Bijender v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
Appellant challenged his Section 376 IPC conviction. Court found appellant had already completed sentence and paid fine. Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed as infructuous; pending application disposed of. Appellant advised to appear if interested in merits.
What the court decided
$~33
- IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
- CRL.A. 797/2004 & CRL. M.A. 8752/2004 (delay in re-filing)
DECIDED ON :2nd February, 2015
BIJENDER ..... Appellant Through : None. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through : Ms. Kusum Dhalla, APP for State along with SI Joginder Singh, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
- Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bijender to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 14.05.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 93/99 arising out FIR No. 959/98, P.S. Shalimar Bagh, Delhi by which he was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. By an order dated 19.05.2004, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. It is relevant to note that he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 363/366 IPC.
- Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the Charge-sheet was that on 25.12.1998, Nasim Khan lodged a report with police that her
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal by the appellant can be allowed since he has already completed the sentence awarded by the trial court and deposited the fine?
Whether the appeal is maintainable when the appellant has not appeared before the court after his release?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bijender
- respondent
State
Coram
S.P. Garg
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court