Delhi District Court
State vs Rohit on 11 October, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01)
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 246/2017 CNR No. DLCT01-004839-2017
FIR No. 153/2013
U/Sec. 308 IPC
P.S. Gulabi Bagh
STATE VERSUS ROHIT
(i) SC No. of the case : 246/2017
(ii) Date of commission of offence : 03.12.2013
(iii) Name, parentage and address : Rohit
of accused S/o Sh. Rajbir
R/o H.No. 10664
Gali No. 8, Andha
Mugal, Delhi
(iv) Offence complained of : 308 IPC
(v) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(vi) Final order : Accused Rohit is
convicted for the
offence U/sec. 308
IPC
(vii) Date of such order : 11.10.2023
Date of Institution : 27.03.2017
Date of Judgment reserved on : 21.09.2023
Date of Judgment : 11.10.2023
SC No. 246/17
FIR No. 153/2013
State Vs. Rohit Page 1 of 25
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION :-
1. FIR in the present matter was registered on the complaint of Sh. Mintu Deka dated 04.12.2013 who was returning from his office at Gurugram on company vehicle No.HR-55NT-1805 make Innova towards his residence at GTB Nagar, Delhi. His colleagues Divanshu, Vishal & one guard Sh. Rajesh were also sitting in the cab and the cab was driven by Sh. Chiranjilal. The guard was sitting by the side of driver in the front in the passenger seat. Sh.
Divanshu was sitting in the middle seat, on the back seat on left side Sh. Vishal was sitting and on the right side the complainant Sh. Mintu Deka was sitting. When the cab was running then on 03.12.2013 at about 11:45 pm near Road No.40, Pratap Nagar Delhi near Pillar No.114, a person standing on left side had thrown a stone on the vehicle which entered from the last window on the left side and hit the complainant on left side of his head. The stone had also broken the backside mirror and passed through it. Blood started coming out from the head of the complainant. Police person was present near the spot who on complaint had immediately caught the accused Rohit. On the said complaint DD No.59B dated SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 2 of 25 03.12.2013 was registered. The DD No.59B was marked to PW-7 who alongwith PW-8 Ct. Mohan Lal went to the spot. From there he went to NKS Hospital where he found the Innova car parked with left side glass window in broken condition and a stone of size- 3"x3" was produced by the driver Sh. Chiranjilal which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A with the seal of PK. PW-7 had collected MLC of the complainant/ injured who was found fit for statement. The exhibits were handed over to IO by Doctor which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. A Rukka Ex.PW7/D was sent on the statement of injured Sh. Mintu Deka vide Ex.PW7/C. PW-8 got the FIR registered and came back on the spot. FIR and original Rukka was handed over to PW-9 to whom investigation was marked. PW- 9 had arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW8/A and also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW8/B. The piece of stone is Ex.P-1 which is correctly identified by PW-7 & PW-8. It is noted that the MLC No.228 was prepared by PW-3 which is marked as Ex.P-1 and thereby to avoid duplication of numbering of exhibits the MLC be read as Ex.P-2. PW-4 the driver had also identified the piece of stone as Ex.P-1.
2. PW-8 Ct. Mohan Lal after getting the FIR registered came back at spot and handed over copy of FIR and Rukka to SI Vimal Dutt -
SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 3 of 25PW-9. HC Om Prakash had produced accused Rohit. The rough site plan is Ex.PW9/A which was prepared at the instance of PW-5 Vishal. The injured shifted from NKS Hospital to Paras Hospital Gurugram. IO did not seize the Innova cab which was not mechanically inspected. The broken pieces of glass were also not seized and photographs of the cab were also not obtained by the IO. PW-11 had proved depositing of the case property in malkhana on 04.12.2013 duly sealed with the seal of PK. Register No.19 as Ex.PW11/A is produced. The entry at Sr. No.2099 is proved where one sealed parcel was deposited with the seal of PK. Two parcels were deposited with the seal of NKS Hospital.
3. Charge was framed against the accused on 20.09.2017 under Section 308 IPC to which the accused had pleaded not guilty.
4. PW-1 is ASI Shakil Ahmed who is Duty Officer and had registered FIR on Rukka produced by Ct. Mohan Lal. After registration of the FIR he gave FIR and copy of Tehrir to Ct. Mohan Lal. Copy of FIR is Ex.PW1/A and endorsement of Tehrir is Ex.PW1/B. A certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding computerized registration of FIR is Ex.PW1/C. SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 4 of 25
5. Prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-12 as evidence of prosecution. The statement of accused is recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC where he has alleged false implication. The accused has not led any evidence in defence.
6. To prove the offence the prosecution is required to establish the ingredients laid down under Section 308 IPC at para No.19 of citation titled Bali v. State Through Government of NCT CRL.A.36/2021. The relevant para 19 is reproduced hereasunder:
"19. A bare reading of Section 308 IPC would show that to prove the commission of an offence thereunder, two ingredients are required to be established:
(i) that an act was committed, and
(ii) that the act was committed with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if death was caused by the act, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder."
7. Hence the prosecution has to prove as under:
1. The accused has committed a wrongful act.
2. Such wrong act was carried/committed out with such an intention or knowledge if death was caused by such an act.
3. The act was committed under such circumstances SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 5 of 25 that, if death was caused by the act, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
8. Hence the first ingredient the prosecution is required to prove is that the accused has committed a wrongful act. The injured has deposed as PW-10/Sh. Mintu Deka. It is deposed that on 13.12.2013 when he was returning from office in Innova cab HR- NT-1805 with his other colleagues, one guard Sh. Ramesh and a driver then around 11:15 pm near pillar no. 114, road no. 40, Partap Nagar the accused Rohit had thrown a stone on the cab which hit the victim on the left side which broke the glass window of the cab and hit PW-10 on left side of head. The victim was sitting on last seat on the right side. Blood started coming out from the head of PW-10. The driver immediately stopped the car. Near the spot there was a police barricade where two police officials were present. The accused was apprehended by the police officials. The fracture was suffered on the left side of scalp and the statement given by PW-10 is Ex.PW7/C. It is deposed by the PW-10 that he has seen the accused at the spot and also while he was throwing stone on the cab. It is deposed in cross-examination that he could not save himself as the incident had taken place suddenly. It was not a brick and it was a stone of fistful size. He came to know about the stone SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 6 of 25 from his colleagues and he did not see the stone. The accused was standing on the side of the road. Accused was alone at that time after being hit the PW-10 could not tell that the accused kept standing or ran away as PW-10 had became unconscious. Hence PW-10 has deposed that he had seen the accused throwing the stone. PW-10 had not seen the stone immediately after he got hit by the stone as PW-10 became unconscious. Therefore it can be concluded that PW-10 has not seen the size of stone with which he was hit. However PW-10 has seen the accused while he was throwing the stone from which he could not save himself as the incident has occurred suddenly.
9. PW-2 is security guard of the Innova cab who has deposed that he was present in the cab with cab driver, one female staff with three male staff. Hence six persons were travelling in the said Innova cab. Near metro pillar no. 114 Maharana Pratap Bagh suddenly one person threw a stone on the vehicle which hit PW-10 on his head and blood starting coming from the head. The driver/PW4 ran towards the barricade and called the police officials who immediately apprehended the accused person who had thrown the stone. It appeared that the said person had consumed some drug. The PW-2 has correctly identified the accused before the SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 7 of 25 present Court who had thrown the stone and apprehended by the police official at the spot. PW-2 has not seen the accused picking up the stone and throwing the same on the cab. However PW-2 has seen immediately after the hitting of the stone by the accused on PW10 that the accused Rohit was running away in gali which was dark. There was no other person on the road. The accused Rohit was alone who was wearing a jeans pant and there was no cloth on the top portion on the body of the accused. The rear glass of the cab was broken. It is deposed that there was no construction or building material lying on the road at the time of incident. Hence PW-2 had proved that immediately after the alleged incident he had seen the accused at the spot running away towards the dark gali. He has correctly identified the accused who was not wearing anything on upper part of body and there was no construction or building material lying nearby. It is suggested to PW-2 that accused was intoxicated under influence of drug therefore he was wrongly apprehended by the police. Hence the presence of accused at the spot of incident is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is also proved on record that the accused was under
influence of some drug and accused had seen police at that time which was nearby from whom accused started running.SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 8 of 25
10. PW-4 has correctly identified the accused Rohit before the Court who had seen the accused throwing stone on the cab. The said stone had broken the glass of left back side of the car which hit PW-10. Due to such hitting of stone the PW-10 started bleeding from his head. PW-4 had stopped the car there itself and the nearby police official had managed to apprehend the accused Rohit at the spot. PW-4 had handed over the piece of said stone/brick piece to the IO and the IO recorded the statement of PW-4 in this regard. The piece of stone is correctly identified by PW-4 as Ex.P-1 as the same stone which was thrown by the accused towards the car and struck the head of PW-10. PW-4 does not remember that from which hand the accused has thrown the stone towards the car. However it was thrown from the left side. It was admitted that there was no enmity between the person travelling in the cab and the accused. It has become doubtful that PW-4 has seen the accused throwing the stone as he does not remember that from which hand it was thrown. However the accused was the only person present at the spot who was immediately apprehended by the police present at the spot. It is not the case of defence that there was any other premises nearby or construction activity from which such stone could have come by such angle to cause injury to PW-10. PW-5 is one of the occupant at the time of incident in the Innova cab. He SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 9 of 25 was sitting with PW-10 on the last seat around 11:15 pm. The accused present in the Court is correctly identified by PW-5 who had thrown one stone on the cab which had broken the glass of left back side of the car which hit PW-10. PW-10 started bleeding. PW- 5 had raised alarm alongwith other occupants on which police official apprehended the accused who was standing in the adjoining gali on pointing out by them. It is admitted as correct by PW-5 that he had seen the accused Rohit throwing the stone towards the car. It is admitted as correct that accused was standing at the spot and he did not attempt to run away.
11. The accused has not led any evidence in defence. In his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr. PC the accused has stated that he was under influence of liquor and he does not know who had committed the offence. However PW5 has sufficiently proved on record that he had seen the accused Rohit throwing the stone towards their Innova cab which hit the PW-10 on that day. PW-2 had also seen the accused while he was throwing the stone though he could not see the stone for the reason that the incident was sudden. PW5 has proved that accused has thrown stone on the innova cab. The joint reading of evidence of PW-2, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 who was on picket duty near the spot on the date of incident has sufficiently SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 10 of 25 proved that the accused was seen and arrested immediately thereafter from the spot on the date of throwing of stone on 03.12.2013 at about 11:15 pm. The FIR Ex.PW1/A was registered on 04.12.2013 at PS Gulabi Bagh and the information was received at PS at 2:15 am and the time of occurrence of incident is 23:15 pm on 03.12.2013 and within a span of 3 hrs. the FIR was registered and there is no delay in recording the FIR. There is no reason with the accused to remain present at the spot at 11:15 pm at the night. The injured, the police witness and the occupant of the Innova cab had no enmity with the accused and they are unrelated to each other and there is no reason to implicate the accused falsely. No other person than accused was seen at the spot immediately after the throwing of the stone on the Innova cab. The PW-10 was sitting on the right side of the cab and on his left side his colleague was sitting. Hence there is no possibility that a stone had fallen from above which could have hit the person sitting on the window side. In fact the stone has entered from left side and hit PW-10 sitting on the right side window which is possible when the stone is thrown perpendicularly towards PW10. The above facts has conclusively proved that the accused Rohit has thrown the stone at the Innova cab on 03.12.2013. Hence first ingredient of the offence is complete and is conclusively proved by the prosecution against the SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 11 of 25 accused.
12. The second ingredient which prosecution is required to prove is that such wrong act was carried/committed out with such an intention or knowledge if death was caused by such an act. It is settled law that whether injury suffered or not by the victim is not sufficient to bring home the guilt u/Sec. 308 IPC. What is essentially required to be proved is that accused has intention or knowledge in that by such act if death was caused then accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is admitted fact between the parties that they are not related to each other and there was no enmity between them. PW-3 is Dr. Abhishek Kumar has proved MLC no. 228 Ex.P-1 and he had found that the victim PW10 has suffered CLW over temporal reason having size of 5x3 cm. Blood stained clothes of the victim were also seized and the patient was referred to surgery department. PW-12 is Dr. Rahul Jain, Consultant Neurosurgeon who has proved certificate Ex.PW12/A regarding nature of head injury examined by him. The certificate is dated 05.03.2014. PW-12 has deposed that PW-10 was admitted in hospital on 04.12.2013 with head injury. The nature of injury are stated to be grievous and copy of test report is Ex.PW12/D. The discharge summary of PW-10 is Ex.PW12/C. The SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 12 of 25 patient was found fit for statement vide Ex.PX-1 the MLC no. 223.
13. The size of the stone is proved in Ex.PW7/D and the size is recorded as 3"x3" as per the case of the prosecution. PW-12 has deposed that the nature of injury was minimal depressed fracture on left parietal bone with over lying scalp oedema. The victim was discharged in stable condition on 15.12.2013 who was admitted in the hospital on 04.12.2013. The certificate of the injury is Ex.PW12/A dated 05.03.2014. As per CT report the nature of injury was grievous. The opinion as nature of injury given by PW-12 is grievous on the basis of reports including photocopy of NCCT brain report. However the injured was recorded fit for statement in MLC no. 223 vide Ex.PX-1. The discharge summary is Ex.PW12/C. A stone of the size 3inch x 3inch as argued by the prosecution is a heavy stone. It is not challenged by the defence that this stone cannot cause injury of the nature deposed by PW-12. The intention of the accused is not proved to cause such injury. However the knowledge of such injury can be safely attributed to the accused that the stone of such size can cause injury to the person who is hit by the same. The Doctor/PW-12 has given sufficient reason that the nature of injury was grievous. It cannot be said that the accused had wanted to cause injury to PW-10 only as SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 13 of 25 there was no acquaintance between the parties. PW-10 has not deposed that the injury was likely to cause death nor it is deposed that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. However keeping in view the nature of injury proved on record by PW-12 the necessary knowledge of the accused to such fact could be attributed. It is settled law u/Sec. 308 IPC that it is not the nature of injury actually caused of much relevance and it may be a case when the injury may or may not be caused and the necessary circumstances making a knowledge in the accused has to be seen. The relevant para 3 and 4 of citation titled Sunil Kumar v. N.C.T. of Delhi (1998) 8 SCC 557; 1998 SCC (Cri) 1522 in this regard is reproduced hereasunder:
3. The dispute is between the tenants and the landlords of a premises in Delhi. On 27-9-1992, there was a clash between the two sides. Both sides allegedly were injured. The landlords are the accused in the instant case. Sunil Kumar is the victim of the crime. After the matter was reported to the police, his medico-legal examination was conducted by the doctor-in-charge, who after enumerating the injuries opined them to be grievous. Dr. Dabbas, whom we have summoned today to explain the medico-legal report, was the doctor who supervised and endorsed the report. According to him, the injuries have been termed grievous because two of them were lacerated wounds and one was a haematoma and since the blows were aimed at the head, they had endangered life. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was committed had framed charges against the respondents under Sections 308/34 IPC, the gravamen of the charge being that an attempt to cause culpable homicide not amounting to SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 14 of 25 murder had been made. Whether the injury was grievous or simple deserved a back seat in face of the charge under Sections 308/34 IPC. Yet the High Court when approached in its revisional power under Section 439 of the CrPC quashed the charge in finding room in the medico-legal report to opine that the injuries were simple. The High Court observed as follows:
"I have perused the FIR as well as the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the police. No person including the complainant has made any allegation in their statements that injuries were inflicted by the petitioners with an intention to cause their death. As already mentioned above, in order to constitute an offence under Section 308, not only it should be proved that the act was committed by the accused but it was committed with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that offence was committed under such circumstances if the accused by that act had caused death he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. Therefore, the most important circumstance in a case under Section 308 would be that an act should have been committed with intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The injuries sustained by the complainant are not such that could in any manner result in the death of the injured persons. The injuries were caused by a blunt object and it was oneanda halfinch lacerated wound in the scalp. The doctor who examined the complainant had opined that there was no evidence of head injuries and it did not even require hospitalisation and he was asked to attend the OPD the next date. The word 'grievous' against the injuries has been written and had not given any opinion about his alleged head injuries. Merely because an injury has SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 15 of 25 been found on the head, it cannot be said that such an injury was caused with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The evidence and circumstances of the case otherwise show that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the accused to cause such injuries which would have resulted in the death of the complainant as a result of which they would have been guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The fact that the petitioners have also been injured and a case under Section 324 IPC has been registered against the complainant clearly shows that it was a scuffle between two parties without any intention on either side to cause injuries which might result in the death of the accused. The material before the Additional Sessions Judge, in my view, was not such which could give rise to grave suspicion against the petitioners of their having the intention or knowledge to cause such an injury that had the death been caused, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners could not have been charged for an offence punishable under Sections 308/34 IPC."
4. The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under Section 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. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out under Sections 323 and 324 and for grievous hurts SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 16 of 25 under Sections 325 and 326 IPC. Qualitatively, these offences are different. The High Court was thus not well advised to take the view as aforeextracted to bring down the offence to be under Sections 323/34 IPC and then in turn to hold that since that offence was investigated by the police without permission of the magistrate, the proceedings under that provision be quashed. For the view aforetaken as to the commission of the offence under Sections 308/34 IPC, it is not necessary to dwell on the correctness of the second part of the order relating to quashing of proceedings under Sections 323/34 IPC. Thus, the entire order of the High Court deserves to be and is hereby quashed, restoring the status quo ante of the trial remaining with the Additional Sessions Judge to proceed in accordance with law.
14. In the present case the said stone was hit with such a force that not only it had broken the glass of the Innova cab but it had continued to enter the cab and hit the left side of head and caused injury of the grievous nature on PW-10. Therefore the force with which the stone was thrown sufficiently indicate and knowledge is attributed to the accused that had such stone hit a person then it may cause injury of such a nature which can cause death. The fracture was of left parietal bone and there was minimal depression on the bone. It shows that the upper part of the skin and muscle of the head had been pierced through and depression of the left parietal bone was caused with over lying scalp oedema. The nature SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 17 of 25 of injury has proved that with what force the stone was thrown and which was capable of endangering life and which was likely to cause death. The injury was dangerous to life. It was held in 1991 UP CRI 301 (All) which is reproduced in Volume 38, 6th Edition, the AIR Manual Civil and Criminal by Manohar & Chitaley at page no. 632 under the heading no. 3-Appreciation of Evidence at Serial No. (31) that the injured had received many fractures one of which were was on parietal bones. There was sufficient medical evidence that the head injury was likely to cause death and conviction of accused u/Sec. 308 IPC was confirmed.
15. In the present case the accused has hit the injured with a stone of size 3inch x 3inch who had such knowledge under the circumstance that it was night time and the victim may or may not be able to protect himself. The force of the stone was such that not only it had broken the glass of the cab but also the skull of PW-10. Even when intention could not be attributed to the accused, however, knowledge is sufficiently attributed to the accused that his such act could cause death of the victim of which he would be liable of charge of commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The stone of such size comes under the category of weapon of offence u/Sec. 324 IPC and thereby caused grievous hurt SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 18 of 25 under Section 320 IPC Clause Seventhly by causing fracture of the bone on the head. When accused was throwing stone then he was knowing that this stone was going to hit largely on the head of the victim and which was so caused. Hence the prosecution has successfully proved on record the knowledge with the accused that by such carrying out of wrongful act of throwing of stone on the cab by the accused then if death could be caused by such act.
16. The last ingredient the prosecution has to prove on record is that the act was committed under such circumstances that, if death was caused by the act, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The circumstances of the case are that the victim was unaware that the accused was going to hit them at around 11:15 pm in the night. The stone was thrown suddenly at such a great force that it had caused fracture on the head of PW-10. The nature of injury are found grievous and proved on record in the deposition of PW-10 read with deposition of PW-12. The victim had to remain in hospital from 04.12.2013 till 15.12.2013 for a period of about 12 days. It is already discussed above in view of citation titled 1991 UP CRI 301 (All) (supra) that the head injury on the parietal bone was likely to cause death. The accused has caused the injury voluntarily and no circumstance has SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 19 of 25 come on record which could have provoked the accused to commit such act. Hence the act of accused was unprovoked and without any interference from external circumstance. Hence if death was caused by such act of the accused then the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The relevant citation titled Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu v. State of Uttrakhand and Ors. 2012 (79) ALLCC 567 in Crl. Appeal No. 41 of 2012 dated 19.06.2012 at relevant para no. 7 is reproduced hereasunder:
7) Statements of the above three eyewitnesses read with the injury report quoted above, and the reply given by the accused/appellant Bachan Singh Thapa@ Pappu under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, it is undoubtedly proved on record that the injuries quoted above were caused by the accused Bachan Singh Thapa on the head of his father Guman Singh. There does not appear to be intention on the part of the accused to commit murder of his father, but the blows given with brick could have caused death of his father and he would have been guilty of charge of commission of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. On re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, this Court is in complete agreement with the trial court that the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of offence punishable under Section 308 of I.P.C, against the accused Bachan Singh Thapa @ Pappu. There is no scope of interference with the order of conviction. Therefore, the appeal on the count of conviction is liable to be dismissed. However, considering the fact that the accused is in jail for last more than one and half years, and further the fact that he had no intention to kill his father, this Court thinks SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 20 of 25 just and proper to reduce the sentence of imprisonment from two years to rigorous imprisonment for a period he has already undergone (more than one and half years). The direction to pay fine is not required to be interfered with.
17. The accused has pleaded in his statement u/Sec. 313 Cr.PC that he was under influence of liquor and which is a defence made by the accused to which no evidence is led to prove the degree of intoxication caused to the accused to ascertain the nature of intoxication. Hence the accused has failed to prove availability of defence of intoxication to him.
18. In view of above the accused is held guilty and convicted u/Sec. 308 IPC of having caused injury to PW-10 on 03.12.2013 at about 11:15 pm at Road no. 40, near metro pillar no. 114 Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
19. On conviction of the accused following directions are issued as under:
(1) The accused who is convicted is directed to file affidavit of all his assets and income in the format of Annexure-A within 10 days following the date of his conviction with spare copy for supply to the DSLSA.SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 21 of 25
(2) The State through Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor is directed to disclose the expenses incurred on prosecution on affidavit alongwith the supporting documents within 30 days from following the date of conviction of the accused. (3) The Summary Inquiry Report/Victim Impact Report with recommendation is requested from DSLSA within 30 days from following the date of supply of copy of judgment and affidavit of assets and income of the accused in the format of Annexure-A.
20. The above directions are given in compliance of direction from Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Karan v. State NCT of Delhi in Criminal Appeal No. 352/2020 dated 27.11.2020 and the relevant para no. 171 to 180 are reproduced hereasunder for ready reference:
171. A summary inquiry is necessary to ascertain the impact of crime on the victim, the expenses incurred on prosecution as well as the paying capacity of the accused.
172. This Court is of the view that the summary inquiry be conducted by Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) considering that DSLSA is conducting similar inquiry under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018 and is well conversant with the manner of conducting the inquiry.
173. After the conviction of the accused, the Trial SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 22 of 25 Court shall direct the accused to file the affidavit of his assets and income in the format of Annexure-A within 10 days.
174. After the conviction of the accused, the Court shall also direct the State to disclose the expenses incurred on prosecution on affidavit along with the supporting documents within 30 days.
175. Upon receipt of the affidavit of the accused, the Trial Court shall immediately send the copy of the judgment and the affidavit of the accused in the format of Annexure-A and the documents filed with the affidavit to DSLSA.
176. Upon receipt of the judgment and the affidavit of the accused, DSLSA shall conduct a summary inquiry to compute the loss suffered by the victims and the paying capacity of the accused and shall submit the Victim Impact Report containing their recommendations to the Court within 30 days. Delhi State Legal Services Authority shall seek the necessary assistance in conducting the inquiry from SDM concerned, SHO concerned and/or prosecution who shall provide the necessary assistance upon being requested.
177. The Trial Court shall thereafter consider the Victim Impact Report of the DSLSA with respect to the impact of crime on the victims, paying capacity of the accused and expenditure incurred on the prosecution; and after hearing the parties including the victims of crime, the Court shall award the compensation to the victim(s) and cost of prosecution to the State, if the accused has the capacity to pay the same. The Court shall direct the accused to deposit the compensation with DSLSA whereupon DSLSA shall disburse the amount to the victims according to SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 23 of 25 their Scheme.
178. If the accused does not have the capacity to pay the compensation or the compensation awarded against the accused is not adequate for rehabilitation of the victim, the Court shall invoke Section 357A CrPC to recommend the case to the Delhi State Legal Services Authority for award of compensation from the Victim Compensation Fund under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018.
179. In pending appeals/revisions against the order on sentence in which Section 357 CrPC has not been complied with, the Public Prosecutor shall file an application seeking a direction from the Court for directing the accused to file his affidavit of assets and income in the format of Annexure- A and directions to DSLSA to conduct a summary inquiry to ascertain the loss/damage suffered by the victim(s) and the paying capacity of the accused in the format of Annexures-
B/B-1 in terms of Sections 357(4) CrPC in accordance with procedure mentioned hereinabove.
180. All the Courts below shall send a monthly statement to the Registrar General of this Court containing the list of cases decided each month. The list shall contain the name and particulars of the case; date of conviction; whether affidavit of assets and income has been filed by the accused; whether summary inquiry has been conducted to assess the compensation and determine the paying capacity of the accused; and compensation amount awarded. The monthly statement shall also contain one page summary format of the above information. The first monthly report for the period 01st January, 2021 to 31 st January, 2021 be submitted by 15 th February, 2021 and thereafter, by 15 th of each English calendar month. The Registrar General of this Court shall place these reports before SC No. 246/17 FIR No. 153/2013 State Vs. Rohit Page 24 of 25 ACR Committee of the Judicial Officers.
Ahlmad is directed to send the income affidavit of the convict alongwith the copy of this judgment to the DSLSA, Central, Tis Hazari Court, immediately on receipt of the same.
Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 22.12.2023.
Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the convict.
Announced in the open Court
on 11.10.2023. JOGINDER Digitally signed by JOGINDER
PRAKASH NAHAR
PRAKASH Date: 2023.10.11 15:16:39
NAHAR +0530
(JOGINDER PRAKASH NAHAR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-01)
CENTRAL/TIS HAZARI COURT
DELHI
SC No. 246/17
FIR No. 153/2013
State Vs. Rohit Page 25 of 25