$~19
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 6th FEBRUARY, 2017
+ CRL.A.1099/2014 CRL.M.A.No.17825/2016
RAVI @ SONU ….. Appellant
Through : Mr.Puneet Singhal, Advocate.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ….. Respondent
Through : Mr.Arun K.Sharma, APP.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (Oral)
1. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Ravi @
Sonu to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated
28.01.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.83/2012
arising out of FIR No.316/2012 registered under Sections 363/367/377 IPC
at Police Station Sunlight Colony by which the appellant was held guilty for
committing offences punishable under Sections 367/377 IPC. By an order
dated 07.02.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine
`21,000/- under Section 377 IPC and RI for two years with fine `4,000/-
under Section 367 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Allegations against the appellant, in brief, were that on the
night intervening 11/12.08.2012 near flyover of Sarai Kale Khan, he
Crl.A.1099/2014 Page 1 of 3
committed carnal intercourse against the order of nature with ‘X’ (assumed
name) aged around 10 years. DD No.39 (Ex.PW12/A) dated 12.08.2012
came into existence at Police Station Sunlight Colony. ‘X’ was medically
examined. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination. The appellant was arrested. Upon
completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to prove its case. In 313
Cr.P.C. statement the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and
pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid.
3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant, on instruction, stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge
the findings of the trial court on conviction. He prayed to modify the
sentence order as the appellant has undergone substantial period of
substantive sentence and is not a previous convict. Learned APP has no
objection to take into consideration the mitigating circumstances.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the findings of
the Trial Court on conviction and there is overwhelming evidence whereby
the victim had identified the appellant to be the perpetrator of the crime,
conviction under Sections 367/377 IPC is affirmed.
5. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with
fine `21,000/- under Section 377 IPC. Nominal roll dated 24.01.2017
reveals that he has undergone four years, four months and twelve days
incarceration besides remission for four months and twenty-nine days as on
23.01.2017. Apparently, the substantive sentence awarded by the Trial
Court is almost complete. The appellant is not involved in any other
criminal case.
Crl.A.1099/2014 Page 2 of 3
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the
substantial sentence already undergone by him, the Sentence Order is
modified to the extent that the period already undergone by him in this case
shall be taken as substantive sentence. The appellant shall of course pay fine
as imposed by the Trial Court and default sentence would be SI for one
month for non-payment of `21,000/- under Section 377 IPC and ten days for
non-payment of `4,000/- under Section 367 IPC. Other terms and
conditions of the Sentence Order are left undisturbed.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
8. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the
order. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 06, 2017 / tr
Crl.A.1099/2014 Page 3 of 3
