Sohan Lal and ors. Vs. State

Sohan Lal and ors. vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 25, 2005

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/702165

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/702165
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 25, 2005
Case Number: Crl R 1021/2003 and CrlMA 1827/2003
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code - Section 448/427/506/34 -- House Trespass -- Mischief -- Criminal Intimidation -- Common intention -- Sentenced -- Reduction of -- Period already undergone -- With modifications -- Revision disposed of. -

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 427, 448 and 506

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sohan Lal and ors.

Advocate S.D. Sharma, Adv. for Petitioner Nos. 2 and

Respondent

State

Advocate V.K. Malik, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 427, 448 and 506
Reported In: 123(2005)DLT236; 2005(83)DRJ508

Excerpt

indian penal code - section 448/427/506/34 -- house trespass -- mischief -- criminal intimidation -- common intention -- sentenced -- reduction of -- period already undergone -- with modifications -- revision disposed of. - .....the sentence of ri for six months and fine of rs. 1,000/- under section 427 ipc and ri for six months and fine of rs. 1,000/- for offence under section 506/34 ipc in default of payment of fine to further undergo si for two months in each section as awarded by the learned trial court vide its order dated 6.10.1999. all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. as per the letter no. f.2/scj-2/cj-2/as(ct)/2005/3759 dated 30th may, 2005 of the superintendent, central jail no. 2, tihar, new delhi, the petitioner no.1 has already completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. as such, the revision petition against him is abated.3. with the assistance of learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 and learned counsel for the state i have gone through the material on record. learned counsel for the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. i, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. however, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence is of 1987 and the petitioners have already suffered the rigors of trial for more than eighteen years. he submits that the petitioners are on bail since 19th december, 2003. the petitioner-habans singh has undergone 13 days and the petitioner-rajinder prasad has undergone 13 says of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them. he further submits that there has been no complaint about their having belied the trust bestowed upon them by this court. he also submits that the petitioners are also not previous convicts and as by now assimilated in the mainstream of the society as useful citizens, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence at this belated stage. learned counsel for the state had no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is reduced to the period already undergone.4......

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the Order dated 10th December, 2003, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Crl.A.56/03, 63/03, 64/03, 65/03, whereby the learned Judge while upholding the order on conviction dated 4.10.1999 passed by the trial Court, has reduced the sentence to RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1000/- for offence under Section 448 IPC, though maintaining the sentence of RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 427 IPC and RI for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 506/34 IPC in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months in each section as awarded by the learned Trial Court vide its order dated 6.10.1999. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. As per the letter No. F.2/SCJ-2/CJ-2/AS(CT)/2005/3759 dated 30th May, 2005 of the Superintendent, Central Jail No. 2, Tihar, New Delhi, the Petitioner No.1 has already completed the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. As such, the Revision Petition against him is abated.

3. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Counsel for the State I have gone through the material on record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 submits that he is not in a position to challenge the order of conviction on merit. I, thereforee, confirm the order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, it is argued by learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the occurrence is of 1987 and the Petitioners have already suffered the rigors of trial for more than eighteen years. He submits that the Petitioners are on bail since 19th December, 2003. The petitioner-Habans Singh has undergone 13 days and the petitioner-Rajinder Prasad has undergone 13 says of the sentence of imprisonment imposed on them. He further submits that there has been no complaint about their having belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court. He also submits that the Petitioners are also not previous convicts and as by now assimilated in the mainstream of the society as useful citizens, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of their sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State had no objection if the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is reduced to the period already undergone.

4. Having heard learned Counsel for the Parties and in view of what has been stated by learned Counsel for the State, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment of the Petitioner Nos. 2nd 3 is reduced to the period already undergone. It is ordered accordingly.

5. With this modification, Crl. Rev. P. 1021/2003 is disposed of. Crl.M.A. 1827/2003 also stand disposed of. The bail bonds and the sureties shall stand discharged.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2005 Same Parties Sohan Lal and ors. vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 34, 427, 448 and 506

Criminal