Delhi High Court
Tejpal Singh vs State on 2 June, 2002
Equivalent citations: 101 (2002) DLT 99 b
Author: R Sodhi
Bench: R Sodhi
JUDGMENT
R.S. Sodhi, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 4.4.1998 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge
in Sessions Case No. 95/96 whereby the learned Additional
Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 376 and
451 IPC and vide a separate order dated 6.4.1998 sentenced the
appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 84 months with a
fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo R.I. for a period of 12 months under Section 376
IPC and further to undergo R.I. for 24 months with a fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo
R.I.for 4 months under Section 451 IPC. Both the sentences
were directed to run concurrently.
2. When the matter called out for hearing, nobody appeared
for the appellant. The Court cannot plead with Advocates to come
and attend to their cases. It is for the appellant to ensure
that his counsel is present in the Court if he wants the case to
be represented by him. Since this case has been shown on the
list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further
delay. I, therefore, appoint Mr.R.P.Luthra as amices Curiae, who
is present on behalf of Delhi Legal Service Authority to assist
the Court. He has gone through the record of the case and says
that he does not need more time.
3. With the assistance of the learned amices Curiae and
learned counsel for the State, I have gone through the record of
the case as also the depositions and the judgment under
challenge. Learned amices Curiae states that he is not in a
position to challenge the order of conviction. I, therefore,
confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of
sentence, it is argued by the learned counsel that the appellant
has suffered3-1/2 years actual incarceration. He has now got
married and is raising a family. Besides that he is also a
support to his old parents, as he is the only earning member of
the family. The occurrence is of 15.2.1996 and he has been on
bail since 25.5.2001. Since then the appellant has already
suffered theordealof trial for nearly six years. Learned
counsel also submits that there has been no complaint about his
having belied the trust bestowed upon him by this Court. He
further submits that he 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 imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to that
already undergone.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in
view of what has been stated by learned counsel for the State, I
am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the
sentence of imprisonment of the appellant is reduced to the
period already undergone. I order accordingly.
With this modification, Criminal Appeal No.244/98is
disposed of.
5. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond and the surety
shall stand discharged. The trial court record besent back
forthwith.
