IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J
SULEMAN @ MONU – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case detail the circumstances leading to the accusation. (Para 2 , 3) |
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 by the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction dated 04.08.2017 and the order on sentence dated 08.08.2017 passed by the ASJ, Special Court ( POCSO Act ), North, Rohini, New Delhi in S.C. No 58344/16, arising out of FIR No. 1056/2014 registered at P.S. Narela, Delhi under Sections 376 IPC & 10 POCSO Act .
Vide the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 9 (m) punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act . By the order of sentence, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL.A. 1192/2019 Page 1 of 8 Imprisonment for a period of five years alongwith payment of fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default in payment whereof, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment of 60 days. The Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant.
This Court, while admitting the present appeal vide order dated
17.10.2019, had suspended the sentence of the appellant.
2. The facts as noted by the Trial Court in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.