Jagan Nath And Ors. vs State
2001 Latest Caselaw 953 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 1995 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 2/1989 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dat ed 9.12.1994 held the appellants guilty under Section 366 read with Section 34, IPC and under Section 376, IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge vide Order dated 19.12.1994 sentenced the appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Section 366, IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months each.

2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeal, inspite of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1995 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, therefore, appoint him as amices Curiae to assist me in the case.

3. With the assistance of learned amices Curiae and learned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of the case. Learned amices Curiae on the basis of the record submits that he is not in a position to challenge the judgment under challenge but has confined his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that this is an occurrence of 17.6.1988 and the appellants have undergone incarceration for about six months. He submits that the accused have been on bail since 10.3.1995 and that there has been no complaint about their having belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court. He submits that the appellants are also not previous convict and have by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as useful citizens, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to that already undergone.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. In this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, I reduce the sentence to that already undergone.

Crl. A. 11/1995 is disposed of.

The appellant are on bail. Their bail bonds and sureties shall stand discharged.

5. Appeal disposed of.