Fateh Singh Vs. State

Fateh Singh vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 20, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707823

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/707823
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2001
Case Number: Crl. Appeal Nos. 256 and 277 of 1994
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case examined the conviction of the accused for seven years for an offence of robbery and dacoity under Sections 392 & 397 of the Penal Code, 1860 - An appeal was made by the accused - The offence was committed before 18 years - It was contended that accused undergone a fair amount of sentence and now joined...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 392 and 397

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Fateh Singh

Advocate R.P. Luthra, amices Curia

Respondent

State

Advocate Santosh Kohli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 392 and 397
Reported In: 93(2001)DLT377

Excerpt

the case examined the conviction of the accused for seven years for an offence of robbery and dacoity under sections 392 & 397 of the penal code, 1860 - an appeal was made by the accused - the offence was committed before 18 years - it was contended that accused undergone a fair amount of sentence and now joined the mainstream of the society as useful citizens - the court upheld the conviction and the order of sentence was modified to the period already undergone. - .....appeals nos. 256/1994 are directed against the judgment and order of the learned additional sessions judge, delhi in sc no. 34-a/1994 whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 30.8.1994 held that the appellants guilty under sections 392/397, ipc and further by a separate order dated 31.8.1994 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 2. the cases when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeals. since these are cases of 1994 and have been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. i, thereforee, appoint mr. r.p. luthra as amices curiae , who is present on behalf of delhi state legal service authority to assist the court. 3. with the assistance of the learned amices curiae, i have gone through the record of the case. the learned amices curiae, after carefully examining the record of the case, fairly conceded that he is not in a position to challenge the judgment of conviction. he, however, confined his arguments to the question of sentence. he has referred to the judgment of the supreme court in : 2001 crilj147 , dhanai mahto and another where the supreme court has, while dealing with the case under section 397, ipc, reduced the sentence to below the minimum prescribed. he submits that the occurrence is of 1983 and that the appellants have already undergone a fair amount of sentence. they have not belied the trust bestowed upon them by this court. they have faced the ordeal of trial for 18 years. they have now joined the mainstream of the society as useful citizens and no useful purpose will be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage. 4. learned counsel for the state agrees with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. she submits that this is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to that already undergone. 5. having heard learned counsel for.....

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Appeals Nos. 256/1994 are directed against the Judgment and Order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 34-A/1994 whereby the learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 30.8.1994 held that the appellants guilty under Sections 392/397, IPC and further by a separate Order dated 31.8.1994 sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. The cases when called out today, nobody appeared for the appellants in support of the appeals. Since these are cases of 1994 and have been shown on the list for a sufficient amount of time, it can brook no further delay. I, thereforee, appoint Mr. R.P. Luthra as amices Curiae , who is present on behalf of Delhi State Legal Service Authority to assist the Court.

3. With the assistance of the learned amices curiae, I have gone through the record of the case. The learned amices curiae, after carefully examining the record of the case, fairly conceded that he is not in a position to challenge the Judgment of conviction. He, however, confined his arguments to the question of sentence. He has referred to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in : 2001 CriLJ147 , Dhanai Mahto and Another where the Supreme Court has, while dealing with the case under Section 397, IPC, reduced the sentence to below the minimum prescribed. He submits that the occurrence is of 1983 and that the appellants have already undergone a fair amount of sentence. They have not belied the trust bestowed upon them by this Court. They have faced the ordeal of trial for 18 years. They have now joined the mainstream of the society as useful citizens and no useful purpose will be served in requiring them to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage.

4. Learned Counsel for the State agrees with the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants. She submits that this is a fit case where the sentence of imprisonment can be reduced to that already undergone.

5. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the Judgment under challenge, I uphold the Judgment of conviction but modify the Order of sentence to that already undergone.

6. With this modification, Criminal Appeals 256/1994 and 277/1994 stand disposed of.

7. Bail bonds and the sureties stand discharge.

Record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

9. Appeals disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Fateh Singh vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 392 and 397

Criminal