AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 203 wordsMilap Chand Jain, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant. He however, urged that the appellant is in custody since 30-7-1982. More than four years have passed, his sentence may be reduced to the period of his custody.
The appellant has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the offence u/s 394, IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and u/s 324, IPC two years rigorous imprisonment and u/s 341, IPC one month''s rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
The appellant is in custody since the date of his arrest and more than four years have passed. In my opinion, the sentence upto the period of his custody is adequate.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The convictions of the appellant are maintained and for offence u/s 394, IPC his sentence is reduced to the period of his custody. The sentence of fine is remitted. Other sentences are maintained, which he had already served out. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case.