Sheikh Azad vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 775 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Date of Judgment:10.02.2014.
+      CRL.REV.P. 640/2013
       SHEIKH AZAD
                                                              ..... Petitioner
                                 Through   Mr. R.K. Bachhan, Adv.
                                 versus

       STATE
                                                          ..... Respondent
                                 Through   Mr. Varun Goswami, APP

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated

19.10.2013 which, in appeal, has endorsed the finding of the learned

MM dated 22.07.2013 and 24.07.2013 vide which the petitioner had

been convicted under Section 448 of the IPC and had been sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and

in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days. The impugned

judgment had dismissed the appeal but had modified the sentence to the

extent that the RI for 6 months under Section 448 of the IPC had been

modified to SI for 6 months. The rest of the sentence remained

unaltered.

2 The nominal roll of the petitioner has been summoned. The

nominal as on 04.02.2014 reflects that out of total period of 6 months

awarded to the petitioner, he has already undergone imprisonment of 3

months and 23 days; he has also earned remission of 19 days. As on

date, the sentence already undergone by the petitioner would be

approximately 4- ½ months.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioner under instructions states that

keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has already suffered

incarceration for almost 80% of the sentence which has been awarded to

him and fine also having been paid, he is not pressing the petition on

merits but he seeks leniency in the sentence. It is pointed out that the

petitioner is young in years; he has a family to support; there was no

evidence with the prosecution to really nail the petitioner; attention has

been drawn to the statement of Gurmeet Kaur (PW-2) in whose house

the petitioner had allegedly gone to commit theft; submission being that

the petitioner has been acquitted of the charge under Section 380 as also

under Section 454 of the IPC as no evidence was forthcoming; further

submission being that even as per the version of PW-2, the petitioner

had not entered the house of the victim.

4 The offence is of the year March, 2010. It was in the afternoon at

02:00 pm. The petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. His nominal

roll suggests that his conduct in the jail has all along been satisfactory;

there is a special remark on his performance which states that he is a

good inmate and nothing adverse has been reported against him

regarding involvement in any illegal or anti-human activities.

5 In this background, keeping in view the age of the petitioner who

is about 24 years and he being a first time offender, period of sentence

already undergone by him is the sentence imposed upon him. Thus

while maintaining the conviction the petitioner is accordingly sentenced

to be released on the period undergone. He be released forthwith if not

required in any other case. A copy of this order be sent to the Jail

Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.

6      Petition disposed off.



                                              INDERMEET KAUR, J
FEBRUARY 10, 2014
A