Subrata Roy Vs. State

Subrata Roy vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 23, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707900

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/707900
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 23, 2001
Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 436 of 1997
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case focused on reduction of sentence under Section 376 of the Penal Code, 1860, in relevance to conviction for rape - The appeal was filed against the sentence and the trial was protracted for seven years - It was observed that appellant had already undergone the sentence for six years and three months and the ...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 376

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Subrata Roy

Advocate Nem

Respondent

State

Advocate U.L. Watwani, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 376
Reported In: 93(2001)DLT149

Excerpt

the case focused on reduction of sentence under section 376 of the penal code, 1860, in relevance to conviction for rape - the appeal was filed against the sentence and the trial was protracted for seven years - it was observed that appellant had already undergone the sentence for six years and three months and the conduct was satisfactory - hence there was no purpose in undergoing the remaining portion of the sentence - hence it was ruled that the sentence was to be reduced to that already undergone and the appeal was disposed of - .....in the cause list. since this is a case of 1994 it can brook no further delay. mr. r.p. luthra is present on behalf of the legal aid. i, thereforee, appoint him as amices curiae to assist me in this case.3. with the assistance of leaned amices curiae and leaned counsel for the state, i have gone through the recorded of the case. learned amices curiae on the basis of the record fairly concedes that he cannot fault the judgment of conviction. he, however, confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. from the nominal roll it is clear that the appellant has suffered the ordeal of trial for seven years and has undergone the sentence for six years and three months while earning remission of one year and ten months. his conduct during the trial has been satisfactory. thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. learned counsel for the state has no objection of the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.4. having heard leaned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, i am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. in this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, i reduce the sentence to that already undergone.(sic) a. 436/97 is disposed of.the appellant who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith.5. appeal disposed of.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21.5.1997 of the learned Additional sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 60/96 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 376, IPC and further by his order dated 23.5.1997 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for ten years with a fine of Rs. 1,0001/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for three months.

2. The case when called out tody, nobody appeared for the appellant in support of the appeal, inspire of warning being indicated in the cause list. Since this is a case of 1994 it can brook no further delay. Mr. R.P. Luthra is present on behalf of the Legal Aid. I, thereforee, appoint him as amices Curiae to assist me in this case.

3. With the assistance of leaned amices Curiae and leaned Counsel for the State, I have gone through the recorded of the case. Learned amices Curiae on the basis of the record fairly concedes that he cannot fault the judgment of conviction. He, however, confines his arguments only to the question of sentence. From the nominal roll it is clear that the appellant has suffered the ordeal of trial for seven years and has undergone the sentence for six years and three months while earning remission of one year and ten months. His conduct during the trial has been satisfactory. thereforee, no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence at this belated stage. Learned Counsel for the State has no objection of the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.

4. Having heard leaned Counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction cannot be faulted with but sentence can be reduced. In this view of the matter, while upholding the order of conviction, I reduce the sentence to that already undergone.

(SIC) A. 436/97 is disposed of.

The appellant who is in jail shall be set at liberty forthwith.

5. Appeal disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Subrata Roy vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 376

Criminal