Delhi District Court
Jugendra Singh vs State Of Up Reported In Ii (2012 )Ccr 431 ... on 14 January, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 113/2014
FIR No. 208/14
P.S. Pahar Ganj
Under Section: 307 IPC
Unique ID No. 02401R0295222014
State
Versus
Dalip Shah @ Munna,
S/o Sh.Rajeev Shah,
R/o Vega Bond New Delhi Railway Station,
Permanent Address : VPO Techwara PS Katra
District Darbhanga, Bihar
DATE OF INSTITUTION OF SESSIONS CASE: 08.08.2014
DATE OF RESERVATION OF JUDGMENT : 28.11.2014
DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 08.12.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Dalip Shah @ Munna S/o Rajeev Shah was committed to the Court of Sessions to stand trial under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit murder of the Raju @ Babu by stabbing him with a broken bottle in his abdomen on the intervening night of 18/04/2014 & 19/04/2014 at about 12.00 midnight near NDMC Kuda Ghar, Tel Mandi Chowk, Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated, the facts of prosecution case are that injured Raju @ Babu and the accused Dalip Shah @ Munna are homeless rag pickers operating near New Delhi Railway Station. After picking garbage, both of @ them used to keep their ruck sack near NDMC khatta, Tel Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and used to sell the same to Raj Kumar @ Raju, scrap dealer who is running a scrap shop nearby. Both of them are also addicted to drugs. On the intervening night of 18/04/2012 and 19/04/2012 at about 12.00 midnight, accused Dalip Shah @ Munna charged Raju @ Babu of stealing the scrap collected by him from his ruck sack. Upon this, the accused and the injured Raju @ Babu had an altercation. During the altercation, the accused Dalip Shah picked up a glass bottle and stabbed Raju with the same in his abdomen with an intention to kill him. He also uttered that he will not spare him to further give a chance to him to steal the scrap collected by him. Raj Kumar @ Raju, scrap dealer on seeing the incident came to the spot to rescue Raju @ Babu. In the meantime, the accused fled from the spot with the glass bottle. Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi then put the injured Raju @ Babu in a rikshaw and asked the rikshaw puller to take him to the hospital. The rikshaw puller took him to LHMC Hospital where he was given medical treatment.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD No.2 PPST regarding the admission of injured Raju @ Babu at LHMC Hospital, SI Jai Prakash (IO) along with Const. Balbir reached Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi and obtained the MLC of injured Raju @ Babu aged 23 years who was brought by the rikshaw puller Ujiyar. Doctor declared the injured unfit for statement as he was lying admitted in the emergency ward due to his intestines having been protruded out. SI Jai Prakash enquired from the rikshaw puller/ Ujiyar regarding the incident. He informed SI Jai Prakash that when he was plying his rikshaw in the area of Tel Mandi, some public persons asked him to remove the injured to a nearby hospital. He was not aware about the incident. SI Jai Prakash along with rikshaw puller reached the spot i.e near NDMC kudaghar, Tel Mandi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. SI Jai Prakash did not find any blood stains or @ any other proof on the spot. He then after recording his endorsement on DD No. 2 PPST, got case FIR u/s 307 IPC registered. During investigation, SI Jai Prakash prepared the site plan at the instance of eye witness Rajkumar @ Raju Kabadi, recorded the statements of witness and arrested the accused at the pointing out of Rajkumar @ Raju. SI Jai Prakash recorded the disclosure statement of the accused and the accused pointed out the place of occurrence. SI Jai Prakash then recorded the statement of Injured Raju @ Babu. The IO also obtained the result on the MLC of Raju @ Babu and filed charge sheet u/s 307 IPC against the accused .
CHARGE
4. Charge under Section 307 IPC was framed against the accused Dalip Shah @ Munna to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW 2 Raju @ Babu, PW5 Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi as material witnesses. PW 1 HC Pramod and PW 3 Const. Ashwani were examined as formal witnesses, PW4 Dr. Kapil Jain as Medico witness whereas, PW 6 Constable Balbir, PW7 Constable Shambhu and PW 8 SI Jai Parkash (IO) were witnesses of investigation.
VERSION OF ACCUSED
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein he completely denied the case of prosecution and stated that due to personal vendetta of Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi, he was falsely implicated in th is case at his instance. He did not opt to lead any evidence in his defence.
@
7. I have heard the learned Addl.PP for the State and learned counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record with utmost care.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
8. Injured Raju @ Babu, who was examined as PW-2 testified that he is a vagabond and sleeps in the premises of New Delhi Railway Station. He is an illiterate rag picker and with him accused Dalip Shah @ Munna is also a rag picker . Accused used to sell the scrap collected by him to one Raju Kabadi. Although he does not remember the exact date and month of the incident, however, about 3-4 months ago at about 12.00 midnight, when he objected to the accused selling the scrap collected by him, accused picked one glass bottle from the shop of Raju kabadi and broke the same by hitting on the ground. Thereafter, he stabbed him in his stomach with the bottle with an intention to kill him. While stabbing him , he had also uttered "Sale ab to nahi bachega". As the blood had started oozing out, Raju Kabadi arranged a rikshaw for him . He was taken to LHMC by the rikshaw puller where he was medically examined and operated upon. Subsequently, police met him and his statement was recorded. During his testimony, he correctly identified the accused Dalip Shah @ Munna to be te person who had stabbed him with a broken bottle.
9. In his cross examination, he reiterated that accused Dalip Shah @ Munna is also a rag picker who resides with him at NDMC Khatta. He further clarified that Dalip Shah @ Munna is also known by the name of Akbar and like him is a drug addict who injects himself daily. Prior to the incident, he never had any quarrel or altercation with the accused, even though accused used to steal the scrap collected by him. He often used @ to object to the accused stealing his scrap. He was also informed by one late Sh. Jogar that the scrap collected by him was being sold to Raju Kabadi by someone. He further deposed that Raju Kabadi owns a scrap shop nearby and the distance between the shop of Raju Kabadi and NDMC Khatta was about 10 feet which was visible from the NDMC Khatta. Raju Kabadi used to usually close his shop by 12.00 night and he used to reside in his own shop. The incident had taken place at about 12.30 night. After he was assaulted, he had boarded the rikshaw with the help of Raju Kabadi and rikshaw puller. During his further cross examination, he admitted broken glass pieces and broken bottles used to be lying in the khatta, however, he never picked pieces of broken glass or broken bottles. He completely negated the suggestion that on the date of the incident, he had sustained injuries by falling on some sharp object in NDMC Khatta as he was under the influence of drugs. He categorically reiterated that accused Dalip @ Munna had picked the weapon of offence i.e the bottle from a sack lying in the shop of Raju Kabadi. He also completely denied the suggestion that no quarrel had taken place between him and the accused. He further denied having been tutored by the police officials or was deposing falsely at their behest.
10. Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi the alleged eye witness to the incident was examined as PW 5. He deposed that he runs a scrap shop at Tel Mandi Chowk near Kuda Khatta, New Delhi Railway Station. At about 12.00 midnight on 19.04.2014 when he was present near the Kudaghar, he saw the accused and the injured quarelling. He knew both the accused and the injured as they both used to come to his shop to sell scrap. During the quarrel, the accused picked up a glass bottle and hit the same on the ground. After breaking the glass bottle, he stabbed the injured Raju in his abdomen with the broken glass bottle. Thereafter, the @ injured rag picker was sent to the hospital in a cycle rikshaw. He further deposed that on the next day accused Dalip @ Munna was apprehended in his presence vide arrest memo (Ex.PW 5/A) and his personal search was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW 5/ B). Police made enquiries from him during which he had shown the place of occurrence to the police. The police had also recorded his statement.
11. During the cross examination of PW 5 Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi, he testified that the distance between his shop and NDMC Khatta is about 40 meters. His shop is located inside the gali and he sits in the direction which is opposite to NDMC Khatta. He know all the rag pickers of the area as they used to sell scrap to him.
FORMAL WITNESSES
12. HC Pramod (Duty Officer) was examined as PW 1 and he proved the case FIR No.208/2014 as Ex.PW 1/A, endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B and the certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act as Ex. PW 1/C.
13. Const. Ashwani (DD Writer) proved DD No. 2 PP as Ex.PW3/A which was reduced into writing on receipt of message from duty Const. Pradeep from LHMC regarding the admission of injured Raju (PW 2).
MEDICO WITNESSES
14. Dr.Kapil Jain, Senior Resident (Surgery) LHMC examined as PW4 deposed that on 19.04.2014, he was posted as Senior Resident (Surgery) Lady Hardinge Hospital. On that day, injured Raju (PW2) was brought by Const. Pradeep at about 12.40 AM. The injured was referred to him @ from the Casualty. On examination, the injured was found having a stab injury in his abdomen with his intestines protruding out. He admitted the injured in the Surgery Unit and conducted exploratory loparotomy (major abdominal surgery). He proved the MLC of injured Raju (PW2) as Ex. PW4/A and his case history as Ex.PW4/B (colly).
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
15. SI Jai Parkash, IO of the case was examined as PW 8. He testified that in the intervening night of 18-19/4/2014, at about 12.45 am (night) DD No. 2 PP ST/PS Paharganj (Ex.PW3/A) regarding the admission of injured Raju(PW2) in Lady Hardinge Hospital was entrusted to him. On receipt of the same, he alongwith Constable Blabir (PW6) reached LHMC and found the Injured Raju @ Babu (PW2) to be admitted. Thereafter, he obtained the MLC (Ex.PW4/A) of the injured wherein he was declared unfit for statement by the doctor. On visual examination of the injured/PW2, his intestines were found to be protruding out.
16. He further deposed that efforts were made to trace the eye witness to the incident and enquiries were made from the rikshaw puller who had got the injured admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he came to the spot with the rikshaw puller where it was disclosed by the rikshaw puller that he had only removed the injured to the hospital in his rikshaw at the request of public persons. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka (Ex.PW8/A) after making endorsement on the DD report and handed over the same to Const. Balbir (PW6) for getting the case FIR registered. Constable Balbir (PW6) had returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR alongwith ruqqa to him. Thereafter efforts were made to search the accused.
17. At about 8.00 AM on the next day i.e 19.4.2014, Raj Kumar@ Raju @ Kabadi (PW5) met him and told him that he runs a scrap shop and accused Dalip @ Munna and injured Raju @ Babu /PW2 both are rag pickers and are addicted to drugs. Both of them used to sell the scrap collected by them to him. He had then narrated the whole incident.
18. PW 8 SI Jai Prakash also testified that after recording the statement of eye witness Raj Kumar (PW5),he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B at the instance of PW5. On 20.4.2014 Const.Shambhu (PW7) and Raj Kumar (PW5) joined the investigation. Accused Dalip was apprehended at the instance of Raj Kumar (PW5) whereafter, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo PW5/B and after his interrogation, disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW7/A was recorded. Pointing out memo (Ex.PW 8/A) of the place of occurrence was also prepared at the instance of accused. Statements of constable Sambhu and Raj Kumar were recorded. Thereafter, accused was remanded to J/C and MLC of injured was deposited with the hospital for result. Statement of injured was recorded after he was discharged from the hospital and after obtaining result on MLC, accused was charge sheeted.
19. The evidence of injured PW-2/Raju@Babu which stands fully corroborated by PW 5/ Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi, owner of the scrap shop to whom the rag pickers like injured Raju @Babu and accused Dalip @ Munna used to sell the scrap collected by them on all material particulars reveals that at about 12.00 in the intervening night of 18/19.04.2014 there was a quarrel between the accused and the injured on the issue of the scrap collected by the injured. Thereasftr, the accused had picked glass bottle from the shop of Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabadi had broken the same by hitting on the ground and had stabbed the injured Raju @ Babu in his abdomen with the broken glass bottle. PW 2/injured @ Raju @ Babu is a natural and stamped witness who had sustained injuries in his abdomen at the hands of the accused Dalip @ Munna. PW 2 in his testimony gives the full account of the incident to the extent of admitting that he is a drug addict and a vagabond who is regularly beaten by the police. He does not even flinch once while admitting the fact that he injects himself sometimes once and sometimes twice a day. He is fully supported by the testimony of PW 5 who was an eye witness to the incident. The testimonies of both PW 2 and PW5 are interse consistent and inspire confidence. Nothing was brought on record by the learned counsel for the accused to show that there was any enmity between the accused and PW 2 Raju@Babu or enmity between the accused and PW 5 Raju @ Raj Kumar kabadi to falsely implicate the accused. PW 5 in his deposition had categorically stated that he knows all the rag pickers as they used to sell him the scrap collected by them. However, he did not know them by names. There was no reason for PW-5 to falsely implicate accused Dalip @ Munna and give false evidence against him. PW 5 being the eye witness to the stabbing of PW-2 by the accused had helped PW-2 to board the rikshaw and get him removed to the hospital soon after the incident.
20. The testimony of the injured/PW 2 Raju @ Babu that he was stabbed by a broken glass bottle is further corroborated by the medical evidence on record. The MLC of injured Raju @ Babu was duly proved by PW4/Dr.Kapil Jain, Senior Resident (Surgery) Lady Hardinge Medical College who proved the MLC as Ex.PW4/A. As per the MLC Ex.PW4/A, injured Raju @ Babu /PW2 had sustained a stab injury in his abdomen with his left side intestine protruding out. It was a single wound with the size of wound admeasuring 3x0.5 cms on the left side of abdominal wall. It was testified by Dr. Kapil Jain/PW4 that the injured /PW2 had to be admitted in Surgery Unit and had underwent exploratory laparotomy i.e @ major abdominal surgery. The nature of injury was opined as grievous by PW4. In his cross examination, he very specifically stated that to inflict injury sustained by the injured/PW2 insertion of any edged and lengthy object was required. The nature of injury completely supports the testimony of PW2/Raju@ Babu about the accused having assaulted him with a broken glass bottle.
21. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the accused has very vehemently argued that the entire story of the prosecution is concocted and the injured Raju @ Babu had sustained injury in his abdomen by falling on a sharp object while picking scrap from kuda khatta. He has also urged that non recovery of weapon of offence, non examination of rikshaw puller, blood stains having been not found at the spot and the incident not being recorded in the CCTV Camera installed nearby all point towards the innocence of the accused and falsehood of the story of the prosecution.
22. So far as the non recovery of the weapon of offence from the spot is concerned, it is the case of both the injured and the eye witness that accused had fled from the spot with the weapon of offence i.e the broken glass bottle. The broken glass bottle is not a special and a peculiar object. It can be found lying in any public place. Otherwise also, the non recovery of such a common weapon of offence is neither fatal nor demolishes the case of prosecution.
23. It was contended by learned counsel for the accused that non examination of the rikshaw puller who had transported the injured to the hospital is fatal, I do not agree. The MLC Ex.PW4/A of the injured Raju@ Babu/PW2 clearly reveals that the injured was brought by one rikshaw puller namely Ujiyar to the hospital. Even as per the version of both @ injured/PW2 and eye witness/PW5, the injured was made to board the rikshaw in order to remove him to the hospital for his medical treatment. The rikshaw puller was not the eye witness to the incident and had played an ancillary role in the entire incident. Hence, even if the statement of rikshaw puller was not recorded or he was not examined by the prosecution, it will not wash away the version of the prosecution which is fully supported by the MLC Ex. PW4/A and the versions of PW2/injured and PW 5/eye witness.
24. The absence of the blood stains on the spot or from the spot to the place from where the rikshaw was boarded by the injured when SI Jai Prakash had reached the sot after many hours also does not cast any doubt on the case of the prosecution as there is no denial that the injured/PW2 had sustained injuries in his abdomen on that night. It is not the case of the defence that the injured had not sustained any injury. Admittedly, the spot was a public place near a Kudaghar and a thoroughfare being in close vicinity to the New Delhi Railway Station, and so the blood stains must have got smudged by the continuous pedestrian movement.
25. It was also the argument of learned counsel for the accused that had any alleged incident taken place, the same would have been recorded in the CCTV camera which was installed at hotel near the spot. This argument holds no water. The investigating officer SI Jai Prakash/PW8 had categorically stated that the footage of the CCTV camera was thoroughly checked but no such incident was found recorded therein as the CCTV camera was installed at a point from where the place of incident was not visible.
26. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the injured/PW2 was admittedly a drug addict and he admitted to have injected himself with drugs on the date of the incident and was feeling @ drowsy , therefore it is more than possible that he had accidentally fallen on some sharp object in the khatta and had injured himself. The argument of the learned counsel for the accused is completely devoid of any merit as the injured had very categorically testified that the incident took place near the khatta at place A in Ex.PW8/B and not in the khatta. He also testified that it was accused Dalip @ Munna who had quarreled with him and had stabbed him. The fact of his being assaulted by the accused is also corroborated by the MLC of the injured Ex.PW4/A where it has been mentioned in the alleged history that he was assaulted. His MLC was prepared soon after the incident during the medical examination. The case history (Ex.PW4/B) of the injured reveals that when he was medically examined, he was disoriented and drowsy. He gave his history to the Surgery Casualty wherein he categorically mentioned that he was stabbed by a glass bottle by some one . The case history Ex.PW4/B was prepared during his medical examination and immediately after the incident which is relevant and shows the conduct of the injured which is a very material aspect and has a strong evidenciary value. He had no scope to fabricate and weave stories to implicate the accused. The injured/PW 2 in ordinary course of nature would be the last person being the victim and the person who had suffered such a serious injury to shield the real culprit and falsely implicate the accused Dalip @ Munna. Learned counsel for the accused also raised doubt about the identity of the injured Raju as he is a vagabond and does not have any identification proof. During the testimony of PW 2/injured Raju @ Babu he was asked by this court to show the injuries sustained by him during the incident. The abdominal injury shown by the witness correlated with the injury described in the MLC of Raju @ Babu i.e. Ex.PW4/A. Also, no suggestion was given to the injured Raju @ Babu that he was not Raju @ Babu, the injured but was impersonating as Raju @ Babu.
@
27. Doubts were also raised about the identity of the assailant of Raju @ Babu as PW 2Raju @ Babu in his testimony named his assailant as Akbar. There is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the accused regarding the identity of the accused as, as already mentioned the injured/PW2 had clarified in his testimony that Akbar and Dalip @ Munna was one and the same person.
28. Apart from the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned counsel for the accused, it was also urged that Raj Kumar @ Raju Kabari could not have been the eye witness as, as per the testimony of Raju Kabari /PW5 , he generally used to close his shop by 9/9.30PM and the incident took place at about 12.00 night. Also, his shop was located almost 40 meters away from Kuda Khatta and PW2/injured Raju @ Babu testified that Raju Kabadi /PW5 had not seen the incident. This argument deserves to be outrightly rejected as no question was put to PW5/Raju Kabari as to what time did he close his shop on the day of the incident. Also, no question was put to him regarding the distance between his shop and the place of occurrence. The questions which were put to PW5 in his cross examination were regarding the distance between his shop and Kuda Khatta and not the place of occurrence. It is nobody's case that the incident took place in the khatta. PW 5 very specifically stated in his cross examination that he sits in the direction which is opposite to Kuda Khatta and his shop is located at Tel Mandi Chowk. The site plan Ex.PW8/B clearly demonstrates that the place of occurrence was not NDMC Kuda Khatta but at a place close to Tel Mandi Chowk. So far as the statement of PW2 regarding PW 5 not being an eye witness is concerned, PW2 could not have noticed PW 5 watching the incident as somebody who is involved in the altercation /quarrel would not be concentrating on the persons watching the incident.
@
29. The learned counsel for the accused also pointed towards certain discrepancies in the testimonies of witnesses of investigation regarding the meeting of Raju Kabadi /PW5 in the morning of 19.04.2014 and his role in the arrest of the accused Dalip @ Munna referring to them as major contradictions. In my considered view, the alleged major contradictions can at best be termed as minor discrepancies which do not strike at the root of the prosecution's case. In a case titled as Jugendra Singh Vs State of UP reported in II (2012 )CCR 431 (SC)+IV (2012) SLT 244+II (2012) DLT (Crl.) 794 (SC)+ AIR 2012 SC 2254, it has been observed:
The Court while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal efforts of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. The Court by calling into aid its vast experience of men and matters in different cases must evaluate the entire material on record by excluding the exaggerated version given by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishments to their version perhaps for the fear of their testimony being rejected by the Court. The Courts, however, should not disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogether if they are otherwise trustworthy.
30. Similarly, in a judgment titled as Bharwada Boginbhai Hijribhai Vs State of Gujarat reported as 1983 Criminal Law Journal 1096 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed "The finding of guilt recorded by the Sessions Court as affirmed by the High Court has been challenged mainly on the basis of minor discrepancies in the evidence. We do not consider it appropriate or permissible to enter upon a reappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence in the context of the minor discrepancies painstakingly highlighted by learned counsel for the appellant. Over much importance can not be attached to the minor discrepancies."
31. In the light of the abovesaid discussion, I have no manner of doubt that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable @ doubt. I therefore, hold the accused Dalip @ Munna guilty of the offence U/s 307 IPC and convict him accordingly.
Signed and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on: 8.12.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
@
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Sessions Case No. 113/2014 FIR No. 208/14 P.S. Pahar Ganj Under Section: 307 IPC Unique ID No. 02401R0295222014 State Versus Dalip Shah @ Munna, S/o Sh.Rajeev Shah, R/o Vega Bond New Delhi Railway Station, Permanent Address : VPO Techwara PS Katra District Darbhanga, Bihar ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Convict Dalip Shah @ Munna has been held guilty under Section 307 IPC vide judgment dated 8.12.2014 as he attempted to commit murder of the Raju @ Babu by stabbing him with a broken bottle in his abdomen.
2. I have heard the Learned Amicus Curaie Sh. Rajender Chabra for the convict and the learned APP for the State on the point of sentence.
3. It has been argued by learned defence counsel for convict that lenient view be taken on the point of sentence as convict is in J/c since 20.4.2014. It is further argued by learned amicus curaie that complainant and convict both are drug addicts and the incident in question took place when both i.e. complainant and convict were under the influence of drugs. It is also urged by learned counsel for convict that convict had no intention to commit murder of the complainant as both of them used to pick rags together, sell the same together and used to consume drug @ together. The incident took place at the spur of the moment and the convict had no intention to hurt the complainant. A chance be given to the convict to reform as he has none in his family and is a vagabond.
4. Per contra, it has been urged by the learned APP for the State that there is no scope for leniency as convict Dalip caused fatal injuries on the person of complainant which if not had been treated in time, could have resulted in the death of the complainant.
5. I am in conformity with the contentions of learned Addl. PP for the State as it is proved that the complainant sustained stab injury on his abdomen with his intestines protruding out. He was admitted in the Surgery Unit and exploratory laparotomy ( major abdominal surgery ) was conducted on him.
6. Considering the submissions and the nature of offence, this Court is of the opinion that convict does not deserve any leniency at all . Accordingly convict is sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years. However, considering the fact that convict is in J/c since 20.4.2014, benefit of Section 428Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. Warrants be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.
Signed and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on 14.1.2015 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts:
Delhi
@