Naseem S/O Ladku Ahmed vs The State (Govt.Of Nct Delhi)
2010 Latest Caselaw 1060 Del

*                  HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

         Judgment reserved on: February 16, 2010
       Judgment pronounced on: February 23, 2010

+                        Crl. A. No. 558/1999

%       Naseem s/o Ladku Ahmed              ... Appellant
                 Through: Mr. M.R. Chanchal, Advocate

                              versus

        The State
        (Govt.of NCT Delhi)                ... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, Additional
                            Public Prosecutor

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR


1.          Whether the Reporters of local
            papers may be allowed to see
            the judgment?
2.          To be referred to Reporter or       No.
            not?

            Whether the judgment should
3.          be reported in the Digest?



SUNIL GAUR, J.

1. On 18th April 1997, at about noon time, Appellant

with his co-accused had committed a criminal house

trespass by illegally entering into the house of Smt.

Khurshida Begum and had wrongfully confined her in her

house and for these offences, Appellant - Naseem has

been convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

Crl. A. No. 558/1999 Page 1 for one year with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under

Section 451/34 of Indian Penal Code and to rigorous

imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section

342/34 of Indian Penal Code and both these sentences are

to run concurrently, in terms of the impugned order of the

trial Court in FIR No. 196/97 registered at Police Station

Shahdara, Delhi.

2. In this appeal, at the very outset, learned counsel for

the Appellant points out that affidavit Ex. DW-1/B of Smt.

Khurshida Begum clearly exonerates the Appellant in this

case. However, on instructions from the

appellant/accused, learned counsel for the Appellant had

chosen not to press this appeal on merit and had

submitted that the appellant has got clean antecedents

and he has already remained behind bars in this case for

about eight months or so, and has been on bail since 15th

December, 1997. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant

that he was a teenager at the time of this incident and by

now he is settled in life and therefore, the substantive

sentence awarded to the appellant/accused deserves to

be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

points out that the Appellant - Naseem was arrested in Crl. A. No. 558/1999 Page 2 this case on 24th April, 1997 and was released on bail on

15th December, 1997 and as per the status report on

record, he is not involved in any other case.

4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,

this Court finds that the Appellant - Naseem has remained

on bail for more than a decade and to now send him

behind bars to serve out the sentence as awarded by the

trial court would indeed be harsh. The period of detention

of the Appellant - Naseem in this case of about seven

months or so, in the considered opinion of this Court,

would serve the ends of justice as the purpose of imposing

punishment is not always punitive but is reformative one

in appropriate cases. Therefore, in peculiar facts of this

case, the substantive sentence imposed upon the

Appellant - Naseem is reduced to the period already

undergone by him. However, the fine imposed is suitably

enhanced to Rupees five thousand only. In default of

payment of the enhanced fine, Appellant - Naseem will

have to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.

5. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated

above. Trial court shall ensure compliance of this order

forthwith.

Crl. A. No. 558/1999 Page 3

6. The appeal as well as pending application, if any, is

accordingly disposed of.

Sunil Gaur, J.

February 23, 2010
pkb




Crl. A. No. 558/1999                                       Page 4