Delhi High Court
Rajesh Kumar @ Gapodi vs State on 8 October, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-R-39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 8th OCTOBER, 2015
+ CRL.A. 120/2012
RAJESH KUMAR @ GAPODI ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Neha Singh, Advocate.
Appellant is present in JC.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwa, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal is directed against a judgment dated
12.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.
42/10 arising out of FIR No.157/10 PS Mahendra Park by which the
appellant - Rajesh Kumar @ Gapodi was held guilty for committing
offences under Sections 363/376 IPC. By an order dated 19.08.2011, he
was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years with fine `10,000/- under
Section 376 IPC and RI for three years with fine `5,000/- under Section
363 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 26.06.2010 at
about 08.00 p.m. the prosecutrix 'X' (assumed name) aged around fifteen
years went near Shiv Mandir to take chowmin from a rehri but did not
return. Complaint was lodged by her father Chandan Singh informing the
police that the appellant, a rickshaw-puller, had taken away his daughter.
The investigation was carried out after registering FIR. 'X' was recovered
and medically examined. The accused was arrested and taken for medical
examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed
against him in the Court. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses in
all to establish appellant's guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant
pleaded false implication and claimed innocence. He did not examine any
witness in defence. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.
3. During the course of arguments, the appellant who appeared
in custody pursuant to the issuance of production warrants opted to give
up challenge to the findings on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify
the sentence order as he has already undergone substantial portion of the
substantive sentence.
4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings of
Trial Court, his conviction is affirmed. Minimum sentence prescribed
under Section 376 IPC cannot be modified or reduced. Nominal roll dated
01.10.2015 reveals that the appellant has already undergone five years,
three months and three days incarceration besides remission for one year,
one month and ten days as on 30.09.2015. Nominal roll further reveals
that he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal
case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, Sentence Order is modified to the extent that
default sentence for non-payment of fine `15,000/- under both the heads
would be only one month. Other terms and conditions of the Sentence
Order are left undisturbed.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
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
OCTOBER 08, 2015 / tr
