LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-323

SHIV PUJAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

Decided On January 16, 2014
Shiv Pujan Appellant
V/S
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 20.11.2010 and 24.11.2010 vide which appellant Ram Sunder had been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366/376 of the IPC. He had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 4 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to suffer RI for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 363 of the IPC; for the offence under Section 366 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 3 months; for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, he had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 2 months. Appellant Shiv Pujan had been convicted for the offence under Sections 363/366 of the IPC. The sentence imposed upon Ram Sunder for the aforenoted two offences is the same which had been imposed upon the appellant Shiv Pujan. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel for appellant Ram Sunder, at the outset in terms of the last order, submits that he is not contesting the appeal on merits; he prays that the period of sentence already undergone by him be treated as the sentence imposed upon him. It is pointed out that out of the maximum punishment of 8 years which has been imposed upon him, he has already undergone sentence of 7 years, 2 months and 8 days. This submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is reflected from the nominal roll. The nominal roll further reflects that the appellants have a good conduct and there is nothing unsavory in their behavior.

(3.) ATTENTION has been drawn to the impugned judgment. The trial Judge while passing the judgment had noted that the conduct of the prosecutrix as to whether she had been lured and taken to Ludhiana by the appellants under fear or force is questionable; statement of PW -5 (Surender Pal), statement of PW -7 (Kiran Kumari) as also the statement of the prosecutrix examined as PW -2 were considered. While noting the conduct of the prosecutrix as doubtful that she was forcefully taken by the accused, the Court had however rightly noted that this looses significance in view of the fact that the prosecutrix was a minor on the date of the offence; her consent being immaterial.