The Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for offences under IPC and POCSO. Considering substantial custody and lack of prior record, the Court modified the sentence by treating time already undergone as substantive sentence and ordered release.
Sentence modified to treat custody period as substantive; appellant ordered released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~2
DECIDED ON :2nd February, 2015
HAJI MUL @ DANISH ..... Appellant Through : Mr. Imran Khan, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP for State.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
CRL. A. 1253/2013
Page 1 of 3
brigade vehicle, she was caught hold by one person who pressed her mouth and pulled her towards the wall and pressed her breast and also caught her by her private part. When she tried to get rid of herself, police officials came there and rescued her. During investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish the appellant’s guilt. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and alleged false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
CRL. A. 1253/2013
Page 2 of 3
convict and is not involved in any other criminal activity. He was granted suspension of sentence till the disposal of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety in the like amount by an order dated 31.07.2014. He could not furnish the required surety bond. The surety amount was reduced to Rs. 5,000/- by an order dated 16.12.2014. Again, the appellant could not get the benefit of the order as he was unable to furnish the surety bond of Rs. 5,000/- and has remained in custody since then. Considering these mitigating circumstances, the sentence order is modified and the period already undergone by the appellant in this case is taken as substantive sentence.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2015 j
CRL. A. 1253/2013
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant should receive lenient treatment considering substantial custody and mitigation.
Whether the period of custody undergone by the appellant should be treated as substantive sentence.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Haji Mul @ Danish
State NCT of Delhi
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
