Deepak @ Deepu vs.state

Deepak @ Deepu vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jun 05, 2017

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1206512

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1206512
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jun 05, 2017
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deepak @ Deepu

Respondent

State

Excerpt

.....offence under section 411 of ipc and vide impugned order of 5th december, 2014, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of `5,000/-for the offence under section 411 of ipc.2. at the outset, it is submitted that appellant, who is on bail and is present in this court, and as per his nominal roll, he has undergone page 1 of 2 crl.a.506/2015 sentence of ten months and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and that he is a poor person. on behalf of appellant, it is submitted that appellant is earning his livelihood by plying the e-rickshaw and he has a wife and school going children and so the substantive sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.3. learned additional public prosecutor for respondent-state submits that no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence in question, but the sentence awarded to appellant is proper.4. upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, i find that conviction of appellant is well merited, but the order on sentence needs to be varied in the facts and circumstances of this case. the facts of instant case, persuades this court to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant to the period already undergone by him as appellant is not a previous convict. resultantly, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed upon him.5. to the aforesaid extent, impugned order on sentence is modified. trial court to ensure that the fine is paid, if not already done. in case the fine is not deposited, the appellant shall undergo the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.6. this appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification. (sunil gaur) judge page 2 of 2 june05 2017 s crl.a.506/2015

Full Judgment

* + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: June 05, 2017 CRL.A. 506/2015 DEEPAK @ DEEPU ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Amar Nath, Amicus Curiae counsel with Ms. Rakhi Dubey, DHCLSC Panel Advocate Versus Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, ..... Respondent Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State with SI Shri Gopal STATE CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR % (ORAL) 1. ORDER In this appeal, the challenge is to the impugned judgment of 1st December, 2014 vide which appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 411 of IPC and vide impugned order of 5th December, 2014, he has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of `5,000/-for the offence under Section 411 of IPC.

2. At the outset, it is submitted that appellant, who is on bail and is present in this Court, and as per his Nominal Roll, he has undergone Page 1 of 2 Crl.A.506/2015 sentence of ten months and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory and that he is a poor person. On behalf of appellant, it is submitted that appellant is earning his livelihood by plying the E-rickshaw and he has a wife and school going children and so the substantive sentence awarded to him deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offence in question, but the sentence awarded to appellant is proper.

4. Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, I find that conviction of appellant is well merited, but the order on sentence needs to be varied in the facts and circumstances of this case. The facts of instant case, persuades this Court to reduce the sentence awarded to appellant to the period already undergone by him as appellant is not a previous convict. Resultantly, the substantive sentence awarded to appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the sentence of fine imposed upon him.

5. To the aforesaid extent, impugned order on sentence is modified. Trial court to ensure that the fine is paid, if not already done. In case the fine is not deposited, the appellant shall undergo the sentence awarded in default of payment of fine.

6. This appeal is disposed of with aforesaid modification. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE Page 2 of 2 JUNE05 2017 s Crl.A.506/2015

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2017 Same Parties Deepak @ Deepu vs State Same Subject Education