AFZAL Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, Afzal S/o Abdul Rehman, vide the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, assails the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2016 and also the impugned order on sentence of the learned Additional Sessions Judge-01 (North-East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in SC No. 44297/2015 in relation to FIR No. 161/2013, Police Station Gokalpuri, registered under Sections 363/377/323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act whereby the appellant herein was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 363/377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- failing which he would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days. The convict, i.e., the appellant herein was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable under Section 377 Indian Penal Code, 1860, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days and all the three sentences were to run concurrently with the benefit under Section 428 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 having been extended to the convict. Further more, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was directed to be paid as compensation to the victim through the Delhi Legal Services Authority under the Delhi Victim's Compensation Scheme.

(2.) The impugned judgment indicates that the charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, against the accused/convict, i.e., the appellant herein was held to have not been proved.

(3.) In terms of order dated 7.8.2018, the appellant was produced from the judicial custody and his nominal roll received from the Superintendent, Prison, Central Jail No.12 Mandoli, Delhi, indicates that the convict, i.e., the appellant herein has undergone 5 years 2 months and 2 days of incarceration from the period 16.5.2013 and has earned remission of 2 months and 6 days with the unexpired portion of the sentence being 4 years 7 months and 22 days as on the date of the report, i.e., 18.7.2018.