STATE vs GOKUL

Judgment text excerpt

$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 18th February, 2025 + CRL.A. 346/2021 STATE (GNCT of Delhi) .....Appellant Through Secretary GNCT of Delhi Through: Ms.Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the State with SI Bharat Singh, PS Uttam Nagar. versus GOKUL .....Respondent S/o Sh. Makhann Lal, R/o B-224, J.J Colony Shiv Vihar, Delhi Through: Mr.Bharat Bhushan Bhatia and Mr.Jagjit Singh Anand, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The Appeal under Section 377 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter “Cr.P.C”) has been filed by the State to seek enhancement of the sentence of one month along with fine of Rs.1 lakh under Section 12 of the POCSO Act in FIR No. 31/2013, registered at Police Station, Uttam Nagar, granted to the Respondent vide Order dated 29.11.2019 by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. 2. The State has not challenged the judgment of Conviction dated Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Crl.A.346/2021 Page 1 of 5 By:VIKAS ARORA Signing Date:22.02.2025 13:20:20 25.10.2019 but has only sought enhancement of the Sentence granted vide Order on Sentence dated 29.11.2019. No Appeal has been preferred by the Complainant. 3. The enhancement of compensation is sought on the grounds that the Sentence granted by the learned ASJ, is against the principles of law and amounts to injustice. Reliance is placed in Ravi vs. State of Rajasthan, 1996 (2) SCC 175 wherein it has been held that “it is the nature and gravity of crime but not the criminal which are germane for consideration of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial.” 4. It is further submitted that the Order on Sentence is not in consonance with the intent and objects as recognized in Alakh Alok Srivastava v. Union of India, WP (C) 76/2