STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) Vs. SWEETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the respondent/convict on the question of sentence under Sec. 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

(2.) Initially the learned counsel for the respondent/convict started arguing on the merits of this appeal including the principles governing the scope of interference by the High Court in an appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal recorded by the trial court. Reference was also made to the dictum in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 320 in support of the same. This Court reminded the learned counsel several times that the said aspects had already been considered and requested him to confine his arguments to the question of sentence. It was only after repeated reminders, the learned counsel made the following submissions regarding the sentence to be imposed.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent/convict that the latter had faced trial for quite a long period and was in custody for about nine months in the case. He further submitted that the respondent/convict has a child aged about 05 years and that there is no one at home to look after the child as her brother (the CCL in this case) is also presently in jail. Therefore, it was prayed that a lenient view be taken while awarding the sentence.