Raju @ Bhajan @ Ram Bhajan @ Raju Lal vs State
2001 Latest Caselaw 966 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.11.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 193/1990 whereby the learned Additional Sessional Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 366, IPC and further by a separate order of the same date sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for four years with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for the three months.

2. The case when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspite of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1992 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 this 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 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 the case relates to 10.4.1990 and the appellant has already undergone about eight months of incarceration. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 11 years. He submits that the accused has been on bail since 6.7.1993 and that there has been no complaint about this having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He submits that the appellants is also not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen, therefore, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection if the sentence of the appellant 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.

5. Crl. A. 219/1992 is disposed of.

6. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and sureties shall stand discharged.

7. The non-bailable warrants issued to secure the presence of the appellant are recalled.

8. Appeal disposed of.