Uttam Pandey Vs. State

Uttam Pandey vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 20, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/707913

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/707913
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 20, 2001
Case Number: Crl. Appeal No. 235 of 1994
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

The case focused on reduction of sentence under Section 304 Part I of the Penal Code, 1860, in relevance to intention to cause death - The conviction was for seven years thereon the appeal was filed in challenge against the sentence - It was that appellant was facing the trial for 17 years and had undergone the sent...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Uttam Pandey

Advocate Rajesh Mahajan, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate Santosh Kohli, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304
Reported In: 93(2001)DLT393

Excerpt

the case focused on reduction of sentence under section 304 part i of the penal code, 1860, in relevance to intention to cause death - the conviction was for seven years thereon the appeal was filed in challenge against the sentence - it was that appellant was facing the trial for 17 years and had undergone the sentence for 1½ years - there was no misuse of the bail, hence it was found that there was no purpose in requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence - hence it was ruled that the sentence was to be reduced to the period already undergone, thereon the appeal was disposed of - r.s. sodhi, j.1. criminal appeal no. 235/1994 is directed against the judgment and order of the leaned addition sessions judge, delhi in sc no. 22/1985 whereby the learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 27.8.1994 held the appellant guilty under section 304 part-i, ipc and further by his order dated 30.8.1994 sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.2. at the outset, learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the order of conviction. however, on the question of sentence, he submits that in this case the incident took place on 30.3.1984 and that the appellant has already undergone the ordeal of trial for 17 years and has also undergone sentence of over one and half years. he submits that the appellant was admitted to bail on 27.2.1996. he submits that the appellant has not in any manner misused the bail. he has on the contrary shown exemplary behavior and has assimilated in the society as useful citizen. no useful purpose will be served in requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage.3. learned counsel for the state support the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that no useful purpose will be served in requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of sentence after facing the ordeal of trial for over 17 years.4. having considered the statement of the leaned counsel, i uphold the order of conviction but modify the order of sentence to that already undergone.5. with this, criminal appeal no. 235/1994 stands disposed of.6. bail bond and the surety stand discharged.7. record of the trial court be sent back forthwith.8. appeal disposed of.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 235/1994 is directed against the Judgment and Order of the leaned Addition sessions Judge, Delhi in SC No. 22/1985 whereby the learned Judge vide his Judgment and Order dated 27.8.1994 held the appellant guilty under Section 304 Part-I, IPC and further by his Order dated 30.8.1994 sentence the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellant does not challenge the Order of conviction. However, on the question of sentence, he submits that in this case the incident took place on 30.3.1984 and that the appellant has already undergone the ordeal of trial for 17 years and has also undergone sentence of over one and half years. He submits that the appellant was admitted to bail on 27.2.1996. He submits that the appellant has not in any manner misused the bail. He has on the contrary shown exemplary behavior and has assimilated in the society as useful citizen. No useful purpose will be served in requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of sentence at this belated stage.

3. Learned Counsel for the State support the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant and submits that no useful purpose will be served in requiring the appellant to undergo the remaining portion of sentence after facing the ordeal of trial for over 17 years.

4. Having considered the statement of the leaned Counsel, I uphold the Order of conviction but modify the Order of sentence to that already undergone.

5. With this, Criminal Appeal No. 235/1994 stands disposed of.

6. Bail bond and the surety stand discharged.

7. Record of the Trial Court be sent back forthwith.

8. Appeal disposed of.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties Uttam Pandey vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 304

Criminal