Sagar Narain Jha vs The State (Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 1546 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 23, 2015

+                                     CRL.A.119/2004
       SAGAR NARAIN JHA
                                                               ..... Appellant
                             Through : Mr.Gunjan Kumar, Advocate.
                             versus
       THE STATE (GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI)
                                                             ..... Respondent
                             Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. The appellant-Sagar Narain Jha impugns a judgment dated

01.10.2003 in Sessions Case No.207/98 arising out of FIR No.387/98

under Section 376/506/34 IPC registered at Police Station Mangol Puri by

which he and his associate Pappu Kumar Singh were convicted under

Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 29.10.2003, the appellant was

sentenced to undergo RI for eight years with fine `5,000/-

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as set up in the charge-

sheet was that on the night intervening 30/04/1998 and 1/5/1998 behind

Sulab Shauchalaya in front of C-Block, Mangol Puri, the appellant and his

associate in furtherance of common intention sexually assaulted

prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) and criminally intimidated her. The

prosecutrix was produced by Vijay Pal, her uncle at the police station and

was medically examined. After recording her statement (Ex.PW-5/A), the

Investigating Officer ASI Rajbir Singh (PW-12) lodged First Information

Report. The appellant was arrested and medically examined. The

prosecutrix recorded her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After

completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court

against the appellant and his associate-Pappu Kumar Singh. The

prosecution examined 15 witnesses to establish their guilt. In their 313

statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and

pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as

aforesaid. It appears that the co-convict has not challenged the conviction

and has served out the sentence awarded to him. It is relevant to note that

the appellant was tried for committing offence under Section 506 IPC also

but was acquitted. The State did not challenge his acquittal under Section

506 IPC.

3. During the course of arguments, the appellant present in the

court instructed his counsel not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court

recorded on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence

order as he has remained in custody for substantial period and has lost his

wife recently.

4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings on

conviction and the prosecutrix in her statement has categorically identified

him to be the perpetrator of the crime, the conviction recorded by the Trial

Court under Section 376 IPC cannot be faulted and is affirmed.

5. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for eight years

with fine `5,000/-. Though the appellant's crime to have sexually

assaulted a minor aged about 13 years deserves no leniency, however,

considering the mitigating circumstances, the substantive sentence

awarded to the appellant needs slight variation. The appellant has faced

ordeal of trial/appeal for about 16 years as the incident pertains to the year

1998. Nominal roll dated 25.02.2012 reveals that he remained in custody

for six years, two months and twenty days as on 20.07.2004 besides

remission for two months and twenty five days. The unexpired portion is

only one year, six months and fifteen days. The appellant is not a

previous convict and is a first time offender. He is not involved in any

other criminal case. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory and he did

not avail any interim bail/parole throughout. The appellant is a married

person and has recently lost his wife. He is to take care of his son who is

studying in XIth standard. After his release on bail on 20.07.2004, his

involvement in any other criminal case has not surfaced. Considering

these circumstances, the sentence order is modified to the extent that the

substantive sentence awarded to the appellant shall be RI for seven years

instead of RI for eight years. Other terms and conditions of the sentence

order are left undisturbed.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The

appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court on 19th March, 2015 to

serve out the remaining period of sentence. The Registry shall transmit

the Trial Court records forthwith along with the copy of this order. A

copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE FEBRUARY 23, 2015 sa