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
4 paragraphs · 218 wordsR.L. Anand, J.—I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the record of the case.
The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant who has been convicted for the offence u/s 335 and 334 of the Indian Penal Code and rightly too in view of the statement of the injured witness. The counsel only submitted that the appellant is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last more than 15 years and, therefore, he may be visited with leniency in the matter of sentence. This contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant has not been seriously opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
Keeping in view the fact that the appellant is suffering the vagaries of the criminal proceedings for the last about 15 years, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice will suffice if the substantive sentence of the appellant u/s 335 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to nine months which shall run concurrently with the sentence awarded u/s 334 of the Indian Penal Code. Order accordingly. The imposition of fine is not disturbed.
With this modification in the matter of sentence, the appeal stands disposed of.