Naseem s/o Ladku Ahmed v. The State (Govt.of NCT Delhi)

1. On 18th April 1997, at about noon time, Appellant with his co-accused had committed a criminal house trespass by illegally entering into the house of Smt. Khurshida Begum and had wrongfully confined her in her house and for these offences, Appellant – Naseem has 2010:DHC:1091 for one year with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 451/34 of Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 342/34 of Indian Penal Code and both these sentences are to run concurrently, in terms of the impugned order of the trial Court in FIR No. 196/97 registered at Police Station Shahdara, Delhi.

2. In this appeal, at the very outset, learned counsel for the Appellant points out that affidavit Ex. DW-1/B of Smt. Khurshida Begum clearly exonerates the Appellant in this case. However, on instructions from the appellant/accused, learned counsel for the Appellant had chosen not to press this appeal on merit and had submitted that the appellant has got clean antecedents and he has already remained behind bars in this case for about eight months or so, and has been on bail since 15th December, 1997. It is urged on behalf of the Appellant that he was a teenager at the time of this incident and by now he is settled in life and therefore, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant/accused deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State this case on 24th April, 1997 and was released on bail on 15th December, 1997 and as per the status report on record, he is not involved in any other case.

4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this Court finds that the Appellant – Naseem has remained on bail for more than a decade and to now send him behind bars to serve out the sentence as awarded by the trial court would indeed be harsh. The period of detention of the Appellant – Naseem in this case of about seven months or so, in the considered opinion of this Court, would serve the ends of justice as the purpose of imposing punishment is not always punitive but is reformative one in appropriate cases. Therefore, in peculiar facts of this case, the substantive sentence imposed upon the Appellant – Naseem is reduced to the period already undergone by him. However, the fine imposed is suitably enhanced to Rupees five thousand only. In default of payment of the enhanced fine, Appellant – Naseem will have to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.

5. This appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. Trial court shall ensure compliance of this order forthwith.

6. The appeal as well as pending application, if any, is accordingly disposed of. Sunil Gaur, J. February 23, 2010 pkb