Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Kumar on 4 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Ravi Kumar
FIR No.1009/04
U/s : 325/34 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 25.06.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 21.09.2013
Date of judgment : 04.10.2013
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 1009/04 2.Date of the Commission : 17.11.2004 of the offence
3.Name of the accused : 1. Ravi Kr. Taneja s/o Sh. Subhash : Chand Taneja r/o H. No. 12-B, Ist floor, : Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
: 2. Ashvani Kr. Taneja s/o Sh. Subhash
: Chand Taneja, r/o H. No. 24/716, 718
: DDA Flat, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Subhash Chand Taneja s/o Late Sh.
: Moti Ram, r/o H. No. 716 & 718, Gali
: no. 24, DDA Flat, Malviya Nagar, New
: Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 325/34 IPC
State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 1/17
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted
BRIEF FACT
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2004 at about 3.00pm at shop No. 74, Khoka Market, Pushp Vihar, Sector 1, New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, both accused persons namely Ravi Kr. Taneja and Ashwani Kr. Taneja in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant Sh. Subhash Chand Taneja and thereby committed offence punishable under section 325/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant namely Subhash Chand Taneja, an FIR bearing number 1009/04 under section 325/34 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 25.06.2005.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 325/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Ravi Kr. Taneja and Ashwani Kr. Taneja and read out to the said accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 15.12.2007.
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
Appreciation of Evidence
6. PW-1 Sh. Subhash Chand was examined on 23.08.2008 and State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 2/17 deposed that he was running STD and General Store at shop no. 74, Khoka Market, Pushp Vihar. He further deposed that on 17.11.2004 he was sitting on his seat in his shop, at about 3.00pm both the accused persons Ravi Kr. Taneja and Ashwani Kr. Taneja present in the court came to him and asked to handover the key of the cash box and the key of the shop. On this, he refused to hand over the same and he said that where will I go if I will hand over the key to you. At this his elder son namely Ravi Kr. Taneja said to his younger son Ashwani Kr. Taneja that "Pakad lo Sala Ko". He further deposed that Ashwani Kr. Taneja caught hold his hand and both accused persons started beating him mercilessly with fist. His two bottom teeth were broken (same are still missing) and his mouth was bleeding due to the beating by accused persons. He fell down on the road. By that time his wife also came to the shop and she made a call at 100 number and PCR van came at the spot and local police also came at the spot. The police first took him to PP Pushp Vihar and thereafter police took him to AIIMS Hospital. His statement was recorded by the police at hospital which is Ex. PW-1/A. On next day he accompanied the police to the spot and site plan was prepared at his instance. Police arrested the accused persons.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons wherein he stated that the accused persons are his sons and he does not know where his sons were residing at the time of incident. He further stated that his elder son Ravi Kr. Taneja was not residing with him after 3-4 months of his marriage and his son left him because his wife provoked him. He further deposed that the shop no. 74, Khoka Market, Pushp vihar was his only source of income and the khoka market was no more existence for the last two years as the same had been demolished being an authorized. He also used to get rent from his properties. He further State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 3/17 deposed that nobody was present at the shop at the time of incident and he was shouting but no one came at the place of incident. He denied the suggestion that he was doing nothing at the time of incident, he was in a bad habit, he used to snatch money, earned by his younger son Ashwani and his wife who used to sit on the shop. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, he again attacked his son and wife to snatch the money from the shop and he gave severe beating to them. He denied the suggestion that his wife called his elder son at the place of incident and in a fit of fury he also gave beating to his elder son. He denied the suggestion that he had broken his tooth in order to manipulate and to implicate his sons. He further stated that prior to the incident no quarrel or incident of assault or any dispute took place between him and his sons. He further stated that his sons gave him beatings because they were demanding share in the property owned by him. He denied the suggestion that because of his bad behaviour and his bad habits his family members had left him. Vol. his wife left him because she was pressuring him to withdraw the case against the accused persons and he gave a complaint in this regard to the police. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and out of frustration implicated his sons in the present case.
8. PW-2 Smt. Ramesh Kumari being the wife of the complainant was examined on 12.11.2008 and deposed that she does not remember the date and year but it was about 4 years ago. She further deposed that on the day of incident injured/her husband Subhash Chand came to his shop where she was present along with her son Ashwani Kumar and her husband asked for money for which they refused to give and he started beating them. She made a call to the police. Her husband himself broke his tooth.
9. As this witness was resiling from her earlier statement, she was State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 4/17 cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein she stated that she does not remember whether police recorded her statement or not. She further stated that she did not tell to the police that on 18.11.2004 at about 3.00pm when she reached at her shop in the area of Sector 1, Khoka Market where she saw her husband was beaten by her sons and blood was oozing from the mouth of her husband and she made the call to the police in this regard (confronted with the statement mark A which is recorded). She denied the suggestion that being the mother of the accused persons she was deposing falsely in order to save the accused persons. Vol. she stated that her sons did not beat her husband and her husband ruined his life and he had bad character.
10. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons wherein she stated that she was present at the time of incident on the spot. She further stated that the accused persons have not caused any injury or assault on Subhash Chand Taneja.
11. PW-3 HC Ram Hate was examined on 12.11.2008 and deposed that on 17.11.04 he was posted as DO at PS Malviya Nagar and he proved the FIR Ex. PW-3/A and endorsement on the basis of rukka Ex. PW-3/B (OSR).
12. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons wherein he denied the suggestion that he recorded the FIR at the instance of the IO or that Ct. Anil Kumar came from nowhere and he was present at the PS. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
13. PW-4 Ct. Anil Kumar was examined on 08.12.2010 and deposed that on 18.11.04 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day he along with IO had gone to Khoka Market where they found PCR van State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 5/17 and complainant Subhash who told that he had been beaten by Ashwani Kumar and Ravi Kumar who were also present at the spot. Medical examination of accused persons was got done. IO had recorded the statement of Subhash and prepared Tehrir and he got the case registered. Both the accused persons were arrested and their personal search were also conducted vide memos Ex. PW-4/A to PW-4/D.
14. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons wherein he stated that the he along with IO were on patrolling in Pushp Vihar area when they got the PCR call regarding incident. He further deposed that the distance between the place where they received the call and the spot was around half kilometer. The call was received around 3.00pm. They reached at the spot within 5-10 minutes. He further deposed that the public persons were moving through the spot and shops were opened. He further deposed that he does not remember whether the IO had asked from other public persons to join investigation or not. He further deposed that he cannot tell whether the call of the PCR was being made by mother of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the investigation or that the accused persons have been falsely implicated or that he signed the documents at the PS at the instance of the IO.
15. PW-5 SI Dharampal was examined on 16.10.2012 and deposed that on 17.11.04 he was posted at PP Pushp Vihar, PS Malviya Nagar and on receipt of DD no. 10-A he along with Ct. Anil went to spot i.e. Khoka Market where complainant Subhash and the accused persons present in the court met him. He further deposed that he along with both the accused and the complainant went to AIIMS Hospital for medical examination and after the medical examination they again came back to the State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 6/17 spot where he recorded the statement of the complainant Subhash Chand which is Ex. PW-1/A. Thereafter he prepared a Tehrir vide Ex. PW-5/A and got the case registered through Ct. Anil and Ct. Anil came back to the spot after the registration of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to him. Site plan was prepared at the instance of complainant Subhash which is Ex. PW-5/B. Thereafter on 18.11.04 both the accused persons present in the court were arrested and their arrest memo and personal search memo were prepared by him vide memo Ex. PW-4/A, B, C and D respectively. All the memos bears his signature at point A. Both the accused persons were released on bail. Thereafter the MLC of injured were obtained from the hospital in which doctor opined the injury as grievous. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of formal investigation challan was presented before court through SHO concerned.
16. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defece counsel for both the accused persons wherein he stated that MLC of the injured was obtained from the hospital on the same day and he had obtained the MLC of all the three persons i.e. two accused and one injured. He further deposed that in the challan he had placed on record only one MLC. He further deposed that he had not got conducted the MLC of the accused persons. After going through the file it was revealed by the IO that on the date of incident only the MLC of injured/complainant Subhash was done at the hospital and application was moved before the CMO, AIIMS Hospital with regard to the conducting the medical of the injured Subhash only. The application of medical examination is Ex. D-5/A. When he reached the spot he met two accused, complainant and one wife of the complainant who also happens to be mother of the accused persons. At that time, only complainant was found injured at the spot by him. He had gone to the State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 7/17 hospital at later hours and not at the time when the accused and injured were sent for MLC from the spot. Vol. he had not sent accused persons for MLC. He further deposed that Ct Anil had accompanied the injured to the hospital whereas the accused persons were taken in his custody at the spot itself. He denied the suggestion that he had conducted a faulty investigation and he never went at the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately make Subhash Chander as complainant as he had been won over by him. He denied the suggestion that in fact accused and their mother were the complainant in this case. He denied the suggestion that complainant Subhash Chander was the accused in the case. He denied the suggestion that he had deliberately concealed the important fact and evidence during the investigation causing prejudice to the present accused persons. He further deposed that he had taken both the accused persons to the hospital for MLC. Only one MLC was prepared by the doctor, regarding the complainant and it was noted on his application that no MLC qua the accused persons was required to be conducted. No such application had been placed on a judicial file however the same was on the police file. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally not placed the MLC qua the accused Ashwani. Confronted with Ex. PW-6/D1 it is stated by the witness that the same was not MLC of accused Ashwani. He further states that Ex. PW-6/D1 was only a Parcha prepared by doctor. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons had been falsely implicated without conducting any investigation by him. He further denied the suggestion that no name was mentioned at serial no. 2 of the list of witnesses. It was written in his hand writing before filing of challan. He further denied the suggestion that the State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 8/17 name had been written by Ld. APP at the time of examination of the witnesses, PW-2. He met the complainant as well as both the accused persons at the spot. He remained for about 3 hours in total at different intervals at the spot of incident. He reached the spot for the first time at 5.00pm and remained till 5.30pm. Thereafter, he again went to the spot at about 8.30pm and remained there till 10.30pm. He did not meet any public persons during the above mentioned intervals at the spot of the incident and no one else reached the spot. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
17. PW-6 Dr. Gyan was examined on 16.10.2012 and deposed that he was working with AIIMS Hospital in the year 2004 as Assistant CMO of the Hospital of emergency ward. He further deposed that on 17.11.04 he had prepared the MLC of Subhash Chand vide MLC no. 1382221/04. The local examination of patient shows two broken tooth of lower jaw and one loose tooth. The result of injury was grievous in nature. The detailed report of MLC prepared by him is Ex. PW-6/A (objected to) which bears his name at point A.
18. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defece counsel for both the accused persons wherein he admitted that the MLC does not bear his signature but he stated voluntarily that the same is prepared in his hand writing and bears his name and he authenticated that it has been prepared by him in the course of his duty (he further submitted that on account of heavy work load the MLC may remain unsigned with only names of the doctors written on them). He further stated that he worked in AIIMS hospital only in the year 2004. Thereafter he was employed with a private company. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-6/A was a manipulated document and was not prepared during the discharge of official duty at AIIMS. He further State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 9/17 deposed that MLC was prepared in a computerized form. Vol. he stated that the MLC Ex. PW-6/A was a general format which was filled up during the course of his duties. Further the witness had examined Ex. PW-6/A and after going through the same stated that MLC case was not written in the said Ex. PW-6/A. He denied the suggestion that the various hand writings on MLC Ex PW-6/A were written with different pens. He further admitted that the nature of injuries written grievous, marked simple and encircled grievous on MLC Ex. PW-6/A were not in his hand writing. Vol. He further deposed that he does not know who has written grievous. He further deposed that portion from A to A in the MLC Ex PW-6/A was a carbon copy and stated that probably original may be in a book from which this sheet Ex. PW-6/A was taken out, however, he could not say surely about the same. He further deposed that Ex. PW-6/D-1 was in his hand writing. He further deposed that the portion from A to A in Ex. PW-6/D-2 was in his hand writing.
19. At this stage, this witness was cross examined by Ld. APP for state wherein he stated that Ex. PW-6/D-1 bears the name of Dr. Ajay and it does not bear his name. Vol. the back side Ex. PW-6/D-1 has been written by senior Ortho. He further deposed that Ex. PW-6/D-2 does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-6/D-1 was not in his hand writing and same was in the hand writing of Dr. Ajay whose name it bears. He was qualified up to MD physician and he was having an experience up to 14 years. He further deposed that in his MLC Ex. PW-6/A he has observed that the patient Subhash Chand who was examined by him was having two broken tooth of lower jaw and one loose tooth. He denied the suggestion that he had deviated from his examination in chief as he had been won over by the accused persons.
20. As all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 10/17 PE was ordered to be closed on 16.04.2013. The statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 12.07.2013 in which accused persons do not wish to lead any defence evidence.
21. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused persons which are as follows:
1. That the complainant was the person who had beaten the accused persons.
2. That PW-2 Smt. Ramesh Kumari did not support the version of the prosecution and turned hostile.
3. There is no reason why the MLCs of the accused persons were not placed on record.
4. The MLC Ex. PW-6/A is a manipulated document and has not been duly proved.
5. Injuries were received by both the accused persons also and MLCs Ex. PW-6/D-1 and Ex. PW-6/D-2 were prepared in this regard.
22. Arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for state which are as follows:
1. PW-1 being complainant has supported the story of the prosecution and he is the material witness.
2. The fact that PW-2 Smt. Ramesh Kumari may have resiled from her original statement on account of her being mother of the accused persons cannot be over looked.
3. In other cases of alike nature testimony of only injured/complainant is considered sufficient to tilt the case in favour of the prosecution.
State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 11/17
4. That police officials have supported/corroborated the version of the complainant.
5. The discrepancies if at all in the MLC is Ex. PW-6/A has been duly explained by the doctor in his cross examination.
6. The incident having taken place on the alleged date and time between the accused persons and the complainant has not been denied by the accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
23. Heard. Considered.
Reasons for Decision
24. In the present matter prosecution has examined six witnesses in total and all the witnesses have been examined and cross examined. The prime witness in the present matter is PW-1 Sh. Subhash Chand who is the complainant and also the father of the accused persons. He has deposed in detail as regards alleged incident in which he was caught hold by one of his sons and other started beating him mercilessly with fists. He further deposed that his two bottom teeth were broken that the same are still missing and he started bleeding. He further deposed that his wife made a call on 100 number and PCR van came and he was taken to hospital where his statement was recorded. He identified his statement Ex. PW-1/A and identified his signature at point A. He further deposed that site plan was prepared at his instance and both the accused were arrested.
25. This witness was cross examined in detail by Ld. Defence counsel for both accused persons wherein he admitted that both the accused persons were his sons. He further admitted that he did not have any quarrel with his younger son namely Ashwani before the present State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 12/17 incident. He further admitted that he was not in talking terms with his elder son. However, apart from describing the various facts and circumstances leading to the incident this witness has not contradicted himself in material particulars. He denied the suggestion that he attacked his son and tried to snatch the money from the shop. He further denied the suggestion that he himself broke his tooth to manipulate and implicate his sons.
26. In order to support the testimony of this witness there is a MLC Ex. PW-6/A which is on record. In order to prove this MLC the prosecution examined PW-6 namely Dr. Gyan who deposed that on 17.11.04 he prepared the MLC of one Subhash Chand/complainant bearing no. 1382221/04. He further deposed that the local examination of the patient showed two broken tooth of lower jaw and one loose tooth and the result of injury was stated to be grievous in nature in the MLC which was prepared by him bearing his name at point A.
27. This witness was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel in detail wherein he admitted that MLC does not bear his signature however, he voluntarily submitted that same is prepared in his hand writing and bore his name. He further authenticated that it has been prepared by him in the course of his duty. This witness further clarified that on account of heavy work load the MLC may remain unsigned with only name of the doctors written on them. He further denied the suggestion that Ex. PW-6/A was a manipulated document. He explained that MLC Ex. PW-6/A is in general format which was filled up during the course of his duty. He denied the suggestion that hand writing of MLC Ex. PW-6/A were written in different pens. He admitted that the portion encircled grievous on MLC Ex. PW-6/A was not in his hand writing. He further admitted that the Ex. PW-6/D-1 and Ex. PW-6/D-2 were also not in his hand writing.
State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 13/17
28. On this point this witness was re examined by Ld. APP wherein he again admitted that MLC Ex. PW-6/A was prepared by him wherein he observed that the complainant Subhash Chand had two broken tooth of lower jaw and one loose tooth. Apart from the MLC which is on record the complainant has been corroborated by PW-3 HC Ram Hate, PW-4 Ct. Anil Kumar and PW-5 SI Dharampal who is the IO. PW-5 SI Dharampal was cross examined in which he clarified the reasons for getting the complainant medically examined and not accused persons who were also injured. He further explained in his cross examination that no MLC of the accused persons was conducted and the same was opined by examining doctor. He denied the suggestion that he had not intentionally placed the MLC of the accused persons on record. This witness further furnished the MLC Ex. PW-6/D-1 which is stated only a Parcha prepared by doctor. Apart from this testimony this witness did not contradict himself at any stage even in the cross examination. Nothing material was brought on record by Ld. Defence counsel to dent a hole in the version of the prosecution.
29. Some material arguments were advanced by Ld. Defence counsel as per the MLC being a manipulated document. The preparation of the MLC and the reasons for the MLC not being signed by the doctor prepared, have been explained by PW-6 in his cross examination in detail. Hence, the MLC EX. PW-6/A stands duly proved. Even though PW-6 deposed that word grievous on the MLC Ex. PW-6/A was not in his hand writing. It is clear that the injuries caused to the complainant on account of beating given to him were grievous, as it has clearly been noted that his two front tooth were broken and one was found loose. Even if the result was not mentioned on the MLC due to whatsoever reasons, this court is not barred from applying its own mind to arrive at a just conclusion as per legal State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 14/17 provision, considering the nature of injuries mentioned in the MLC whether the same can be turned as grievous or simple. In the present matter, it is clear that two tooth of complainant were broken and hence, injuries caused to him were grievous in nature.
30. The Defence counsel has further relied upon other two MLC being Ex. PW-6/D-1 and PW-6/D-2 which are allegedly the MLCs of the accused persons. It is not denied by either of the parties that a fight took place and hence necessarily some injuries must have been caused to the accused persons also which explains MLC Ex. PW-6/D-1 and Parcha Ex. PW-6/D-2.
31. Other valid point which has been raised by the Ld. Defence counsel is that PW-2 being the mother of the accused persons has resiled from her original statement. This argument has been duly contradicted by the arguments advanced by Ld. APP that the fact that she is the mother of the accused persons can not be over looked and thus she is an interested witness and accordingly undue weight can not to be given to the fact that she resiled from her earlier statement.
32. It is also clear that even though the accused persons stated that they got injured by the act of the complainant however, it was never their case that they tried to call the police or that they filed any complaint to the police.
33. Further, the fact that the incident took place has not been denied by any of the accused persons in their statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.07.2013. They have only stated that they were beaten by the complainant and were falsely implicated.
It has been settled by the various higher courts that admission under section 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken to be a relevant fact in deciding the State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 15/17 fate of the accused.
This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled :
Janki Dass Vs. State 1995CriLJ2175, (1994)ILR Delhi392 In this murder reference the only question of law that arose for consideration was as to whether a admission made under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. can form the basis of conviction. The Court Held that : "The underlying object behind Section 313 is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima facie proved against him but on a very circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The answers given by an accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of Section 313 to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstances proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt.
The weight to be attached to the statement of an accused made under Section 313 of the Code though cannot be placed in a straight jacket since it has to vary according to the circumstances of each case, yet the legal position seems to be clear that such statements can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but guilt of the accused and admission made in a statement under Section 313 of the Code can be made the basis of conviction".
State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 16/17
34. Thus, from the above mentioned discussion it is clear that on 17.11.2004 at about 3.00pm at shop no. 74, Khoka Market, Pushp Vihar, Sector 1 both the accused persons namely Ravi Kr. Taneja and Ashvani Kr. Taneja in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant Subhash Chand Taneja, which has been duly proved by the testimony of the complainant PW-1, MLC Ex. PW-6/A and other corroborating facts and circumstances. Thus, the guilt of the both accused persons has been duly proved that they in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous hurt to the complainant and hence, both accused persons namely Ravi Kr. Taneja and Ashvani Kr. Taneja is convicted u/s 325/34 IPC.
Matter be listed for arguments on sentence on 10.10.2013 at 2.00pm.
Announced in the Court
on 04.10.2013 (CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/04.10.2013
Certified that this judgment contains 17 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/04.10.2013 State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 17/17 STATE Vs. Ravi Kumar FIR No.1009/04 U/s : 325/34 IPC P.S. : Malviya Nagar 06.11.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Both convicts are in person with counsel.
Complainant is also present.
ORDER ON SENTENCE It is submitted by the convicts that they are first time offender and have clean antecedents and are the sole bread earner of their families. Hence, they pray for leniency to be shown to them.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued for maximum punishment, as he states that the offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and the convicts do not deserve any leniency.
Heard.
Aggravating Circumstances:
Facts leading to the conviction of the convicts clearly reveal that they caused grievous hurt to the injured/complainant namely Subhash Chand Taneja.
Thus, his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mitigating Circumstances:
(1)That the convicts are the sole bread earner of their families. State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 18/17 (2)That they are first time offender.
(3) That the trial has been dragged for 9 long years.
On account of report filed by Probation Officer and on account of fact that both the convicts are in the age of 2535 years with families to support, I deem it fit to release both the convicts on probation of good conduct u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. However, they are directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/ each to the complainant u/s 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Bonds of peace and good behaviour furnished and accepted vide separate endorsement.
Matter be listed for payment of compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/ each to the complainant for 20.11.2013 at 2.00pm.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM02(South)/06.11.2013 State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 19/17 FIR No.1009/04 PS Malviya Nagar 20.11.2013 Present: Ld. APP for state.
Both convicts are present with counsel.
Complainant is also present.
Statement of the complainant has been recorded separately, as per which he has received Rs. 50,000/ each from the accused persons u/s 5 of Probation of Offenders Act.
In view of the same, no further orders remain to be passed in the present matter.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(Chetna Singh) MM02/SD/20.11.2013 State Vs Ravi Kr. Taneja & Ors. FIR No. 1009/04 20/17