against the appellant and Jaswant was

fully made out. It convicted both the accused under Section 398

IPC  and  sentenced  them  to  suffer  rigorous  imprisonment  for

seven years. They were further convicted under Sections 471 IPC

and 411 IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

seven years and one year respectively with imposition of fine and

sentences  in  default.  The  appellant  was  also  convicted  under

Section  25  of  the  Arms  Act  and  sentenced  to  suffer  rigorous

imprisonment for one year.

6. In  appeal  arising from the judgment of conviction of Trial

Court,  it  was  submitted  that  both  the  accused  had  already

undergone custody for over three and a half years and that their

sentence be reduced to that already undergone.  The High Court

considered the matter in its entirety and found both the accused

Page 4

4

were armed with deadly weapons and that the record showed

that they had other pending cases registered against them. The

High Court thus did not differ from the view taken by the Trial

Court and dismissed the appeal.

7. We  have  gone  through  the  record  and  heard  rival

submissions. As mentioned herein above, notice was limited to

the question of sentence. The conviction in the instant case is

under Sections 398 and 401 of the IPC. Though sentence under

Section 401 can be less than seven years, that under Section 398

“shall  not  be  less  than  seven  years”.  The  appellant  and  said

Jaswant were sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment

under Section 398 IPC, which is the minimum sentence.

8.  In  the  circumstances  no  relief  can  be  granted  to  the

appellant. We therefore dismiss this Criminal Appeal.

.……………………….J                      (V. Gopala Gowda)  

..………………………J                   (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi January 19, 2016

Page 5

5

ITEM NO.1B-For Order           COURT NO.10            SECTION IIB                S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Crl.A.No.49/2016 @ Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)   No(s).  10404/2014 PARVEEN                                            Petitioner(s)                                 VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA                                   Respondent(s) Date : 19/01/2016 This appeal was called on for pronouncement of ORDER today.

For Petitioner(s)                      Mr. Deepak Goel,Adv.

Mr. Vipin Kumar, Adv.  Mr. Manoranjan Jha, Adv.                      

For Respondent(s)                      Mr. Sanjay Kumar Visen,Adv.                               

Hon'ble  Mr.  Justice  Uday  Umesh  Lalit  pronounced the order of the Bench comprising Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda and His Lordship.

Leave granted. The  appeal  is  dismissed  in  terms  of  the  signed

non-reportable order. Pending application(s), if any,stand(s) disposed of.

(VINOD KUMAR) COURT MASTER

(MALA KUMARI SHARMA) COURT MASTER

(Signed Non-Reportable order is placed on the file)