Kamlesh Kumar Gop @ Deepak vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 624 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                   Date of Judgment:31.01.2014.
+      CRL.A. 826/2013
       KAMLESH KUMAR GOP @ DEEPAK
                                                            ..... Appellant
                           Through       Mr. K. Singhal and Mr.R.C. S.
                                         Bhadoria, Advs.

                           versus

       STATE
                                                         ..... Respondent
                           Through       Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J. (Oral)

1 The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order

of sentence dated 30.11.2012 & 15.12.2012 respectively wherein he has

been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376/201/506 of

the IPC as also under Section 313 read with Section 109 of the IPC. The

appellant had tried along with another co-accused Rudal Mandal. The

appellant before this Court is Kamlesh Kumar Gop. The sentence

awarded to him was 8 years RI for the offence under Section 376 of the

IPC along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to

undergo SI for 5 months; 6 years RI for the offence under Section 366 of

the IPC coupled with a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default of payment of

fine to undergo RI for 4 months; 5 years RI for the offence under

Section 313 read with Section 109 of the IPC along with a fine of

Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months;

for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to

undergo RI for a period of 4 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in

default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months; he had further

been sentence to undergo RI for 2 years for the offence under Section

201 of the IPC along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment

of fine to undergo SI for 1 month. He had also been sentenced to

undergo RI for 2 years for the offence under Section 506 of the IPC. All

the sentences were to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 of the

Cr.PC had been accorded to him.

2 At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants submits that he is

not challenging the appeal on its merits; he only prays for leniency of

sentence; submission being that out of period of 8 years which has been

ordered against him, he has already been suffered imprisonment of 6

years and 7 months which is exclusive of his remission. This submission

of the appellant is borne out from his nominal roll. The appellant prays

that leniency be accorded in sentence and the sentence already

undergone by him may be treated as the sentence imposed upon him. It

has further been submitted that the appellant has been directed to pay

fine of Rs.15,000/- for all the offences and in default of payment of fine,

he has to undergo SI for 15 months. He is in financial stringency and

being a labourer will not be in a position to pay the fine. Leniency in the

fine is also prayed for.

3 Learned APP for the State submits that there is minimum

punishment for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC for which the

appellant has been convicted and unless there are special or adequate

reasons, the minimum sentence should not be reduced.

4 Submissions and counter submissions of the respective parties

have been noticed.

5 Section 376 of the IPC which is the most heinous offence for

which the appellant has been convicted prescribes a minimum sentence

of 7 years as also a fine. The other offencees for which the appellant has

been convicted are Section 366 of the IPC which prescribes a sentence

which may extend to 7 years as also a fine. Under Section 313 read with

Section 109 of the IPC, the sentence may be imprisonment for life or

imprisonment for either of discretion which may extend to 10 years in

addition to fine. Under Section 366 of the IPC, the punishment

prescribed is imprisonment which may extend to 10 years and also a

fine. Section 201 of the IPC prescribes a punishment, depending on the

nature of the offence, in addition to fine. Section 506 of the IPC

prescribes a sentence of 2 years or fine. Except for Section 506 of the

IPC all other offences for which the appellant has been convicted

necessarily enjoin a fine also to be paid in addition to the period of

incarceration that the convict has to suffer. As noted supra, no fine has

been imposed upon the appellant for the offence under Section 506 of

the IPC.

6 Keeping in view the oral submissions made by the learned

counsel for the appellant; the fact that the offence relates to the year

2007 and the appellant has undergone almost 80% of his period of

incarceration; he being young in years only 19 years of age on the date

of the incident; he also being an illiterate and having come from a

village from Chhatishgarh looking for a livelihood and the victim

working as housemaid; in the fitness of things, it would be appropriate if

the sentence of the appellant imposed under Section 376 of the IPC is

reduced to the minimum 7 years RI. The fine of Rs.5,000/- is altered to

fine of Rs.1,500/-. All other sentences of imprisonment shall remain

unaltered. The fine of Rs.4,000/- imposed under Section 366 of the IPC

is reduced to Rs.1,500/-; the fine of Rs.3,000/- imposed under Section

313 read with Section 109 of the IPC is reduced to Rs.1,000/-; the fine

of Rs.2,000/- imposed under Section 363 of the IPC is reduced to

Rs.500/-; the fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed under Section 201 of the IPC is

also reduced to Rs.500/-.

7 With these modifications, the appeal is disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J

JANUARY 31, 2014

A