Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi High Court - Orders

Akash Gupta vs State on 13 February, 2019

Author: Sanjeev Sachdeva

Bench: Sanjeev Sachdeva

$~22
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      CRL.A. 94/2019
       AKASH GUPTA                                        ..... Appellant
                          Through      Mr. Sudhir Naagar, Advocate.

                          versus

       STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                          Through      Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the State.
                                       SI Rajeshwar, PS Sec.23 Dwarka
                                       Mr. Alok Pandey, Advocate for the
                                       complainant.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
                    ORDER

% 13.02.2019 Crl.M.(Bail) 169/2019 (for suspension of sentence)

1. Appellant impugns judgment on conviction dated 04.01.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.01.2019, whereby, the appellant has been convicted of an offence under Sections 376(D)/323/341/506 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC, 6 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 IPC and 1 month with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 341 IPC. All the sentences to run concurrently.

2. FIR was registered on the complainant of the sister-in-law of the appellant alleging that in the evening when she was in her house the electricity tripped. She suspected that it could have been the CRL.A. 94/2019 1 appellant who normally switched off the electric MCB after drinking. When she came down to switch on the MCB, it is alleged that the appellant dragged her into a room and the appellant's wife allegedly pushed her. Thereafter, one friend of the appellant came in (alleged friend was neither identified nor charge sheeted). As per the prosecutrix, the appellant thereafter committed statutory rape on her.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating that the subject FIR was a counterblast to the FIR lodged on the complaint of the wife of the appellant against the husband of the complainant prosecutrix for the offence under Section 376 IPC.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the Trial Court erred in not appreciating that false implication of the appellant was writ large inasmuch as the allegation was that the wife of the appellant was complacent to the subject offence. He, however, submits that the Trial Court has acquitted the wife of the appellant on the ground that there was doubt with regard to her very presence at the spot.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there were several discrepancies between the versions of the prosecutrix and her daughter and their statements were not believable.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the period of trial, the appellant was throughout on bail as the police had not found enough material for his incarceration pending trial.

7. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the record, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for interim suspension of sentence.

8. Accordingly, on appellant furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, remaining sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of the present appeal. The appellant, however, shall not travel outside the country without the permission of this court.

9. Application is allowed in the above terms.

10. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.

1. Appeal has already been admitted by order dated 28.01.2019.

2. Trial Court record has been received.

3. List in due course as per its seniority.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J FEBRUARY 13, 2019 st CRL.A. 94/2019 3