Delhi High Court - Orders
Subhash Pandit vs State on 13 May, 2020
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. A. 555/2016
SUBHASH PANDIT ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Ankur Sood, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan,
Ld. APP for the State along
with SI Sanjeet: PS
Mandawali.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BRIJESH SETHI
ORDER
% 13.05.2020 BRIJESH SETHI, J.
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
CRL. M.A. 6247/2020 (Suspension of sentence and release of applicant during pendency of the appeal).
1. The present application has been filed by the appellant under Section 389 Cr.P.C. r/w Section 482 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and release of the applicant during pendency of the appeal on the ground that applicant is handicapped and suffering from polio. It is submitted that appellant has also to trace out his missing family members consisting of his wife namely Reeta, aged around 39 years and three minor daughters namely Pooja, Preeti and Khushi aged about 18, 14 and 8 years respectively. It is further CRL. A.555/2016 Page 1 of 4 submitted that there are improvements in the statement of victim given before the court. It is next submitted that the appellant has already undergone sentence of seven and half years out of the total sentence of 10 years awarded to him and sentence be therefore, suspended in the interest of justice.
2. The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2016 passed by the learned trial court in FIR No. 31/2011, PS Mandawali, Delhi, under Sections 363/366A/376/34 IPC and u/S. 5 ITP Act, vide which the appellant was held guilty for the offence u/S. 366A/376/109 r/w Section 376 IPC and u/S. 5 of the ITP Act, 1956 and vide order on sentence dated 26.04.2016, the appellant was sentenced to undergo following imprisonment and fine:-
I. For the offence under section 366A 1PC, he is sentenced to undergo SI for 4 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo SI for one month; II. For the offence under Section 376 1PC, he is sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs.5000/-, In default to undergo St for six months; III. For the offence under Section 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC; he is sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to further undergo SI for six months; IV. For the offence under Section 5 of the ITP ACT, he is sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to further undergo SI for one month. V. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has objected to the suspension of sentence of the appellant on the ground that wife and children of the appellant are not missing. It is CRL. A.555/2016 Page 2 of 4 further submitted that appeal of wife of the appellant namely Reeta is being heard by the co-ordinate Bench of this court and is at the stage of final arguments. It is further submitted that statement of victim i.e. PW-2 is very categorical qua allegations of sexual assault and it has also come in the statement of victim that she was subjected to sexual assault by appellant and other persons also. Ld. APP for the state, therefore, prays for dismissal of present application for suspension of sentence.
4. I have heard the rival submissions. The allegations against the appellant are serious in nature. I have gone through the testimony of victim. In her deposition victim (PW-2) has categorically deposed that accused Subhash took her to Calcutta where he, his wife Reeta (already convicted) and co-accused Rekha used to beat her. They had also force her to have sexual intercourse with other persons. Accused Subhash also had sexual intercourse with her 3-4 times without her consent. She has also deposed that she was forced everyday to have sexual intercourse with four persons brought by the accused persons and in case she did not agree, she used to get beaten from them in a room after removing her clothes. Accused Rekha also used to entertain customers by doing sexual intercourse with them.
5. The above deposition of victim is very categorical qua commission of offence by the appellant which is very serious in nature. However, it is clarified that these observations are for the purpose of deciding the application for suspension of sentence and CRL. A.555/2016 Page 3 of 4 are not expression of opinion on the merits of the case. In view of the above allegations and keeping in mind the fact that co-ordinate bench of this court is already hearing the appeal and part arguments have already been heard, this court at this stage is not inclined to suspend the sentence of the appellant.
6. The application for suspension of sentence is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly. However, it is made clear that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the appeal.
CRL. A. 555/2016.
7. List before the roster Bench on date fixed i.e. 22.06.2020.
8. A copy of this order be uploaded on the website of this court.
BRIJESH SETHI, J MAY 13, 2020 (AK) CRL. A.555/2016 Page 4 of 4