Ram Kumar vs State (Gnct Of Delhi)
2015 Latest Caselaw 4728 Del

$-R-14 (C)
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      DECIDED ON : 6th JULY, 2015

+            CRL.A. 1587/2011 & CRL.M.A.No.20015/2011

      RAM KUMAR                                        ..... Appellant

                         Through :   Mr.Puneet Singhal, Advocate.


                         versus

      STATE (GNCT of Delhi)                            ..... Respondent

                         Through :   Ms.Fizani Hussain, APP.
                                     SI Neeraj Kumar, PS New Ashok
                                     Nagar.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The appellant was convicted by a judgment dated 08.04.2011

of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 20/2010

arising out of FIR No.100/2009 PS New Ashok Nagar. By an order dated

13.04.2011, he was awarded various prison terms with fine. Allegations

against the appellant were that Mohd. Talib lodged a complaint that her

daughter 'X' (assumed name) was missing since 31.03.2009 and did not

return from her school where she had gone at 11.00 a.m. to collect her

results. On 01.04.2009, 'X' was recovered from Sultanpuri and her

statement was recorded in which, she implicated the appellant for

kidnapping and committing rape upon her in the house of his sister-in-law.

The prosecution examined thirteen witnesses to establish the appellant's

guilt before the Trial Court after charge-sheet was filed against him. In

313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant pleaded false implication and stated

that 'X' had accompanied with her free consent as she was in love with

him. He examined Renu as DW-1. The trial resulted in his conviction.

2. The Trial Court came into conclusion that the prosecutrix

was below sixteen years of age and her consent was not material.

3. During the course of appeal, nominal roll of the appellant

was called. As per nominal roll dated 04.07.2015, the appellant has

already served out the sentence awarded to him and has been released

from jail on 07.03.2015. Fine is stated to have been paid. Appellant's

counsel has stated at Bar that after his release from jail, the appellant did

not contact him to get his appeal decided on merits. It appears that after

the appellant served the sentence and was released from jail, he was not

interested to prosecute the appeal and for that reason has not bothered to

appear in Court or to instruct his counsel for disposal of the appeal on

merits.

4. In view of the above, the appeal preferred by the appellant

stands disposed of as 'infructuous'. It is, however, made clear if the

appellant appears within a reasonable time for disposal of the appeal on

merits, his prayer will be considered.

5. Pending application also stands disposed of.

6. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the

order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for

information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

JULY 06, 2015 / tr