Delhi High Court
Anand Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 14 March, 2022
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of order: 14th March 2022
+ CRL.A. 98/2007
ANAND SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sanjay Rathi and Mr. Deepak
Khatri, Advocates
versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH
ORDER
CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)
1. The instant criminal appeal under Section 374 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") has been filed against the
impugned judgment dated 9th January 2007 and order of sentence dated
15th January 2007 passed in Session Trial bearing No.76/2002 by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi in FIR bearing No. 609/98
registered at Police Station Najafgarh, New Delhi for offences punishable
under Sections 363/342/376/506/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short
"IPC") whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 366 of the
IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months. The appellant was further
convicted under Section 506 of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months.
2. On 25th September 1998, the daughter of complainant, aged about
15 years at the time of incident, left the house for purchasing vegetables
but she did not return home despite searching her at the houses of
relations and other known persons. A missing report was lodged vide DD
No. 43B on 26th September 1998, on the basis of which the aforesaid FIR
was registered. On 25th November 1998, the victim was recovered from
Village Behat, District Gwalior, M.P. Accused Keshav was arrested by
the police. Statement of prosecutrix was recorded wherein she stated that
on 25th September 1998 when she had gone to purchase fruits and
vegetables, accused Jasbir met her and told that one Sharda had called her
at the bus stand of route No. 817. At first, she refused however, when
Jasbir insisted she accompanied him. On reaching bus stand of route No.
817, she found that her friend Sharda was not there but Anand Singh, the
appellant herein and Keshav were present. She was threatened and
thereafter she was taken to a room where Keshav kept her. She was
regularly threatened and raped by Keshav against her wishes. She was
recovered by the police and was medically examined. Subsequently, the
other two accused persons were also arrested. After completion of
investigation, chargesheet against the accused persons was filed.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court for trial. All the accused persons were charged for
offences punishable under Section 366 read with Section 34 of the IPC
and Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Accused Keshav was
also charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.
They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To bring home the guilt of the
accused persons prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Statements of
accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein
they denied all the allegations and stated that they have been falsely
implicated. After completion of trial, the Trial Court vide impugned
judgment dated 9th January 2007 reached on the conclusion that
prosecution has fully established its case and proved the guilt of the
accused persons. All the accused persons in furtherance of their common
intention kidnapped the prosecutrix knowing that she would be subjected
to sexual intercourse against her wishes by putting her under threat that if
she did not accompany them, her brother could be killed. The Trial Court
had held appellant herein guilty for an offence punishable under Section
366 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 506 read with Section 34 of
IPC. Subsequently, order on sentence dated 15th January 2007, was
passed. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Mr. Sanjay Rathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant has argued only on the point of sentence without entering into
the merits of the case. It is submitted that the appellant is the first time
offender and has already undergone 1 month and 4 days and therefore,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
the present appeal may be decided on the basis of the period already
undergone by him. The incident had taken place on 25 th September 1998
and since then, 24 years have elapsed. Moreover, the appeal is pending
since 2007 i.e. for about 15 years. The petitioner is having a family and
small children. He has not committed any offence after being released on
bail in the instant case. He is living as a law abiding citizen of the
Country. The proseuctrix has already settled in the society. Therefore, it
is submitted that keeping in view of the above facts and circumstances,
the instant appeal may be partly allowed on the basis of the period
already undergone by the appellant.
5. Per Contra, Ms. Kusum Dhalla, learned APP for the State
vehemently opposed the submissions raised on behalf of the appellant and
submitted that after considering the facts and material available on
record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the
appellant and awarded the appropriate sentence as stated above. The
period which has already been undergone by the appellant is merely one
month and four days which is not sufficient sentence after keeping in
view the nature of offence. Therefore, the prayer made by the appellant
that appeal may be allowed in terms of the sentence which has already
been undergone by the appellant has no merit.
6. I have heard the submissions advanced on behalf of learned
counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, without entering into the merits
of the case, prayed that the appeal may be decided on the basis of the
period already undergone by the appellant. It is noticed that the incident
took place 24 years ago i.e. in the year 1998. There is no allegation by
the prosecution that the appellant has criminal antecedents. He is a first
time offender and the sentence awarded is only 3 years for offence
punishable under Section 366 of the IPC and 2 years for offence
punishable under Section 506 of the IPC. There is no minimum sentence
prescribed for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 506 of the
IPC.
8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above,
the nature of offence and the period already undergone, it would be
appropriate to dispose of the instant appeal on the basis of the period
already undergone by the appellant. Accordingly, the instant appeal is
partly allowed.
9. The conviction and sentence of the appellant is maintained.
However, the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by
him. The fine awarded by the Trial Court shall be deposited within a
period of two months from today, if the same has not been deposited. In
default of payment of fine within the period specified by this Court, the
appellant shall undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment. The
appellant is on bail and need not surrender, if not wanted in any other
case. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety is discharged. The Trial
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
Court record be sent back to the Court concerned alongwith the copy of
this order.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11. The judgment be uploaded on the website forthwith.
(CHANDRA DHARI SINGH)
JUDGE
MARCH 14, 2022
Aj/ms
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:GAURAV
SHARMA
Signing Date:16.03.2022
19:38:56
