Chander Bhan v. The State (N.C.T. of Delhi)

1. The appellant- Chander Bhan impugns judgment dated 25.09.2000 and order on sentence dated 26.09.2000 in Sessions Case No.89/1999 arising out of FIR No.790/1998 PS Mehrauli by which he was convicted for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/511 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/-.

2. Allegations against the accused were that on the night intervening 14/15.11.1998 at 01.30 A.M. at the house of Chaudhary 2013:DHC:1217 Balwinder, village Saidulajab, he attempted to commit rape upon ‘X’ (assumed name), age 10 years. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the accused guilty for the offences mentioned previously and sentenced him. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

3. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant on instructions from the appellant- Chander Bhan stated that the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under Sections 376/511 IPC. He however, prayed for modification of the order on sentence as the appellant has already undergone more than two years sentence. The appellant is not a previous convict.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 376/511 IPC, the order of conviction of the Trial Court stands affirmed.

5. Regarding modification of order on sentence, it reveals that the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/-. Nominal roll dated 23.10.2010 reveals that the appellant had already undergone 2 years, 3 months and 26 days incarceration. He also earned remission for 01 month and 25 days. The substantive sentence of the appellant was suspended vide order dated 05.03.2001. The appellant was not found involved in any other criminal case during the disposal of the appeal. There are no allegations that he ever misused the liberty granted to him. The appellant was aged 18 years on the day of occurrence. He is now a married person and has a kid. He is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. He has volunteered to pay ` 30,000/- without prejudice to the complainant/ victim.

6. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and the mitigating circumstances, order on sentence requires modification. No useful purpose will be served to send the accused to jail after permitting him to remain on bail for about more than 10 years. The incident pertains to the year 1998 and he has suffered trial for about 15 years. The substantive sentence of the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in this case which is about two and a half years.

7. The appellant shall deposit ` 30,000/- with the Registrar General of this Court within one month. Notice will be issued to the complainant/ victim to get ` 30,000/-.

8. The appeal stands disposed in the above terms.

9. To report compliance of the directions, list on 1st May, 2013.

JUDGE MARCH 06, 2013 tr