CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.A. 604/2026 1 $~68 & 72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1030-1032/2026 SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vineet Jain and Mr. Ashish Mavi, Advocates versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for State with SI Mukesh Kumar, PS Khyala + CRL.A. 604/2026 & CRL.M.(BAIL) 1244/2026 PARAMJEET KAUR @ PAMMY .....Appellant Through: Mr. Vinod Pant, Advocate versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for State with SI Mukesh Kumar, PS Khyala CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN O R D E R % 21.07.2026 1. Both the appeals, being connected, have been taken up together. 2. There were, in all, five accused persons who faced the trial. They all have been held guilty, convicted and sentenced. 3. The present two appeals have, however, been filed by four such convicts. Criminal Appeal No. 510/2026 is by convicts Renu Jha, Sanjeev This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:42:18 CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.A. 604/2026 2 Kumar and Charanjeet Singh whereas Criminal Appeal No. 604/2026 pertains to convict Paramjeet Kaur. 4. Fifth convict i.e. Surender Singh has, so far, not challenged his conviction and order on sentence. 5. As per prosecution story, Govind Ram Sharma (complainant) was a priest in the Divya Shakti Hanuman Sai Mandir, E-Block, J.J. Colony, Khayala, Delhi. He received a call from a lady who wanted to have some astrological consultation from him. After taking appointment, two ladies i.e. Renu Jha and Paramjeet Kaur came to the temple and consulted him. During consultation, on the basis of call made by Renu Jha, three other accused persons i.e. Sanjeev Kumar, Charanjeet Singh and Surender Singh also came there. All the five accused had already conspired to commit robbery and complainant was told that if their demands were not met, he would be falsely implicated in a case of sexual assault. When he claimed that he had not committed anything wrong with the ladies, they proclaimed that they were from Delhi Police. They demanded a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from him. Complainant gave in to their demand and paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- immediately on 04.08.2014 and further Rs. 35,000/-, same evening. The accused person were to collect balance amount of Rs. 10,000/- but by then, complainant mustered courage and revealed about the aforesaid trap to Committee Members of the temple and, eventually, all the accused were apprehended. 6. Prosecution examined fourteen witnesses, including complainant Govind Ram Sharma (PW2). 7. Learned Trial Court, keeping in mind the testimony on record, held all of them guilty for commission of offences under Section 395/171/149 IPC This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:42:18 CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.A. 604/2026 3 and sentenced them as under:- S. No. Offence/Section Period of Sentence Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 1 171/149 IPC Two Months Rigorous Imprisonment -- -- 2 395/149 IPC Five Years Rigorous Imprisonment Rs. 10,000/- Two Months Simple Imprisonment 8. It was also directed by the learned Trial Court that the entire fine amount, if realized, be released to the complainant. 9. Trial Court Record has already been received. 10. On the last date of hearing, after hearing some arguments, learned counsel for appellants took short adjournment to take requisite instructions in the matter. It has, now, been informed by learned counsel for appellants that appellants are no longer desirous of challenging their conviction and they only pray for compassion and reduction in sentence. 11. Mr. Vineet Jain, learned counsel for appellant Renu Jha, Sanjeev Kumar and Charanjeet Singh seeks permission to place on record affidavits of all the three appellants to the effect that they do not press the present appeal on merits and seek indulgence for modification of order on sentence and pray for the sentence to the period already undergone by them. 12. Mr. Vinod Pant, learned counsel for appellant Paramjeet Kaur also submits that he has taken instruction to the above effect. He submits that her daughter Amandeep Kaur is present in the Court and that he has taken requisite instructions in this regard from her also and, thus, even appellant Paramjeet Kaur does not challenge order of conviction. She also prays for sentence to the period already undergone by her. 13. Concerned SHO/IO was also directed to get in touch with complainant This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:42:18 CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.A. 604/2026 4 Govind Ram Sharma, who has been contacted but stated to be away to Mathura. 14. The Court has gone through the findings returned by learned Trial Court, which seems to be in consonance with the evidence led by the prosecution. Moreover, as already noticed above, learned counsel for the appellants have already divulged that appellants do not challenge order on conviction. 15. Keeping in mind the testimony led by the prosecution and aforesaid submission of appellants, order on conviction dated 02.06.2025 is upheld and maintained. 16. Nominal Roll of Renu Jha would indicate her age to be of 71 years. Her jail conduct is noticed as satisfactory and she is working as Cleaning Sahayak in the jail. She has no other involvement of any nature whatsoever. 17. Nominal Roll of convict Paramjeet Kaur indicates her age to be of 62 years. She is working as Chakkar Sahayak in the jail and her conduct is noted as satisfactory. She also does not have any prior involvement. 18. Nominal Rolls of other two appellants have also been seen. Appellant Charanjeet Singh is in his sixties, with no previous involvement and his conduct is also found to be satisfactory. As far as appellant Sanjeev Kumar is concerned, though his age is stated to be 46 years, fact remains that he also does not have any prior involvement and his overall jail conduct is also recorded as satisfactory. 19. As per Nominal Rolls, all the four appellants have already undergone more than four years of incarceration. 20. Keeping in mind the fact that incident in question is of the year 2014 and the appellants have already undergone agony of trial for more than a This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:42:18 CRL.A. 510/2026 & CRL.A. 604/2026 5 period of 12 years, their previous clean antecedents and age, order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by them. However, fine amount qua each appellant is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. In case of default in depositing the fine, they would undergo sentence for a period of two months. 21. Needless to say, the entire fine amount, if realized, would go to complainant Govind Ram Sharma. 22. Both the appeals stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. 23. Pending applications also stand disposed of in aforesaid terms. 24. A copy of this order be sent to learned Trial Court and Superintendent Jail for information and compliance. MANOJ JAIN, J JULY 21, 2026/dr/sk This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 23/07/2026 at 11:42:18