Delhi District Court
The State vs 1. Ramesh S/O Budh Ram on 30 August, 2014
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
IN THE COURT OF SH RAJESH KUMAR GOEL:
ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE -5 (NORTH),
ROHINI , DELHI
SESSION CASE NO. : 81/14
UID NO . : 02404R0015412008
FIR No: 658/2006
P. S : Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii) /34
IPC.
The State versus 1. Ramesh S/O Budh Ram
2. Wazir Singh S/O Budh Ram
Accused no.1 and 2 both R/O
B -28, Sharma Colony, Budh
Vihar, Phase-2, Delhi.
3. Vinod@ Hiro S/O Murari
R/O D 883, Mangol Puri , Delhi
4. Raju @ Aizaj S/O Ashfaq
( proceedings against him
stands abated vide order
dated 28.3.2014 .)
Date of committal to session court : 25.01.2007
Date of argument : 30.08.2014
Date of order : 30.08.2014
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 1 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Facts and circumstances giving rise to the present case, as per the story of the prosecution are that on 28.4.2006, complainant Anil Kumar alongwith his father Fateh Singh were going to fetch water in their TSR. Two persons namely Raju(expired) and Vinod came from behind on a motorcycle and started giving horn. As there was ditch on the road, Fateh Sing asked the aforesaid two boys to move slow but they both instead of listening, put their motorcycle ahead of TSR and started abusing Anil Kumar and Fateh Singh and also gave beatings to them. On hearing noise one Sunil Kumar, brother of Anil Kumar , also came there.
2. It is the further case of prosecution that both the aforesaid boys namely accused Raju (Expired) and Vinod called accused Ramesh and his brother Wazir , who came there . Accused Wazir fired a shot from a katta towards Sunil Kumar , Anil Kumar and Fateh Singh and threatened to kill them.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 2 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
Complainant alongwith his father and Sunil Kumar escaped and got managed to enter their house and made a call to the police at 100 number .
3. It is further case of the prosecution that on the basis of said information DD no.36 was registered and ASI Sajjan Singh alongwith Constable Pradhan reached at the spot where they met Anil Kumar and recorded his statement upon which present FIR was got registered. One empty cartridge, was also recovered from the spot . ASI Sajjan Singh prepared sketch of the said empty cartridge , empty cartridge was sealed with the seal of SS and seized. Accused Ramesh was arrested and subsequently other accused persons namely Wazir, Vinod and Raju Aizaz were also arrested. On completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed for the offences u/s 307/323/506/34 IPC and 25/54/59 Arms Act .
4. Here it is pertinent to mention that initially, accused Ramesh has been chargesheeted for SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 3 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC offences u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC. Record indicates that three separate supplementary chargesheets were filed against accused Wazir, Vinod and Raju @ Aizaz. Ld MM took the cognizance of the offence and subsequently, since the offence u/s 307 IPC was exclusively triable by the court of sessions, therefore, the case was committed to the court of sessions .
5. Vide order dated 26.3.2007, 22.8.2007, 08.7.2010 and 21.12.2010, ld predecessor of this court decided the charges against accused Ramesh , Wazir, Raju @ Aizaz and Vinod respectively and accordingly, charges for the offences u/s 307/506
(ii)/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons separately to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. Here it is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the present case , accused Raju @ Aizaz expired and proceedings against him stands abated vide order dated 28.3.2014.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 4 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses.
8. PW1 Sunil Kumar deposed that on 28.4.2006 at about 09:45 pm, his father and brother Anil Kumar were going to fetch water from outside in the TSR. Soon after they started, two persons came on a pulsar motorcycle of black colour and wanted to drive the motorcycle fastly. His father Fateh Singh asked them to be slow as there was a ditch ahead. Those persons i.e accused Vinod and Raju(expired) parked their motorcycle in front of TSR of his father and started abusing by telling that they were persons of Wazir. A fight took place . On listening the noise, accused Ramesh and Wazir also came there and started giving beatings to them. PW1 further deposed that accused Wazir took out katta and fired out on them and also threatened to kill them. His brother Anil informed the police and took his father and brother to hospital . Police recovered one empty SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 5 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC cartridge and sealed it with the seal of SS and seized it vide seizure memo ExPW1/A . sketch of empty cartridge ExPW1/B was prepared. Accused Ramesh was arrested vide arrest memo ExPW1/D , his personal search was conducted vide memo ExPW1/E and his disclosure statement was recorded vide ExPW1/E. Accused Ramesh pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo ExPW1/F. PW1 was cross examined by the ld Amicus Curiae for the accused persons.
9. PW2 Anil Kumar and PW3 Fateh Singh are brother and father of PW1 Sunil Kumar. Both these witnesses tried to depose on the lines of PW1 Sunil Kumar. They were also cross examined by the ld Amicus Curiae for the accused persons.
10. PW4 HC Kali Charan is the duty officer who proved the registration of FIR vide ExPW4/A and his endorsement on rukka as ExPW4/B.
11. PW5 Ct. Mahender is the witness who on SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 6 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC 28.4.2006 at about 10:20 pm, recorded DD no. 36 ExPW5/A .
12. PW6 Dr. Vijay Kumar proved the MLC No. 6076 ExPW5/A and MLC No. 6077 ExPW5/B of Fateh Singh and Anil .
13. PW7 Anil Tripathi is the public witness who on 29.4.2006 at about 9:45 or 10:00 pm was walking in his balcony after taking dinner . There he heard some "shor sharaba" and and came to know about the firing. He reached at the spot where he came to know about the quarrel between complainant party and accused party.
14. PW8 Laxmi Narain is another public witness who on 29.4.2006 at about 09:45 or 10:00 pm was taking dinner at his house, when he heard the noise of "Dhamaka". He came outside of his house and came to know that a scuffle had taken place between Fateh Singh(PW3) and his family members with Wazir , his brother and friends.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 7 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
15. PW9 ASI Sajjan Singh is the IO who
alongwith Ct. Pradhan(PW10) on receipt of DD
reached at the spot and met PW2 Anil Kumar and
recorded his statement PW2/A. He deposed that one empty cartridge, ExP-1 was also recovered from the spot . He prepared sketch of the said empty cartridge ExP-1/B and empty cartridge was sealed with the seal of SS and seized vide memo ExPW1/A . He further deposed that on the basis of complaint ExPW1/A, he prepared rukka ExPW9/A and got registered the FIR through Ct. Pradhan(PW10). He prepared site plan ExPW9/B at the instance of Anil Kumar (PW1) .
16. PW9 ASI Sajjan Singh deposed that on the pointing out of Anil Kumar(PW2) and Sunil Kumar(PW1) accused Ramesh was arrested from his house vide memo ExPW1/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo ExPW1/D . Disclosure statement of accused Ramesh ExPW1/E was recorded and accused Ramesh pointed out the SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 8 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC place of occurrence vide pointing out memo ExPW1/F. PW 9 was cross examined by the ld Amius Curiae for accused persons.
17. PW10 Ct. Pradhan Singh is the witness who was alongwith IO ASI Sajjan Singh (PW9) during investigation and he has deposed on the lines of PW10.
18. PW11 Shiv Raj Singh is the public witness who has not supported the case of prosecution and was cross examined by the ld Addll PP for state.
19. PW12 S.I Chander Shekhar is the witness who on 14.9.2010, received an information regarding arrest of accused Vinod in a Kalandra u/s 41.1(c) CrPC. He went to Tihar Jail and formally arrested accused Vinod @ Hiro vide arrest memo ExPW12/A and recorded his disclosure statement vide memo ExPW12/ B .
20. Thereafter, statement of accused persons SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 9 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC u/s 313 CrPC were recorded. During the statement u/s 313 CrPC, accused persons denied all the allegations made against them. They did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
21. I have heard the ld Chief Prosecutor for the state and the ld Amicus Curiae for the accused persons . I have also perused the record very carefully.
22. Accused persons are facing trial for offences u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC on the allegations that they in furtherance of their common intention opened fire from the katta towards Sunil Kumar , Anil Kumar and Fateh Singh and threatened to kill them.
23. Sunil Kumar, Anil Kumar and Fateh Singh have appeared in the witness box as PW1, PW2 and PW3. If the testimonies of these three witnesses is put to close scrutiny, it becomes crystal clear that present case does not come within the ambit of section 307 IPC. The deposition of PW2 Anil Kumar SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 10 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC and PW3 Fateh Singh is lacking to clearly establish the case of the prosecution that accused persons had fired towards them. Though, PW1 Sunil Kumar deposed that accused Wazir took out a katta and fired upon him , his brother Anil (PW2) and they escaped and ran inside their house.
24. Here it is pertinent to mention that both the aforesaid three witnesses have testified that only accused Wazir fired . Therefore, as far as accused Ramesh and Vinod are concerned, no role has been assigned to them for the alleged firing. PW1 Sunil Kumar is also saying that accused Wazir fired on him and his brother Anil. There is nothing on record which could suggest that accused Ramesh or Vinod were related to that firing.
25. PW2 Anil Kumar has also testified that accused Wazir was having Katta in his hand and he fired from their behind and threatened them that he would kill them. Same is the case with the testimony of PW3 Fateh Singh . He also deposed that accused SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 11 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC Wazir fired the shot in the air with the Katta which he was having. Ramesh was only with them. Therefore, as far as firing is concerned, there is allegations only against accused Wazir and there is no allegations against the accused Ramesh and Vinod.
26. Now, it is to be seen whether accused Wazir had fired towards PW1 Sunil Kumar, PW2 Anil Kumar and PW3 Fateh Singh or he has fired in the air.
27. The information of the incident was given to the police and same was recorded vide DD no.36 ExPW5/A. PW5 Constable Mahender deposed that on 28.4.2006, he was working as DD writer a PP Budh Vihar, P.S Sultan Puri. At about 10:20 pm, he received information on wireless from OMEGA 50 regarding firing in air by one boy namely Wazir at B-23, Budh Bihar, Sharma Colony. He recorded said information vide DD no.36 ExPW5/A. SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 12 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
28. There is nothing to doubt the aforesaid DD ExPW5/A . This is an information which was given to the police immediately after the incident in question. The DD no. 36 ExPW5/A does not indicate that accused Wazir had fired towards PW1 Sunil, PW2 Anil or PW3 Fateh Singh .
29. This information carries greater value because at that time manipulation of giving false information is minimal, as nobody, while making a call to the police , would have time to manipulate things though there may be some exceptions.
30. PW2 Anil Kumar is shown to have made a call to the police at 100 number. Therefore, deposition of public witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW3 during their examination-in-chief , that accused had fired towards them become doubtful which is further supported by the fact that PW3 Fateh Singh , who has been cited as eye witness of the incident, has categorically stated that accused Wazir fired shot in the air with the Katta which he was having.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 13 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
31. On this point PW3 was cross examined by the ld Additional PP for the state . During his cross examination by ld APP for state PW3 denied that accused Wazir also fired upon them with intention to kill. He again replied that accused Wazir has threatened to kill them and fired at them. PW3 Fateh Singh kept on changing his version. On one occasion, he deposed that accused Wazir had fired in air. During cross examination by Ld APP for state, he denied the suggestion that accused Wazir had fired towards them with intention to kill them. A Little further, he again replied that accused Wazir Singh has fired at them. This has again created serious doubt on the story of the prosecution.
32. PW7 Anil Tripathi, who is residing in the same area deposed that on 29.4.2006 at about 9:45 or 10:00 pm, he was walking in his balcony after taking dinner . There he heard some "shor sharaba"
and he came to know about the firing. PW8 Laxmi Narain another public witness deposed that on SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 14 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC 29.4.2006 at about 09:45 or 10:00 pm was taking dinner at his house, when he heard the noise of "Dhamaka".
33. Meaning thereby, none of the aforesaid witnesses i.e PW1 Sunil, PW2 Anil, PW3 Fateh Singh, PW7 Anil Tripathi and PW8 Laxmi Narain could conclusively establish on record that accused had fired towards PW1, PW2 and PW3. Rather, there are sufficient evidence on record to hold that accused Wazir had fired only in the air.
34. As far as offence u/s 307 IPC is concerned, in order to bring the case within the ambit of section 307 IPC, it must be shown that accused persons acted with such intention or knowledge or under such circumstances that if by that act they caused death, they would be guilty of murder . So the intention was under the knowledge to commit murder must exist. It is sufficient to justify the conviction u/s 307 IPC if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution there off, which is failing in the SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 15 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC present case. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of section 307 IPC against all the accused persons.
35. Now, take the charges for the offence u/s 506(ii) /34 IPC. As stated herein above , as far as role of accused Ramesh and Vinod is concerned, even qua offence u/s 506/34 IPC the same is missing. Prosecution has failed to prove on record that accused Ramesh and Vinod in furtherance of their common intention, had threatened the complainant party. The existence of a common intention amongst the participants in a crime is the essential element for application of section 34 IPC. For application of this section, it is enough if it is shown that they shared a common intention to commit the offence and in furtherance thereof each one played his assigned role by doing separate acts, similar or diverse. On the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution , accused Vinod and Ramesh cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 506(ii)/34 IPC but as far as accused Wazir is concerned there is sufficient SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 16 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC evidence to connect him for said offence .
36. From the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3, it stands established that on 28.04.2006 Anil Kumar(PW2) alongwith his father Fateh Singh(PW3) were going to fetch water in their TSR. Two persons namely Raju @ Aijaj (expired) and Vinod came from behind on a motorcycle and started giving horn. There a hot altercation took place between them and thereafter, accused Wazir and Ramesh came there. Accused Ramesh was exonerated by PW 3 Fateh Singh and there is allegation of giving threat as against accused Wazir only. This court has already indicated that accused Wazir has fired in the air. It has also come on record that after firing PW1, PW2 and PW3 ran away towards their house and closed the door and made a call to the police . They have also stated that accused Wazir has threatened to kill them.
37. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in section 503 IPC which seems to imply that SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 17 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC the threat must be one which can be put into execution by the person threatening as the section speaks of avoiding the execution of the threat . In other words, there should be a clear indication as to what the accused would do and the complainant must feel as a reasonable man that the accused would convert his words into action if he fails to do what is required of him by the accused. The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened.
38. Now, take the case in hand. This court has already indicated that accused Wazir has fired in the air . From the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 coupled with testimonies of other witnesses , it stands established that they were present at the spot and some altercation took place. It has come on record that the moment accused Wazir is shown to have fired , all the aforesaid three persons managed to ran inside their house from there and closed the door and thereafter make the call to the police. It has also come on the record that accused Wazir had SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 18 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC threatened to kill them in very clear term, which is sufficient to hold that accused Wazir extended criminal intimidation as defined u/s 503 IPC.
39. During the argument , ld counsel for the accused persons pointed out that there are contradictions in the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW3 regarding the timing of recording their statements, arrest of the accused persons and joining of investigation by them etc., .
40. Argument of the ld defence counsel would not help the accused Wazir for the simple reason that contradictions, as pointed out by the ld defence counsel are minor and not material one.
41. There may be some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses but discrepancies has to be distinguished from contradictions. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 19 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC prosecution's case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the depositions. In the present case examination-in-chief of PW1, PW2 and PW3 were recorded in the year 2007 but their cross examination qua the accused Wazir has been done in the year 2014. That being so, some minor contradiction are bound to happen . Keeping in view the educational and social background of aforesaid witnesses , they are not expected to give the detail of the incident minutely .
42. In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held:
" In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 20 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."
43. Thus, the law is well settled that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored. In case however the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. In the instant case, learned defence counsel has failed to demonstrate from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses such discrepancies, omissions, improvements and the like as would enable me to reject their testimonies after testing the same on the anvil of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 21 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
44. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution miserably failed to prove its case as against the accused Ramesh and Vinod for charges u/s 307/506(ii) /34 IPC , hence, they both stands acquitted. Accused Wazir also stands acquitted for offence u/s 307/34 IPC. However, prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused Wazir in respect of offence u/s 506 (ii) IPC. Accused Wazir ,therefore, stands convicted for offence u/s 506(ii) IPC.
Announced in the open (Rajesh Kumar Goel)
Court today i.e 30.08.2014 ASJ-5, North
Rohini Court
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 22 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
st vs Ramesh etc.
30.08.2014
Present: Ms Alka Goel, Ld Chief Prosecutor for state.
Accused Ramesh present on court bail. Accused Wazir and Vinod produced from JC. Proceeding against accused Raju @ Ajaj already stands abated vide order dated 28.3.2014 . Ms Neelam Singh , ld Amicus Curiae for all the accused persons .
It was pointed out that S.I Grijesh remains to be examined and he has already retired from the service. It was further pointed out that said police official is witness to the arrest of accused Wazir only and nothing more than that.
Ld counsel for the accused persons submitted that accused Wazir was arrested in some other case . On production warrant, he was produced before Ld MM and then he was arrested in the present case also. She submitted that accused Wazir is not disputing his arrest and personal search memo . Let the statement of the accused Wazir Singh be recorded separately.
Statement of accused Wazir has been recorded separately. Since, accused Wazir has admitted his arrest memo and personal search memo , therefore, same are given exhibit marks as SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 23 of 26 ) D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006 P.S Sultan Puri u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC ExADV/1 and ExADV/2 respectively.
Ld Chief Prosecutor submits that since, accused Wazir has admitted his arrest memo and personal search memo , therefore, she is dropping S.I Grijesh.
(2)At the request , of the ld Chief Prosecutor , aforesaid witness stands dropped . His name be deleted from the list of witnesses.
It was pointed out that all other witnesses have already been examined. Ld Chief Prosecutor has closed PE.
Statement of accused persons u/s 313 CrPC recorded. Accused persons denied the allegations made against them. They did not opt to lead any evidence in their defence.
Final argument heard.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, accused Ramesh and Vinod stands acquitted for offences u/s 307/ 506(ii)/34 IPC . Accused Wazir also stands acquitted from offence u/s 307/34 IPC. However, accused Wazir stands convicted for offence u/s 506(ii) IPC.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 24 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
Accused Vinod be released immediately , if not wanted in
any other case.
Accused Ramesh and Vinod are directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount in terms of section 437 (A) CrPC.
Seeks time to furnish the same.
Granted.
Argument on the point of sentence qua accused Wazir heard.
Convict Wazir pointed out that he has been in JC for more than six years.
(3)Record indicate that during the trial convict Wazir was granted bail. Thereafter , he absconded himself and on 21.4.2008 NBW were issued against him. He was produced before the court on 20.10.2008 . It is also evident that on several occasions i.e on 5.5.2009, 08.5.2009, 15.7.2010,, 21.5.2011, 6.12.2012 and 10.1.2014, convict Wazir was granted custody parole. The record sufficiently indicates that Convict Wazir is in JC since 20.10.2008.
Convict Wazir has been in JC initially also when he was arrested in the present case. That being so, it is evident that he has been in JC for more than 6 years. Case pertains to the year 2006.
SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 25 of 26 )
D.O.D 30.08.2014 FIR No. 658/2006
P.S Sultan Puri
u/s 307/506(ii)/34 IPC
Keeping in view the custody period of the convict Wazir , convict is sentenced imprisonment for the period already undergone for the offence u/s 506(ii) IPC .
Convict Wazir be released immediately if not wanted in any other case.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict Wazir , free of cost.
Now, put up for bail bond on behalf of Ramesh and Vinod on 6.9.2014.
(Rajesh Kumar Goel) ASJ-5, North /30.08.2014 SC No81/114 State vs Ramesh etc. (Page 26 of 26 )