HASMEET KHAN Vs. NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was arrested on 03.08.1997 in the wake of the first information report (FIR) no. 590/1997 registered by police station Seelampur at 3.10 p.m. on 02.08.1997, on the statement (Ex.PW-2/A) of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and on the basis of evidence gathered the appellant was sent for trial before the court of sessions (in Sessions case no. 150/2001) on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 376/506- II of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the charges having been framed on 20.03.2001. On the conclusion of the said trial, by judgment dated 16.03.2002, he was held guilty and convicted, as charged, on both counts. By order dated 18.03.2002, the court of Sessions awarded rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs. 10,000.00, in default whereof he would undergo simple imprisonment for one year, under Sec. 376 Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 2,000.00, in default whereof he would undergo simple imprisonment for three months, under Sec. 506 -II IPC. The benefit of set off under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) was accorded and both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The said judgment and order on sentence were challenged by the present appeal which came up for hearing on 12.04.2002. The appeal has remained pending ever since, it having been put in the list of 'regulars' from which it has come up for final hearing.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel appearing with the appellant, who is present in person, submitted that the appellant does not wish to challenge the judgment on merits, he fairly admitting his guilt on both the said charges, the same having been brought out clearly by the cogent evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and that of her husband (PW-3), he submitting that the case relates to 1997, i.e. 20 years ago from now. He submitting that the appellant does not have any past criminal record nor has he been involved in any other criminal activity ever since. It was submitted that he is a married person with a grown up family including six children, the eldest being also married. He also submitted that the appellant has shifted his base from Delhi to his native village in District Etah (Uttar Pradesh) where he now earns his livelihood from cultivation. The prayer is for the rigour of the imprisonment to be reduced.