Pramod vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 1405 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                       DECIDED ON : 21st March, 2013
+                          CRL.A. 361/2001

      PRAMOD                                         ....Appellant
                   Through :     Ms.Rakhi Dubey, Advocate.

                                 versus

      STATE                                 ....Respondent

                   Through :     Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Open Court)

1.           The    appellant-   Pramod     challenges    judgment         dated

05.09.2000 in Sessions Case No.37/1999 arising out of FIR No. 734/1998

PS Dabri, by which, he was held guilty for committing offences under

Sections 366/342/354 IPC. Vide order dated 06.09.2000, he was

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

2. Allegations against the appellant were that he, Billa and

Rajesh Kumar kidnapped prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name), aged 10 years

and committed rape upon her. Charges under Sections 342/363/366/34

IPC and under Section 376 (g) were framed to which he pleaded not guilty

and claimed Trial. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to

substantiate the charges. In his 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant

pleaded false implication. Rajesh Kumar and Billa were proclaimed

offender. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival

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

held the appellant guilty for the offences described previously and

sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the appellant has come in appeal.

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

appellant MsRakhi Dubey, Advocate, on getting instructions from the

appellant present in person stated that the appellant has opted not to

challenge his conviction under Sections 366/342/354 IPC. He however,

prays to take lenient view and to release him for the period already

undergone in this case.

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 Sections

366/342/354 IPC, order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was

sentenced to undergo RI for five years with total fine ` 5,000/- under

various offences. Nominal roll dated 27.07.2010 reveals that the appellant

remained in custody for three years, one month and eight days. He also

earned remission for four months and seven days. He was not involved in

any other criminal case. Fine was deposited in the Court. The substantive

sentence of the appellant was suspended on 26.11.2001 and he was

admitted to bail. There are not allegations that during the pendency of the

present appeal, the appellant indulged in any other criminal activity. It is

stated the he is now a married person having two children. His wife is on

family way. He was of young age at the time of incident. Considering all

these mitigating circumstances, in my considered view, no useful purpose

will be served to send the appellant to serve the remaining unexpired

portion of the substantive sentenced awarded to him. In the interest of

justice and considering the peculiar facts of the case, order on sentence is

modified and the appellant is sentenced for the period already undergone

by him in this case. He need not be surrender in the Court or before the

Jail Superintendent. Appeal filed by the appellant stands disposed of in the

above terms. Copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent for

information.

6. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 21, 2013/tr