The Delhi High Court has commuted the sentences imposed on the appellant in multiple theft-related cases to the period already undergone, while maintaining the convictions and fines imposed by the Trial Courts. Justice Amit Mahajan held that no useful purpose would be served by subjecting the appellant to further incarceration, considering the substantial period of custody already undergone and the mitigating personal circumstances placed on record.
The appeals arose from three separate FIRs registered between 2013 and 2014, in which the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 328, 379, 411, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the Act). The Trial Courts found the appellant guilty of the charged offences and imposed sentences of rigorous imprisonment for up to six years in each case, along with fines. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence before the High Court.
At the hearing, the appellant stated that he did not wish to press the challenge to the conviction and confined his plea to a reduction of sentence. An affidavit was placed on record highlighting mitigating factors like the appellant’s poor socio-economic background, aged and ailing parents, and financial hardship faced by the family. The State also expressed no objection to commutation of the sentence.
While considering the matter, the court observed that the appellant had already completed the substantive sentence, and in the remaining two cases, he had undergone over four years of imprisonment against a sentence of six years. The Court also observed that no minimum sentence is prescribed for the offences under Sections 328 and 379 of the Act. Emphasising the reformative purpose of sentencing, the Court held that sentencing must balance the nature of the offence with the circumstances of the offender and the broader ends of justice.
Accordingly, without interfering with the convictions, the High Court reduced the sentences in all three cases to the period already undergone, while directing the appellant to deposit a total fine of ₹60,000 within three months of release, failing which he would undergo simple imprisonment as stipulated by the Trial Courts. The appellant was directed to be released forthwith, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Appearances:
For the Appellant – Mr. Anuj Kapoor, Mr. Nandeesh Nanda, and Mr. Shivom Sethi, Advocates.
For the State – SI Ravi Yadav, Police Station Govind Puri.
