Delhi District Court
State vs . (1)Rajesh Kumar @ Tinku S/O Jai Parkash on 11 January, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE05(NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 77/10
Date of institution:06.10.2008
Date of transfer:04.3.2010
Date on which reserved for orders:03.01.2011
Date of delivery of order: 07.01.2011
State Vs. (1)Rajesh Kumar @ Tinku s/o Jai Parkash
R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi.
(2)Sunil Kumar s/o Jai Parkash
R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi.
(3)Ramu Kumar s/o Jai Parkash
R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia
Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No.189/08
PS Khajuri Khas
U/s 308/509/323/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT:
1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 25.06.08 at about 7.15 PM one DD no. 24A was received regarding brawl near Sonia FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 1/25 Vihar, Ist Pusta which was marked to IO SI Ajmer Singh who along with Ct. Ravinder went to the spot i.e Ist Pusta, Sonia Vihar near H. no. A94 and where they came to know that the injured had been removed to GTB hospital. He along with Ct. Ravinder reached GTB hospital and collected MLC of injured persons but could not record their statement as the injured were being given medical treatment and accordingly DD was kept pending. On 27.06.08 complainant Sangeeta went to the police station and got recorded her statement stating that on 25.06.08 at about 7.00 PM she was sweeping the floor outside her house. Sons of Jai Prakash who lived in front of their house at H. no. A94 i.e. Rajesh @ Tinku, Sunil @ Pappu and Ramu were sitting outside their house. On seeing her Rajesh @ Tinku blew a whistle at her. When she did not respond, he said Sangeeta 'idhar aao'. She went inside and complained to her mother Rita Devi who came outside and inquired from them why they were calling her. At this, all the accused started hurling filthy abuses at her and her mother. On hearing these abuses her father came outside and tried to make them understand but the accused persons did not pay any heed to the same. Rajesh @ Tinku went inside and brought a danda and FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 2/25 gave a blow on the head and shoulders of the complainant. He also attacked with the same on the face and other parts of the body of her mother. Sunil and Ramu caught hold of her father and Rajesh gave a danda blow on his head, knees and shoulders. She and her father were given stitches on their head at the hospital. They also threatened to kill them and she wanted action against the accused persons. On the basis of statement, SI Ajmer Singh prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Site plan was prepared, accused persons were apprehended and their disclosure statements were recorded. MLCs of injured Sangeeta, Rita Devi and Ajay Kumar were collected and after completing other necessary formalities charge sheet was filed in the Court against all the accused persons for offence punishable u/s308/323/509/506/34 IPC.
2. On the accusations, all the accused persons were charged for the offences punishable u/s 509/308/323/506/34 IPC. Accused persons adjured their guilt and pleaded innocence.
To prove its case prosecution has examined 11 witnesses. ● PW1 is Ajay Kumar, the injured who has narrated about the incident.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 3/25 ● PW2 is Smt. Rita, mother of the complainant. ● PW3 Sangeeta is again a very material witness being the
complainant. She proved her statement given to the police as Ex. PW3/A. ● PW4 is HC Pramod Kumar who recorded FIR. He made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW4/A and the computerized copy of the FIR is proved as Ex. PW4/B. ● PW5 is Dr. Dhruba Narayan Borah. He gave his opinion regarding the nature of injuries on the person of injured Smt. Rita Devi to be simple and has proved his opinion on the MLC as Ex.PW5/A. He also gave his opinion regarding nature of injury on the person of injured Ajay Kumar to be simple and proved the same as Ex. PW5/B. ● PW6 is Dr. S. Kohli who proved the MLC of complainant Sangeeta prepared by Dr. Manish Kumar Nigam as Ex.PW6/A and that of Rita Devi as Ex. PW6/B. ● PW7 is Ct. Mahender Prasad who joined investigation with SI Ajmer Singh on 29.06.08. In his presence accused Rajesh @ Tinku was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW7/A. ● PW8 is Dr. Rajiv Verma. He gave his opinion about the FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 4/25 injuries on the person of injured Sangeeta as simple vide Ex.PW 6/A. ● PW9 is Ct. Ravinder Kumar. He accompanied IO SI Ajmer Singh on 25.06.08 on receipt of DD no. 24A. On 06.07.08 he was asked to join investigation for the arrest of the accused persons. He has proved the arrest memo of accused Sunil Kumar who was arrested in his presence as Ex. PW9/A and his personal search memo as Ex. PW9/A1. The arrest memo of accused Ram Kumar is Ex.PW9/B and his personal search memo is Ex. PW9/B1. ● PW10 is Dr. Sita Ram. He has proved the opinion given by Dr. Mukesh (since expired) on the MLC Ex. PW5/A of Ajay Kumar. ● PW11 is SI Ajmer Singh, IO of the case. On 25.06.08 on receipt of DD no.24A Ex. PW11/A he along with Ct. Ravinder Kumar reached the spot and came to know that injured had been removed to GTB hospital and since the injured were under treatment their statement could not be recorded and he kept the DD pending. On 27.06.08 complainant Sangeeta along with her parents reached the police station and gave her statement. On the basis of MLC and complaint, he registered a case u/s 323/509/506/34 IPC. He made endorsement vide Ex.PW11/B and FIR was registered.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 5/25 With the help of eye witnesses he prepared site plan Ex.PW11/C. He arrested accused persons and conducted their personal search. He also recorded their disclosure statement. He obtained the result about the nature of injuries and after discussion with the Senior Officer, offence u/s 308 IPC was added.
5. Statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr PC was recorded in which they denied the prosecution case and pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant.
6. In their defence accused persons have examined one witness. ● DW1 Rambir Singh has stated that on 25.06.08 at about 6.45 7.00 accused Tinku @ Rajesh called his extenant who was residing in the house of the complainant on the day of incident. After sometime father of the complainant Ajay Kumar came out from his house and asked him as to why he was calling his tenant and a quarrel took place between Rajesh and Ajay Kumar. On hearing the noise, complainant Sangeeta and her mother also came out and they were having dandas in their hands. Ajay also brought danda from his house. During the course of scuffle, the complainant Sangeeta sustained injuries from the danda of Ajay FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 6/25 Kumar who wanted to assault Rajesh and during this process he also sustained injuries whereas mother of complainant fell down and sustained injuries. At that time only accused Rajesh @ Tinku was present whereas accused Sunil Kumar and Ramu Kumar were not present at the place of occurrence as they were residing at Patel Nagar at that time.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions of Addl. PP and the defence counsel Mr. G.S. Sharma and gone through the entire record.
8. Let us scan through the testimony of the prosecution witnesses to see if the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant Sangeeta has been examined as PW3 who stated that on 25.06.08 she came to her house from her training center. While returning to her house when she was in the street in front of her house, accused Tinku blew a whistle on seeing her. She ignored it and went inside her house. She came outside the house to sweep the floor and while she was sweeping the floor, accused Tinku called her by saying 'Idhar aao' and also abused her in filthy language. She went inside the house and complained to her mother. Her mother came outside and asked Tinku as to why he FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 7/25 was abusing and calling her. Two brothers of accused namely Ramu and Pappu were also present at that time. The witness correctly identified all the three accused persons. On this all the three accused persons started abusing them in filthy language. Her father who was making brooms inside the house, on hearing the abuses came outside. He asked the accused persons as to why they were abusing in filthy language and advised them not to abuse. On this accused Tinku went inside the house and came out with a danda and gave danda blow on the face of her mother due to which she could not eat anything for a week. Her father proceeded to save her mother, Tinku gave danda blow on the head, shoulder and knee of her father and he was caught hold by the other two accused persons. When she proceeded to save her father from the clutches of the accused persons, accused Tinku gave a danda blow on her head and left shoulder. When she was being given beatings, other two accused persons were also present and had caught hold of her father. Accused Tinku threatened to kill her. She also produced the bloodstained clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident. In her cross examination, she testified that she had stated to the police in her statement that when she was returning from stitching FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 8/25 training center accused Tinku blew a whistle at her. She was confronted with statement Ex. PW3/A where it was not so recorded. She left training center at Sonia Vihar at 4.00 PM on the day of incident. The quarrel took place at 7.00 PM, however, she was called by Tinku at around 4.30 PM. At 4.30 PM she was sitting at her house. She had not seen the watch when she left for sweeping the floor. She could not tell the exact time however it might be 4.30 PM when her mother asked her to sweep the floor. She swept the floor in about five minuets. After sweeping the floor she came inside the house. After sweeping the floor she sat in the house. She did not go for work or to the house of anyone. She remained in the house for about ½ an hour after sweeping the floor. She did not go anywhere thereafter. In her cross examination she also stated that she had stated to the police in her statement that accused Tinku gave danda blow on the face of her mother due to which she could not eat anything for a week. She was confronted with her statement Ex.PW3/A where it was not so recorded. She had stated to the police in her statement that her father rushed to save her mother. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A where it was not so recorded. She also stated that when she rushed FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 9/25 to save her father from the clutches of the accused persons, accused Tinku gave her danda blow on her head and shoulder. She was confronted with statement Ex.PW3/A where the factum of rushing to save her father was not so recorded. Ld defence Counsel has contended that there are improvements in the prosecution story. In the complaint, she stated that the accused Rajesh @ Tinku blew a whistle at her at about 7.00 PM while she was sweeping the floor in front of her house and called her by saying 'Idhar aao'. While in her testimony before the Court she stated that the whistle was blown by the accused when she was returning from the Stitching training center at about 4.10 PM and she was called by Tinku at around 4.30 PM. While the quarrel took place at about 7.00 PM. However, I feel that minor improvements / contradictions cannot be blown out of proportion, the incident took place on 25.6.08 while the testimony of the witness was recorded on 23.05.09, so minor improvements in the statement of the witness would not make her testimony impeachable or unbelievable. It is the duty of the Court to separate the grain from the chaff and overall statement of the complainant shows that the witness is credible and her statement has got a ring of truth around it.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 10/25
9. Father of the complainant PW1 Ajay Kumar has fully corroborated the testimony of the complainant stating that on 25.06.08 his daughter Sangeeta went outside the house to sweep the floor. All the three accused persons who were identified by the witness, were sitting at the door of their house. On seeing Sangeeta, Rajesh and others blew a whistle. He came to know about blowing of whistle by accused persons through his daughter Sangeeta when she came inside and informed him. On this he asked his wife to go outside and to ascertain as to why they were blowing whistle and calling Sangeeta. At this his wife Rita Devi went outside to ask from the accused persons as to why they were blowing whistle and calling Sangeeta. When his wife asked from the accused persons reason for blowing whistle and calling Sangeeta they started abusing. On hearing the abuses he came out and advised the accused persons not to abuse in filthy language but they did not pay any heed. Rajesh @ Tinku went inside his house and came out with a danda and gave danda blow on his head, left knee and his back. The other two accused caught hold of him and gave beatings with fists. Rajesh @ Tinku gave danda blow on the left side face of his wife. The other two accused were also present at that time and FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 11/25 caught hold of his wife and gave fist blows to her. His daughter Sangeeta was also standing there. She also sustained hurt on her head and she had five stitches. She was given danda blow by Rajesh. The other two accused were catching hold of them. The mohalla residents assembled and on this all the accused persons fled away from there. Someone advised him to call the police at number 100 and he rang up at number 100. In his cross examination he has testified that he had stated to the police in his statement that other two accused caught hold of his wife and gave fist blow to her. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW1/DA where it was not so recorded. He also stated that the incident lasted for 10 minuets. Due to fear, no colony residents came to their rescue. He and accused persons were residing in the colony for last about 15 years and he had no quarrel with the accused persons prior to the present incident. He also denied the suggestion that quarrel started on the issue of tenant with accused Rajesh only or that no other accused was involved. He further denied the suggestion that the quarrel did not start over the issue of his daughter. The witness has corroborated PW3 on all material particulars lending credibility to the prosecution case.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 12/25
10. He is also corroborated by another material witness i.e his wife PW2 Rita Devi. She stated that at about 7.00 PM in the evening, her daughter Sangeeta returned from stitching center and she asked her to sweep the floor outside the house. Her daughter Sangeeta went outside to sweep the floor. Three sons of Jai Prakash namely Rajesh, Sunil and Ramu were sitting at the door of their house which was in front of their house. Accused Rajesh blew whistle on seeing her daughter Sangeeta and called her. Her daughter ignored it and went inside and complained to her. On this she went outside and asked Tinku as to why he blew whistle and called Sangeeta. On this, accused Tinku abused her in filthy language and uttered that she should go from there. Her husband was making brooms inside the house at that time. On hearing filthy abuses he came outside and asked Rajesh why he was abusing in such language. On this Rajesh @ Tinku continued uttering filthy abuses. Tinku went inside his house and brought a danda and gave blow on the left side of her face due to which she had pain and swelling and could not eat properly for three months. At his her husband jumped to apprehend Tinku. Tinku gave danda blow on the shoulder, head, knee and back of her husband and he fell down. While Tinku was FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 13/25 giving beatings to her husband, the other two accused persons caught hold of her husband. Her daughter Sangeeta also came after seeing the quarrel and as soon as she intervened to save her father, Tinku gave a danda blow on her head. Other two accused persons were also present at that time. After giving danda blow to her daughter on her head, all the accused persons fled away from the spot on motorcycle. She became unconscious and police removed them to GTB hospital.
11. Ld. Counsel has contended that despite the fact that the incident took place in a residential colony no other independent witness has been joined in. However, absence of public witness has duly been explained by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW2 Smt. Rita Devi has categorically stated that immediately after the incident neighbors did not assemble at the spot, however, they were watching the incident from their respective houses. Neighbours assembled at the spot after they were beaten and laid down on the ground. Joining of public witness is a rule of caution and not the rule of law. If the testimony of the victims are consistent and cogent, it can become the basis of conviction of the accused. The witnesses have been confronted with statement u/s FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 14/25 161 Cr PC on the minor points. However, the witnesses are not supposed to give a parrot like version in the testimony before the Court. Rather that would raise a suspicion about the witness having been tutored. The witnesses have deposed naturally and have corroborated each other on all material particulars. The testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. PW5 Dr. Dhruba Narayan Borah proved his opinion regarding the nature of injuries on the person of Smt. Rita Devi vide MLC no. 4407 dated 25.06.08 which is Ex.PW5/A. He also gave his report on MLC no. 4405 dated 25.06.08 in respect of injured Ajay Kumar to be simple and he proved his opinion on MLC vide Ex. PW5/B. PW6 Dr. S. Kohli stated that MLC of Sangeeta bearing no. C2648/08 was prepared by Dr. Manish Kumar Nigam on 25.06.08 who was working as a Jr. Resident at that time. He identified his signatures and handwriting and proved the MLC Ex. PW6/A bearing signatures of Dr. Manish Nigam. He also stated that MLC of Rita Devi was prepared by Dr. Manish Kumar Nigam on 25.06.08 and proved the same as Ex. PW6/B. PW8 Dr. Rajiv Verma also stated that he perused the surgical records of injured Sangeeta and gave his opinion about injury as FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 15/25 simple in nature and proved the same as Ex.PW6/A. PW10 is Dr. Sita Ram who deposed on behalf of Dr. Mukesh who had since expired. Dr. Mukesh had opined injury as simple on 08.07.08 on the MLC of Ajay Kumar Ex. PW5/A.
12. Counsel for the accused has urged that since the injuries found on the person of injured Ajay Kumar were simple in nature no case u/s 308 IPC is proved against him. He has relied upon 2010 III AD (DELHI) 71 wherein the Court observed that since the MLC of injured was showing that only one blow was given on left side of skull having wound of 3 x 1 cm and size of the wound indicates that wooden lemonpresser used for causing injury was of a rather small size. The injury caused also appears to be superficial as no depth of the wound has been given in the MLC. Since the wound was superficial, it shows that no much force was used by the accused and had the intention of the accused been to cause such injury to injured as was likely to cause death. He would not have stopped at giving one blow and would have given multiple blows to him. This is yet another indicator which shows that the accused did not intend to cause death of injured nor did he know that the injury caused by him was likely to result in death of injured. The FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 16/25 offence u/s 308 IPC does not stand established from the facts and circumstances of the case and is guilty only of offence punishable u/s 323 IPC for having cause hurt to injured. However, with due deference the facts of the case referred are not applicable to the present facts and circumstances as there are number of injuries sustained by the injured Ajay Kumar which were inflicted upon him by accused Rajesh @ Tinku. It shows that he was attacked with danda on the parietal region and he was having a injury of 3 x 1 cm. He had bruises on the knee and forearm. Merely because nature of injury was simple, it does not mean that the prosecution has failed to establish that the injuries on the person of injured Ajay Kumar were inflicted with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that it could have caused his death. Offence punishable u/s 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and offence for that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable u/s 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurt can be meted out under sections 323 FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 17/25 and 324 IPC. Whether the injury inflicted was grievous or simple deserved a back seat in the face of the charge u/s 308/34 IPC. Therefore the fact that the injuries found on the person of Ajay Kumar were simple in nature would not benefit the accused.
13. All the witnesses have categorically stated that the accused Rajesh in furtherance of common intention with accused Sunil and Ramu blew a whistle at the complainant Sangeeta and called her intending to insult her modesty. It has also been proved that the accused persons in furtherance of common intention gave dandas blow on the head, knee and shoulder of Ajay Kumar with such intention or knowledge which could have caused his death; that they also voluntarily caused hurt to Sangeeta and Rita Devi during the incident with a danda which caused simple injuries on their person.
14. The defence witness has stated that the incident occurred due to the fact that extenant was called by Rajesh which was not liked by Ajay Kumar and he questioned the accused Rajesh as to why he was calling his tenant, on which a quarrel took place between Rajesh and Ajay Kumar and after hearing the noise complainant Sangeeta and her mother came out and they were having dandas in FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 18/25 their hands. Ajay also brought a danda from his house during the course of scuffle. The complainant Sangeeta sustained injuries from the danda of Ajay Kumar who wanted to assault Rajesh and during this process Ajay also sustained injury whereas mother of the complainant fell down and sustained injuries. It is absolutely unbelievable that the danda was wielded by the complainant and her parents despite which only they sustained injuries while accused Rajesh @ Tinku, Sunil and Ramu did not sustain any injuries. While the complainant and her family inflicted injuries on each other. There was no reason as to why the complainant and her family would implicate the accused persons unnecessarily. Though they have been living together in the same locality for a number of years. It has been admitted by DW1 that there is no enmity between the family of complainant and the accused side and he knew the complainant family including Sangeeta and they are good persons and holding good reputation in the society. His statement was never recorded by the police but he did not care to approach the police to get his statement recorded nor he complained to the Senior police officer. He stated that he did not make any complaint to any senior police officer nor before any court regarding non FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 19/25 recording of his statement by the IO. He also stated that he had come to depose on the request of Rajesh @ Tinku and accused called him 'bhaiya'. The defence witness does not appear to be credit worthy and therefore much weight cannot be attached to his testimony.
15. In his testimony PW3 Sangeeta the complainant has categorically stated that the accused threatened to kill her. Though other witnesses have not stated so. However, she has further stated in her cross examination that she had stated to the police in her statement that accused Tinku threatened to kill. She volunteered that all the three accused persons threatened to kill her. Though the other witnesses have not stated so but corroboration on each point is not necessary. The testimony of PW3 inspires confidence on the fact that she was threatened to kill by the accused persons. Therefore the prosecution has been successful in proving the guilt of the accused persons u/s 506 IPC as well.
16. Ld. defence Counsel has tried to blow out of proportion the minor inconsistencies or omissions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. While appreciating the evidence of a witness the approach of the court must be to see whether the FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 20/25 evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is found minor deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities would not render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed, not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Merely on small / trivial omissions the witnesses cannot be treated as liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a short coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the deposition of witnesses there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 21/25 of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life.
17. Therefore it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from the truth. In the light of above discussion and after scanning the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, I find them to be genuine having a ring of truth around their testimony. In view of the foregoing reasons, I convict all the accused persons u/s 509/308/323/506/34 IPC. Let they be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
Dated: 07.01.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge05(NE)
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 22/25
IN THE COURT OF MS. NISHA SAXENA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE05 (NE): KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
SC No. 77/10 State Vs. (1)Rajesh Kumar @ Tinku s/o Jai Parkash R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
(2)Sunil Kumar s/o Jai Parkash R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
(3)Ramu Kumar s/o Jai Parkash R/o H. no. A94, Gali no. 1, Ist Pushta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi.
FIR No.189/08 PS Khajuri Khas U/s 308/509/323/506/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard Ld. Addl P.P. for the State and Cl. Mr G.S. Sharma on the point of sentence.
2. Counsel for the convicts has requested for taking a lenient view on the ground that convicts have suffered the ordeal of trial since FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 23/25 the year 2008. That they have been regular in the court and never misused the liberty of bail. It has been contended by Counsel for the convicts that all convicts are real brother; that accused Sunil and Ramu are below 21 years while accused Rajesh is married and having a small child of 1 year; that they have old and ailing parents and their family is dependent upon them for their livelihood. It is further submitted that the convicts have not been previously convicted and have been a peaceful citizen of the country and are ready to abide by any condition which may be imposed by this court and that this is their first offence and they have no previous criminal antecedents of any nature whatsoever.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be subserved if the convicts are released on probation but with certain conditions. Convicts are accordingly released on probation for a period of two years on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety each in the like amount. The convicts are also directed to be of good behaviour during the said period and not to commit similar offence otherwise they will be called again to receive sentence. They shall furnish local surety having permanent abode in Delhi.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 24/25 They are also directed to appear as and when called upon during the above mentioned period of probation.
4. It is further ordered that a sum of Rs. 20,000/ each (total Rs. 60,000/) shall be deposited by every convict u/s 5 of the Probation of Offender Act, 1988 towards compensation which shall be paid to the injured in equal proportion. The amount shall be paid to the injured persons after expiry of the prescribed period.
5. A copy of this order be sent to the Probation Officer to keep vigilance upon the convict during the period of two years and to report to this court if they are found violating the terms of bond furnished.
Announced in open court (Nisha Saxena)
Dated:11.01.2011 Addl. Sessions Judge05(NE):
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
FIR no. 189/08, PS Khajuri Khas 25/25