NANDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 24.1.2012 and order on sentence dated 17.2.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II (North -West), Rohini Courts, Delhi, whereby the appellant was held guilty and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of fifteen days; for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for actual life with fine of Rs. 25,000/ - (with no remission) and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months; for the offence punishable under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine Simple Imprisonment for one month; and for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years.

(2.) IN support of its case, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein the appellant claimed to be innocent and alleged to be falsely implicated by the complainant due to some family dispute. The appellant further stated that the complainant also demanded money from the appellant for construction of their house to which the appellant had refused resulting in false implication of the appellant in the present case.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case of complete miscarriage of justice as the entire trial was a sham and biased considering the manner in which the learned trial court allowed the trial to proceed and the manner in which the evidence had been adduced by disregarding the law enshrined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further contended that the learned trial court, for the reasons best known to it, thrusted upon the appellant, an amicus curiae, despite appellant having his private counsel. Counsel further contends that no opportunity was ever given to the appellant to get the prosecution witness including material witnesses such as prosecutrix, complainant, etc. to be cross examined through his private counsel. It is further submitted that the learned trial court did not allow appellant to participate in proceedings through his engaged counsel who merely acted as a silent spectator.