The High Court of Delhi in Crl.A. 406/2016 entertained an application by the appellant for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone after conviction for murder. The Court affirmed the conviction but exercised discretion to reduce the sentence accordingly.
The sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal is disposed of.
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.
$~44.
..... Appellant Through: Mr. Sitab Ali Chaudhary, Advocate. versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP along with Inspector Ashok Giri, PS – GK-I, for the State.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
O R D E R % 04.10.2016
Crl. M.A. No.15664/2016
Issue notice. Ms. Abraham accepts notice.
By this application, the applicant prays that he does not challenge his conviction and that his sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone in the interest of justice.
The appellant has been convicted under Section 393 IPC. The appellant Imran Sheikh and Aftab were two of the five accused, who were convicted by the Trial Court. As per the case of the prosecution, on 16.03.2012 at about 4:00 - 4:30 p.m., while the complainant Smt. Raj
Kharbanada was present at her house along with her son Rohan Kharbanda, accused Imran entered inside their house. He was accompanied by 3 other accused persons. According to PW-1/ Smt. Raj Kharbanda, one of the three persons, who was immediately behind Imran, pounced upon her and put gun on her head. Her son Rohan Kharbanda was forcibly taken to the bathroom. PW-1 was pushed down and threatened that her son would be killed if she raised the alarm. She was also taken to the bathroom, where her son was there. She was forced to sit on the floor. One of the other accused asked her for the keys of the locker. The aforesaid facts were established by the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, and consequently, the appellant was convicted.
There is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment even otherwise as it appears to be premised on cogent evident. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment convicting the appellant is sustained. However, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone.
The present application along with the appeal stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
OCTOBER 04, 2016
B.S. Rohella
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the sentence of the appellant convicted under Section 393 IPC should be reduced to the period already undergone.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the conviction of the appellant.
IMRAN SHEIKH
STATE
VIPIN SANGHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
