RAM SINGH vs STATE
$~16
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 09th April, 2024
+ CRL.A. 136/2020
RAM SINGH ….. Appellant
Through: Ms. Aishwarya Rao & Ms. Mansi Rao, Advocates
versus
STATE ….. Respondent
Through: Ms. Manjeet Arya, APP for State
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. Appellant has been produced from judicial custody and his counsel is also present.
2. Appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing the present appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C. He has been held guilty for commission of offences under Section 376 IPC as well as under Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act)
3. Learned Trial Court, keeping in mind Section 42 of POCSO Act, sentenced him for offence punishable under Section 376 IPC only. He was accordingly directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in-default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for another period of 30 days.
4. Though appeal has been filed challenging the order of conviction as well as sentence, during course of arguments, learned counsel for appellant has, very fairly, stated that as per instructions, the appellant seeks to confine the present appeal qua the quantum of sentence only.
5. Appellant, who has been produced from judicial custody, reiterates that he is no longer desirous of challenging the conviction but prays that leniency may be shown with respect to the quantum of sentence as he has already undergone more than 10 years of sentence.
6. We are mindful of the fact that incident in question had taken place on 30.6.2015 and sentence has to be awarded keeping in mind the penal provisions as these existed on the date of commission of such offence.
7. As per Section 376 IPC, as it existed at the relevant time, such sentence shall be of for a term which shall not be less than seven years but it may extend to life or for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. It is also contained in the proviso that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of either description for a term of less than seven years even. As per Section 4 of POCSO Act as it existed at the relevant time, the minimum punishment is seven years which could also extend to life, besides fine.
8. In view of the fact that appellant is no longer desirous of challenging his conviction, the order of conviction is hereby maintained.
9. We have heard both the sides on sentence.
10. Appellant does not have any other criminal antecedent and was in his twenties when the offence had taken place. He used to do work of loading/unloading and it is also apprised that because of his very poor financial condition, he could not even deposit the fine.
11. We are of the view that since appellant has shown enough of remorse, the Court should also give him a chance to join the social fabric and, therefore, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the period of sentence is hereby reduced from life sentence to 10 years. It is also apprised that if remission is included then the appellant, who has already earned remission of 16 months and 10 days as on 30.03.2024, has served the substantive sentence of 10 years and even in-default sentence period of one month.
12. In view of the aforesaid, Superintendent Jail is directed to release the appellant forthwith if not required in any other case.
13. Copy of order be transmitted to the learned Trial Court and to the concerned Jail Authorities for information and due compliance.
14. Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J
MANOJ JAIN, J
APRIL 9, 2024/dr
CRL.A. 136/2020 3