This appeal has been filed through the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee on behalf of the
appellant who stands convicted for an offence
punishable under Section 376/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years
and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to
undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This
appeal is directed against the concurrent orders of
conviction made by the trial court as well as the High
Court.
We have gone through the judgments of the trial
court as well as the High Court and find that the
prosecution story rests primarily on the statement of
P.W. 9 the prosecutrix who was then 18 years of age.
We have absolutely no reason whatsoever to disbelieve
her statement. Her statement finds support from the
evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 and from the medical evidence
which supports the prosecution story in its entirity.
Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, the learned counsel
for the appellant has, however, pointed out that the
appellant had been arrested on 22nd September, 1999 and
had, accordingly, undergone more than 10 years of the
sentence but was still continuing to languish in jail
for reasons unknown.
After having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having carefully perused the record we find
that it is indeed correct that the appellant had been
arrested on 22nd September, 1999 and has been in jail
ever since. Even assuming that he may have been
released on parole, which period would have to be
deducted from his total sentence, yet it is also
possible that he would have earned some remissions as
well. In any case, it is apparent from the record that
the appellant would have almost completed the sentence
by now.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the ends
of justice would be met if the appeal is allowed to the
extent that the sentence imposed on the appellant is
reduced to that already undergone by him. We order,
accordingly.
PART-I
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2006
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Vide our separate reasoned order, we have
allowed the appeal to the extent that the sentence
imposed on the appellant is reduced to that already
undergone by him.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the
appellant that the appellant is in jail. We direct that
he be set at liberty forthwith if not required in
connection with any other case.
The reasoned order to follow.