[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Imran Hussain vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 16 January, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 16th January, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
+ CRL.A. 756/2013, CRL.M.(BAIL) 1200/2013 & CRL.M.(BAIL)
794/2014
IMRAN HUSSAIN .....Appellant
Through: Mr. D.K. Sharma and Ms. Seema,
Advocates along with Appellant-in-
person.
versus
STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for the State
with SI Amit Kumar, PS Dabri.
Prosecutrix in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIMAL KUMAR YADAV
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.
1. The Appellant was held guilty and convicted vide Judgment dated
13.05.2013 under Section 376 IPC and through Order on Sentence dated
18.05.2023, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 07 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple
imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. In the appeal preferred on behalf of the Appellant, his sentence was
suspended to facilitate his marriage with the prosecutrix inasmuch as in the
application seeking suspension of sentence dated 28.05.2013, he has
categorically stated that the matter has been amicably resolved between the
Appellant and the complainant/prosecutrix and they want to marry.
3. The application for suspension of sentence was supported by the
prosecutrix and her affidavit was also filed alongwith the application as
Annexure A-2 to the application seeking suspension of sentence, together
with certain other records i.e. messages exchanged between the Appellant
and the prosecutrix since they knew each other before the incident and there
was some sort of familiarity if not relationship between them.
4. Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the sentence
of the Appellant was suspended vide Order dated 16.09.2013 for a period of
two months to facilitate the marriage between the parties, which was
extended for some more time.
5. Subsequently, another application for regular suspension of sentence
dated 16.04.2014 was moved with the prayer that the sentence may be
suspended inasmuch as the parties got married on 13.12.2013 according to
Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the parties have started cohabitating with
each other as husband and wife. As such the sentence was suspended.
6. Against the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, the Appellant
alongwith the prosecutrix has appeared before the Court and submitted that
they are residing as husband and wife happily and peacefully and have been
blessed with three children. The Appellant wants, to which the prosecutrix
has no objection, that the appeal may be disposed of in view of
developments as aforesaid, the sentence awarded may be reviewed and may
be reduced to the period of custody already undergone by the Appellant,
inasmuch as the judgment of conviction is no longer challenged.
7. The prosecutrix, who is now the wife of the Appellant and has
appeared in Court today, duly identified by the learned counsel for the
Appellant, supported the Appellant and filed an affidavit alongwith
documents qua her identity and about her three children born out of the
wedlock with the Appellant, has categorically stated that the prayer of the
Appellant to reduce the sentence, may be considered in view of the peculiar
facts and circumstances as has been sought by the Appellant as well.
8. Having gone through the contents of the affidavit filed today by the
prosecutrix, the earlier application for suspension of sentence and the
supporting documents i.e. marriage certificate and the factum of marriage
being verified by the State/Police as has been found mentioned in the Order
dated 15.07.2014, there appears no reason to derail the life of the Appellant
and the prosecutrix. As jointly submitted by them that they are living
happily and peacefully with their children, so a case is made out for
sympathetic consideration.
9. The Nominal Roll filed on record reflects that out of the 07 years of
sentence, the Appellant has already spent 01 year and 18 days in custody.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, specially taking into
account the matter in its entirety, particularly in view of the fact that the
parties knew each other before the incident and had some kind of infatuation
or relationship atleast from the side of the Appellant and that the things went
wrong when once the Appellant refused to marry the prosecutrix. Now that
they are not only married, but are living with their three children, happily
and peacefully, as stated by both of them. Therefore, the matter requires
intervention, especially on the aspect of sentence. In any case, the judgment
of conviction is not being assailed now and the contentions are confined to
the aspect of sentence awarded to the Appellant only.
11. In the interest of justice, it seems appropriate to reduce the sentence to
the period already undergone by the Appellant, inasmuch as the statute also
provides that in the special circumstances and for valid and appropriate
reasons, a lesser sentence can be awarded then the minimum sentence.
12. The instant case, appears to be one such case where such intervention
is required. As such, considering the entire gamut of facts and
circumstances, especially the fact the Appellant and the prosecutrix are now
married for the last about 12 years, having three children aged about 11, 6
and 3 years old respectively, living happily and peacefully, having no
complaint or apprehension put forth by the prosecutrix which goes in favour
of reduction of sentence of the Appellant. Whereas, on the other hand, if it is
declined, then the normal life of not only the Appellant and the prosecutrix
would be derailed, but would jeopardize the well being of the children also.
The survival and settled life of the prosecutrix and her children would suffer
beyond repairs.
13. As such, considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the
judgment of conviction is upheld and maintained, whereas the Order on
Sentence dated 18.05.2023 stands modified to the extent that period of
custody already undergone by the Appellant shall be treated as substantive
sentence as that would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the
peculiar circumstances of the case.
14. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J
JANUARY 16, 2026/akc
