Sanjay vs.the State

Sanjay vs The State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jan 07, 2019

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1220374

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/1220374
Court: Delhi High Court
Decided On: Jan 07, 2019
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sanjay

Respondent

The State

Excerpt

.....holds appellant guilty of offence under section 308 (part-ii) of ipc and vide order of 13th september, 2017 appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 ½ years with a fine of ₹10,000/- with default clause. by way of this appeal appellant seeks setting aside of conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court. crl.a. 222/2018 page 1 of 2 2. with the consent of both the sides, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. the facts already noticed in the impugned judgment of 12th september, 2017 are not required to be recapitulated. upon hearing, i find that findings of the trial court are borne out from the evidence on record.3. on the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not a previous convict and was aged about 22 years when the incident had taken place and that appellant has already remained behind bars for about 2 ½ years and so, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.4. upon perusal of order on sentence as well as nominal roll of appellant, i find it to be a fit case to reduce the substantive sentence of appellant from 3 ½ years to 2 ½ years while maintaining the sentence of fine and the period in default thereof. it is so done as no minimum sentence is prescribed for offence committed by appellant and in the peculiarity of this case, this order shall not have any precedential value.5. while affirming the conviction of the appellant, the impugned order on sentence is accordingly modified. appellant be apprised of this order forthwith through the concerned jail superintendent.6. this appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of. (sunil gaur) judge january07 2019 p’ma crl.a. 222/2018 page 2 of 2

Full Judgment

* + 1. IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: January 07, 2019 CRL.A. 222/2018 & Crl.M.B. 1593/2018 SANJAY ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Jose Abraham, Mr. B. Mathews and Mr. Sarah Shaji, Advocates Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Additional Public Prosecutor for State with SI Mohit Malik, P.S. Prasad Nagar, Delhi CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER

(ORAL) Impugned judgment of 12th September, 2017 holds appellant guilty of offence under Section 308 (Part-II) of IPC and vide order of 13th September, 2017 appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 ½ years with a fine of ₹10,000/- with default clause. By way of this appeal appellant seeks setting aside of conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court. CRL.A. 222/2018 Page 1 of 2 2. With the consent of both the sides, this appeal is taken up for final hearing. The facts already noticed in the impugned judgment of 12th September, 2017 are not required to be recapitulated. Upon hearing, I find that findings of the trial court are borne out from the evidence on record.

3. On the quantum of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is not a previous convict and was aged about 22 years when the incident had taken place and that appellant has already remained behind bars for about 2 ½ years and so, the sentence awarded to appellant deserves to be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

4. Upon perusal of order on sentence as well as nominal roll of appellant, I find it to be a fit case to reduce the substantive sentence of appellant from 3 ½ years to 2 ½ years while maintaining the sentence of fine and the period in default thereof. It is so done as no minimum sentence is prescribed for offence committed by appellant and in the peculiarity of this case, this order shall not have any precedential value.

5. While affirming the conviction of the appellant, the impugned order on sentence is accordingly modified. Appellant be apprised of this order forthwith through the concerned Jail superintendent.

6. This appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of. (SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE JANUARY07 2019 p’ma CRL.A. 222/2018 Page 2 of 2

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2019 Same Parties Sanjay vs The State Same Subject Land Acquisition