iqbal Vs. State

iqbal vs State

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Jul 24, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/709723

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/709723
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: R.S. Sodhi, J.
Decided On: Jul 24, 2001
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 1992
Subject: Criminal

Case Summary

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

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 354--Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty--Reduction of sentence--Appellant felt guilty for offence--Already undergone in custody--Undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 14 years, not a previous convict, thereforee, no useful purpose would be serve...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Acts & sections: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

iqbal

Advocate Rajiv Awasthi, Adv

Respondent

State

Advocate U.L. Watwani, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354
Reported In: 2001(60)DRJ451

Excerpt

indian penal code, 1860 - section 354--assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty--reduction of sentence--appellant felt guilty for offence--already undergone in custody--undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 14 years, not a previous convict, thereforee, no useful purpose would be served to requiring to undergo remaining sentence at this belated stage--no objection by respondent if sentence of appellant is reduced--sentence reduced to that already undergone. - r.s. sodhi, j.1. this criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1992 of the learned additional sessions judge in sessions case no. 159/88 whereby the learned additional sessions judge held the appellant guilty under section 354 ipc and further by his order dated 31.8.1992 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo r.i. for two years with a fine of rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo s.i. for two months.2. the learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. he submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 4.7.1987 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. he has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 14 years. he submits that the appellant is not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen. 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 if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.3. having heard learned 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.4. crl.a.185 of 1992 is disposed of. 5. the appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Full Judgment

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 26.8.1992 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 159/88 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty under Section 354 IPC and further by his order dated 31.8.1992 sentenced the appellant-accused to undergo R.I. for two years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for two months.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, does not challenge the Order of conviction but confines his arguments to the question of sentence only. He submits that the sentence undergone would suffice for the reasons that the case relates to 4.7.1987 and the appellant has already undergone some time in custody. He has undergone the ordeal of trial for nearly 14 years. He submits that the appellant is not a previous convict and has by now assimilated in the mainstream of society as a useful citizen. 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 if the sentence of the appellant is reduced to that already undergone.

3. Having heard learned 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.

4. Crl.A.185 of 1992 is disposed of.

5. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2001 Same Parties iqbal vs State Same Subject Criminal Same Judge R.S. Sodhi, J. Acts & Sections Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 354

Criminal