Partly allowed

Sonu Sharma & Anr. v. the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Delhi HC3 Nov 2015CRL.REV.P./98/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Delhi modified the sentence in a revision petition after petitioners paid compensation to the victim's heirs and surrendered to custody. The conviction was confirmed but time spent in custody was taken as substantive sentence.

What did the court decide?

The petitioners' sentence was modified; time spent in custody treated as substantive sentence; they were granted release.

Sonu Sharma & Anr. Vs the State ( NCT of Delhi) — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2015)

¶1

$-12

¶2

*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI**

¶3

DECIDED ON : 3^rd NOVEMBER, 2015

¶4

+ CRL.REV. P. 98/2015 & CRL.M.A.No.14146/2015

¶5

SONU SHARMA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through Mr. Sameer Chandra & Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Advocates

¶6

versus

¶7

THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent Through Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP. SI Seeta Ram, P.S. Sarita Vihar.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

¶10

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present revision petition has been preferred by the petitioners to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 10^th February, 2015 of learned District and Sessions Judge, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Criminal Appeal no. 94/2014 by which order dated 6^th September, 2014 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the petitioners under Sections 324/341/34 IPC was upheld. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section 324 IPC; and Simple Imprisonment for 15 days each under Section 341 IPC. Both the sentences were directed to operate

¶12

Crl. Rev. P. 98/2015 Page 1 of 3

¶13

concurrently.

¶14

Notice of the revision petition was issued to the complainant. It was informed that the complainant had since expired. The petitioners offered to pay reasonable compensation to the legal heirs of the complainant.

¶15

Vide order dated 13^th May, 2015, the Investigating Officer was directed to verify if there legal heirs of the complainant were available and ask them to appear before this Court on the next date of hearing. On 18^th September, 2015, Munesh, victim’s wife appeared and offered to settle the dispute with the petitioners.

¶16

Criminal M.A. 14146/2015 was filed to compound the offence in view of the settlement dated 19^th September, 2015. State was directed to verify if the matter was settled between the parties with their free consent. Status report is on record.

¶17

Today, victim’s wife along with her three sons has appeared in the Court. They have been identified by the Investigating Officer. Learned APP states that they are the only legal heirs of the deceased complainant. Victim’s sons have no objection if Rs.50,000/- as compensation is given to their mother, Munesh. On receipt of Rs.50,000/-, they have no objection to lenient view.

¶18

The petitioners have paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to Munesh, victim's wife today in the Court.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners have opted not to challenge findings on conviction. He, however, prayed to take lenient view and to modify the sentence order as Rs.50,000/- have been paid as compensation to the victim’s legal

¶20

Crl. Rev. P. 98/2015 Page 2 of 3

¶21

heirs. The petitioners have remained in custody for about 27 days. To this, learned APP has no objection.

¶22

Since the petitioners have given up challenge to the conviction, their conviction under Section 324/341/34 IPC recorded by the Courts below is confirmed.

¶23

Regarding the sentence, the petitioners have already remained in custody for about 27 days and fine imposed by the trial court since been deposited. They have paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to the victim’s legal heirs and they have no objection to modify the sentence order. The petitioners are not previous convicts and are not involved in any other criminal cases. Their jail conduct is satisfactory.

¶24

Considering all these litigating circumstances, sentence order is modified and the period already spent by the petitioners in this case in custody shall be taken as their substantive sentence. They shall of course deposit the fine (if unpaid) in the trial court within two weeks and for default shall undergo the default sentence.

¶25

The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending application(s) also stands disposed of.

¶26

Trial court record be sent back with copy of the order.

¶27

A copy of the order shall also be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information.

¶28

The petitioners shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.

¶29

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

¶30

NOVEMBER 03, 2015/ rs

¶31

Crl. Rev. P. 98/2015 Page 3

¶32

of 3

Sonu Sharma & Anr. v. the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Sharma & Anr. v. the State ( NCT of Delhi)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Munjal Vs Ritu Munjal

Surender Kumar Alias Shivender Vs the State NCT of Delhi

Mohan Vs State (Govt. of Nct) Delhi

Mandeep Singh & Anr. Vs the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

Dropati Vs Commisisoner of Police & Anr.

Amar Singh Vs Commissioner of Police & Anr.