An appeal against conviction and sentence under Sections 366 and 376 IPC was dismissed as infructuous because the appellant had already served his substantive sentence and paid the fine, having been released in 2007 while the appeal remained pending.
The appeal was dismissed as infructuous.
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.
$~34
DECIDED ON :2nd February, 2015
MOHD. HUSSAIN ..... Appellant Through : None.
versus
THE 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. 588/2004
Page 1 of 3
Cr.P.C. was recorded. The statements of the witnesses well conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a Charge-sheet under Sections 363/366/376 IPC was submitted against the appellant. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish the appellant’s guilt. In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellant denied his involvement in the offence. The trial resulted in his conviction under Sections 366/376 IPC. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
CRL. A. 588/2004
Page 2 of 3
decided on merits. It seems that the appellant is not interested to pursue the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as infructuous. However, it is made clear that if the appellant appears before the Court within a reasonable time to get the appeal decided on merits, his prayer would be considered favourably. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE
FEBRUARY 02, 2015 j
CRL. A. 588/2004
Page 3 of 3
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd. Hussain
The State (NCT of Delhi)
S.P. Garg
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
