Chander Bhan vs The State (N.C.T. Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 1121 Del

$-R-1
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                        DECIDED ON : 6th March, 2013

+                           CRL.A. 643/2000

       CHANDER BHAN                                       ..... Appellant

                            Through :   Mr.Ravinder Kumar, Advocate.


                            versus

       THE STATE (N.C.T. OF DELHI)                        ..... Respondent

Through : Ms. Fizani Husain, APP.

SI Arvind Kr.Singh, PS Mehrauli.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellant- Chander Bhan impugns judgment dated

25.09.2000 and order on sentence dated 26.09.2000 in Sessions Case

No.89/1999 arising out of FIR No.790/1998 PS Mehrauli by which he was

convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC

and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the accused were that on the night

intervening 14/15.11.1998 at 01.30 A.M. at the house of Chaudhary

Balwinder, village Saidulajab, he attempted to commit rape upon 'X'

(assumed name), age 10 years. The prosecution examined fourteen

witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false

implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival

contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment,

held the accused guilty for the offences mentioned previously and

sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present

appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the

appellant on instructions from the appellant- Chander Bhan stated that the

appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under Sections

376/511 IPC. He however, prayed for modification of the order on

sentence as the appellant has already undergone more than two years

sentence. The appellant is not a previous convict.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to

challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section

376/511 IPC, the order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding modification of order on sentence, it reveals that

the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine `

5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 23.10.2010 reveals that the appellant had

already undergone 2 years, 3 months and 26 days incarceration. He also

earned remission for 01 month and 25 days. The substantive sentence of

the appellant was suspended vide order dated 05.03.2001. The appellant

was not found involved in any other criminal case during the disposal of

the appeal. There are no allegations that he ever misused the liberty

granted to him. The appellant was aged 18 years on the day of occurrence.

He is now a married person and has a kid. He is not a previous convict

and is not involved in any other criminal case. He has volunteered to pay

` 30,000/- without prejudice to the complainant/ victim.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case

and the mitigating circumstances, order on sentence requires modification.

No useful purpose will be served to send the accused to jail after

permitting him to remain on bail for about more than 10 years. The

incident pertains to the year 1998 and he has suffered trial for about 15

years. The substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period

already undergone by him in this case which is about two and a half years.

7. The appellant shall deposit ` 30,000/- with the Registrar

General of this Court within one month. Notice will be issued to the

complainant/ victim to get ` 30,000/-.

8. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms.

9. To report compliance of the directions, list on 1st May, 2013.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

MARCH 06, 2013 tr