Delhi High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 8 February, 2016
Author: Sunita Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 08 February, 2016
+ Crl. Rev. 686/2015
DINESH KUMAR SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Thukral, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Pramod Kumar, Police Station Connaught
Place, New Delhi.
+ Crl.A. 687/2015
+ CRL.REV.P. 687/2015
DEEPAK ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Deepak Thukral, Advocate
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
SI Pramod Kumar, Police Station Connaught
Place, New Delhi.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
1. By this common judgment, I shall dispose of two Revision Petitions bearing Nos.
686/2015 & 687/2015 directed against the impugned judgment dated 03.08.2015 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl. Appeal Nos. 47/2015 and 48/2015 arising out of case
FIR No. 209/2012 under Section 509/354/34 IPC, Police Station Connaught Place whereby
both the revisionists were convicted under Section 354/509/34 IPC, however, their sentence
was reduced from one year to six months each while maintaining the quantum of fine.
2. The prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 14.12.2012, at about 09:15 pm, in
front of Nike Show Room, F-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi, both the appellants made
indecent gestures and used force against the complainant and her cousin in order to outrage
their modesty. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined six witnesses. The
case of both the revisionist was one of denial simplicitor and they did not prefer to lead any
defence evidence.
3. After scrutinising the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, learned Metropolitan
Magistrate convicted both the revisionist for offence under Section 354/509/34 IPC vide order
[Crl. Rev. Nos. 686/2015 & 687/2015 Page 1
dated 07.04.2015 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for each of the offence
for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid appeals were preferred before the learned Special
Judge but without any success so far as their conviction under Section 354/509/34 IPC is
concerned, however, their sentence was reduced to six months each on both counts while
maintaining quantum of fine.
5. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the revisionists does not challenge
the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the conviction of the revisionist was
confirmed, however, it is submitted that the revisionists be released on the period already
undergone.
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection to the same. As per
the nominal roll of revisionist Deepak, he has already undergone the entire sentence and has
since been released from jail. As regards Dinesh Kumar Sharma is concerned, as per nominal
roll dated 06.02.2016, he has undergone a period of four months and 22 days. Besides that he
earned remission of 21 days thereby leaving a period of 17 days as unexpired portion of
sentence. His overall conduct has been reported to be satisfactory. He is not reported to be
involved in any other case. In view of the same, sentence of this revisionist is modified to the
period already undergone. Fine has already been deposited in Court as such, he is directed to be
released on the period already undergone, if not wanted in any other case.
7. Both the revision petitions stand disposed of.
8. Copy of the judgment be sent to Superintendent Jail for information and compliance.
(SUNITA GUPTA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 08, 2016
rs
[Crl. Rev. Nos. 686/2015 & 687/2015 Page 2
