Himanshu Rathi v. State

Delhi High Court · 16 Sep 2022 · 2022:DHC:5956-DB
Mukta Gupta; Anish Dayal
CRL.A.581/2018
2022:DHC:5956-DB
criminal appeal_dismissed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court abated the appeal of a deceased appellant, dismissed another appellant's appeal withdrawn by him, and disposed of the remaining appeal after hearing, affirming procedural principles regarding abatement and withdrawal in criminal appeals.

Full Text
Translation output
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.A.581/2018
HIMANSHU RATHI Appellant Represented by; Mr.Hinu Mahajan,Mr.Aditya
Sharma,Advs.
VERSUS
STATE Respondent Represented by: Mr.Mukesh Kumar,APP for State with Insp.Ranveer Singh,PS Vasant
Vihar.
CRL.A.609/2018
MUNINDER PANJETA Appellant Represented by: Mr.Harsh Prabhakar,Adv.DHCLSC with Mr.Dhmv Chaudhry,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI Respondent with Insp. Ranveer Singh,PS Vasant
Vihar.
V.-' 'CRL.A.628/2018 SAURABH YADAV Appellant Represented by: Mr.Shailesh Chandra Jha,Adv.
VERSUS
STATE(NCT OF DELHI) Respondent with Insp.Ranveer Singh,PS Vasant
Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
16.09.2022
ORDER

1. As per the report received from the jail as also the status report 2022:DHC:5956-DB handed-over,the appellant Saurabh Yadav passed away injail on 16^'' July,

2022. In view ofthe fact that appellant Saurabh Yadav has passed away, CRL.A.628/2018 stands abated.

2. By the impugned judgment Saurabh Yadav and Muninder Panjeta were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302/34 IPG wl^reas accused Raju Kumar,Charan Singh and Himanshu Rathi were convicted for offence punishable under Section 323/34IPG.

3. Raj Kumar and Gharan Singh have not challenged their conviction whereas Himanshu Rathi challenged his conviction under Section 323/34 IPG and the sentence ofimprisonmentfora period ofone year,which he has already undergone and deposited the fine as well, copy of the receipt whereofis at page 156 ofthe paper book.

4. Learned counsel for Himanshu Rathi who is present along with Himanshu Rathi on instructions states that Himanshu Rathi does not wish to press his appeal.

5. Gonsequently,GRL.A.581/2018 is dismissed as withdrawn.

6. Thus, this Gourt is now required to deal with GRL.A.609/2018 the conviction of Muninder Panjeta for offence punishable under Section 302/34IPG and the consequential sentence.

7. This Gourt has heard the appeal ofMuninder Panjeta and disposed of the same today vide a separate order.

8. Gonsequently,all the three appeals are disposed of. CRL.M.A. 15003/2022 in CRL.A.581/2018 CRL.M.B.694/2022 in CRL.A.609/2018

1. Applications.are disposed ofas infmctuous.

2. Order be uploaded on the website ofthis Court.

MUKTA GUPTA,J. W-V- Niatr« n ANISH DAYm J. SEPTEMBER 16,2022 'ga'