Back
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
Sonu Choudary – Appellant
Versus
State of NCT Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 243 of 2023, whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2022 and order on sentence dated 04.02.2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-FTC-02 (South East), Saket Courts, Delhi (“Trial Court”). Vide the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 452 of the IPC, and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 324 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of under Section 452 IPC, in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. The case of the prosecution in short was that on 06.10.2014, the appellant-accused had gone to the restaurant namely, Baithak Restaurant, run by the injured Rajat Dhyani (PW-1). He asked for a jug of water to consume alcohol. When the said
House trespass – In order to convict a person for offence under Section 452 of IPC, it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed a house trespass within meaning of Section 4....
Evidence of possession in criminal trespass can vary; witness testimonies were sufficient to uphold convictions excluding one charge. Appellate Court's sentence modifications were legitimate.
The conviction of the accused for house-trespass and causing hurt was upheld due to substantial eyewitness testimony and corroborating medical evidence, despite minor inconsistencies.
The appellate court's lenient sentencing for serious assault injuries was insufficient, underscoring principles of proportionality and deterrence in criminal sentencing.
The prosecution must prove unlawful entry and intent for trespass charges; insufficient evidence led to acquittal on arson and criminal trespass charges.
The court upheld the need for sentences to be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and the impact on the victims, modifying the penalties imposed by the Appellate Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
