Delhi High Court
Bijender vs State on 2 February, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$~33
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 797/2004 & CRL. M.A. 8752/2004 (delay in re-filing)
DECIDED ON :2nd February, 2015
BIJENDER ..... Appellant
Through : None.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State
along with SI Joginder Singh, P.S.
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bijender to
challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 14.05.2004 of
learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 93/99 arising out
FIR No. 959/98, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by which he was held guilty for
committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated
19.05.2004, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of
Rs. 1,000/-. It is relevant to note that he was acquitted of the charges under
Sections 363/366 IPC.
2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the Charge-sheet was
that on 25.12.1998, Nasim Khan lodged a report with police that her
daughter 'X' aged about 15 years was kidnapped by the appellant. She left
the house on 21.12.1998 but did not return. On 06.01.1999, on the pointing
out of the complainant, the appellant was apprehended and the prosecutrix
was recovered from the bus stop Haider Pur. She was medically examined
and her statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. was recorded. All the
witnesses conversant with the facts were examined. The Charge-sheet was
submitted against the appellant under Sections 363/366/376 IPC. The
prosecution examined ten witnesses who established the appellant's guilt. In
the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied his
involvement in the offence. The trial resulted in his conviction under Section
376 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred by
the appellant. Application moved by the appellant for suspension of sentence
was dismissed by an order dated 01.12.2004. It appears that the file was not
taken up thereafter for hearing. On 20.01.2015, when the file was taken up
for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. Production warrants
were ordered to be issued against him. Fresh Nominal roll was also called.
The Nominal Roll dated 27.01.2015 reveals that the appellant has already
been released on 26.03.2009 after he served out the sentence awarded to
him. The fine has been paid by him in Jail.
3. A letter dated 27.01.2015 has also been received from Central Jail No.
7, Tihar, Delhi and it is informed that the appellant has already been released
after he served out the sentence awarded to him. Since the appellant has
already completed the substantive sentence awarded to him and has
deposited the fine imposed, the appeal preferred by the appellant has
become infructuous. None has appeared on behalf of the appellant to address
arguments on merits. Even after being released on 26.03.2009, the appellant
did not appear before the court to get the appeal decided on merits. It seems
that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal. The appeal is
dismissed as infructuous. However, it is made clear that if the appellant
appears before the Court within a reasonable time to get the appeal decided
on merits, his prayer would be considered favourably. Pending application
also stands disposed of.
4. Trial court record, if any, be sent back with the copy of this order.
5. Intimation be sent to the Jail Superintendent.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2015
j
