- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant through Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee against the judgment dated 14th May, 2007 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court affirmed the Judgment of Conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court holding appellant guilty for the offence of robbery and murder.
(2.) In view of the stand taken by the appellant in Crl. M.P. No. 28672, Mr. Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant and assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae.
(3.) It appears that the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 302 in some other cases also apart from the case in hand. In the present case, the Trial Court by its Judgment dated 23/28th April, 2014 in Sessions Case No. 385/1996 convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and passed the following sentence : "5. Keeping in view the above discussion the convict is sentenced as under: (i) Convict is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 302 IPC, in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo RI for a period of two months. (ii) Convict is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of ten year and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 397 IPC. In default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo RI for a period of two months. Sentences under Section 302 IPC and 397 IPC in this case shall run concurrently. No separate sentence is being awarded under Section 392 IPC as ingredients under Section 392 IPC are also the ingredients of section 397 IPC. It is made clear that this sentence shall not be concurrent with the sentence I case FIR No.509/95 P.S. Vasant Kunj as awarding of concurrent sentences in both the case will amount to taking a very very lenient view against the convict which I do not think it expedient.";