Delhi High Court
Harmesh Singh & Ors. vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 14 October, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 13th OCTOBER, 2015
DECIDED ON : 14th OCTOBER, 2015
+ CRL.A.577/2004
HARMESH SINGH & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Manan, Advocate for
A2.
Mr.Sidharth Tyagi, Advocate for
A3.
Versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Sanjay @ Sanjeev (Since expired), Harmesh Singh (Since
expired), Gurdev Singh (A-1) and Surender Singh (A-2) were arrested in
case FIR No.171/97 for committing offences under Sections
365/366/354/323/506/34 IPC by the police of PS C.R.Park. First
Information was lodged after recording statement of the prosecutrix 'X'
(assumed name) aged around twenty-four years on 21.04.1997.
Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in
the Court for committing the offences mentioned previously. Sanjay @
Sanjeev expired during trial and proceedings against him were dropped as
'abated'. The prosecution examined nine witnesses to establish its case. In
313 Cr.P.C. statements the contesting accused persons denied their
involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. On considering
the rival contentions of the parties and after appreciation of the evidence,
the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held all of them guilty for
committing offences under Sections 354/34 IPC. It is pertinent to mention
that the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections
365/366/323/506 IPC. State did not challenge their acquittal.
2. The instant appeal was preferred by Harmesh Singh, A-1 and
A-2. During pendency of the appeal, Haremesh Singh expired and appeal
against him stood 'abated' vide order dated 19.02.2015.
3. During the course of arguments on behalf of the appellants -
A-1 and A-2, the learned counsel stated at Bar that they have opted to give
up challenge to the findings recorded on conviction under Sections 354/34
IPC. Prayer was made to modify the sentence order as the incident
pertains to the year 1997. The appellants have remained in custody for
certain duration.
4. Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings
on conviction, their conviction under Sections 354/34 IPC is affirmed.
5. The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for one year
with fine `2,000/- each. The incident is of the year 1997. The appellants
have suffered agony / ordeal of trial and appeal for about eighteen years.
They are not previous convicts and are not involved in any other criminal
case. They have remained in custody for certain period before they were
released on bail during trial. They have been acquitted of the main
offences under Sections 365 & 366 IPC. Fine is stated to have been
deposited. No useful purpose will be serviced to send the appellants to
custody particularly when two of them have already expired.
6. Considering the facts and mitigating circumstances, the
period already undergone by the appellants in this case shall be treated as
substantive sentence. They shall deposit the fine (if unpaid) within two
weeks before the Trial Court failing which shall undergo default sentence.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 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 14, 2015 / tr
