Delhi High Court
Mohd. Hussain vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 2 February, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 588/2004
DECIDED ON :2nd February, 2015
MOHD. HUSSAIN ..... Appellant
Through : None.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Mohd. Hussain to
challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 16.03.2004 of
learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 12/2002 arising out
FIR No. 97/1990, P.S. Mehrauli, Delhi by which he was held guilty for
committing offence punishable under Sections 366/376 IPC. By an order
dated 19.03.2004, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with
fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 376 IPC.
2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the Charge-sheet was
that on 03.05.1990, the father of the victim 'X' lodged a report informing
that his daughter 'X' (assumed name) had not returned home after she left it
on 15.04.1990. A case under Section 363 IPC was registered. Subsequently,
the victim 'X' was recovered from the custody of the appellant. The
prosecutrix was medically examined. Her statement under Section 164
Cr.P.C. was recorded. The statements of the witnesses well conversant with
the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a Charge-sheet
under Sections 363/366/376 IPC was submitted against the appellant. The
prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish 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
Sections 366/376 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been
preferred by the appellant.
3. The appeal was admitted by an order dated 26.08.2004. The
application moved by the appellant for suspension of sentence was
dismissed by an order dated 20.04.2006. The appeal was to come up in due
course. The appeal 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.
4. The Nominal Roll dated 28.01.2015 reveals that the appellant has
already been released on 04.09.2007 after he served out the substantive
sentence awarded to him. The fine has been paid by him in Jail.
5. A letter dated 30.01.2015 has also been received from Central Jail No.
3, Tihar, New Delhi and it is informed that the appellant has already been
released after he served out the substantive 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 the arguments on merits. Even after being released on
04.09.2007, 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.
6. Trial court record, if any, be sent back with the copy of this order.
7. Intimation be sent to the Jail Superintendent.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2015
j
