Rahisuddin vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 28 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                Date of decision: 3rd January, 2013
+        CRL. REV. P. 681/2012

         RAHISUDDIN                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through:     Mr. Yogesh Kumar Adv. with
                                         Mr. Islam Khan, Adv.

                                       versus

         STATE                                       ..... Respondents
                            Through:     Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for the State.

         CORAM:
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL

                                 JUDGMENT

G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL) CRL. REV. P. 681/2012 and Crl.M (B) 2166/2012

1. The Petitioner was prosecuted prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 341/509/506 IPC arising out of FIR No.910/2006 of Police Station Mehrauli. By an order dated 31.07.2012 he was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341 and 509 IPC. The Petitioner was sentenced to pay a fine of `500/- for the offence punishable under Section 341 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of `8,000/- for an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.

2. On Appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) while upholding the Petitioner's conviction reduced the substantive sentence under Section 509 IPC to three months.

3. The allegations against the Petitioner leading to his prosecution were that on 20.12.2006 while the complainant was proceeding to her school, the Petitioner stopped her and asked her to have friendship with him and threatened to kill her brother and father, if she did not agree to the same. The complainant reported the matter to her father and ultimately the police report was lodged.

4. On instructions from the Petitioner, the learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner does not challenge the impugned judgment so far as his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 341/509 IPC is concerned. He simply prays for a lenient view in the matter of awarding sentence. It is stated that the incident took place in the year 2006 i.e. more than six years ago. The Petitioner has the responsibility of his wife, two sons and two daughters. No previous conviction has been alleged against him. He has already remained in custody for one month and 19 days as on 01.01.2013 (which is verified by the nominal roll sent by the Superintendent Jail, Tihar). Petitioner has already earned remission for two days.

5. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that no purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioner in jail for another period of one month and seven days. The sentence of imprisonment of three months is reduced to one month and 21 days, which he has already undergone.

6. The Petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

7. The Petition is allowed in above terms.

8. Pending Application also stands disposed of.

9. Copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Tihar, New Delhi.

(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE JANUARY 03, 2013 vk