Delhi District Court
State vs . State Of Himachal Pradesh, 2012(13) ... on 26 October, 2018
In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge02, South
District, District Court Saket, New Delhi.
Session Case No. 6734/16 (old No. 13/15)
In the matter of :
State
Versus
Mohd. Israil
S/o Late Sh Sahib Jan
R/o H39/18, K1st Block,
Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 686/14
Police Station : Sangam Vihar
Under section. : U/s 302 IPC
Date of assignment : 06.04.2015
Reserved for judgment : 25.10.2018
Date of decision : 26.10.2018
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution story as per chargesheet in brief is that on receiving DD no. 29A dated 28.12.2014, Inspector Mahesh Kasana alongwith SI Sachin and Ct. Sunil Kumar reached the spot ie H.No. 39K, 1 st Block, Gali No. 18, Sangam Vihar where he found the deceased Munavar lying dead in the pool of blood and found to have suffered fatal injuries from some sharp edged weapon. The accused Mohd. Israil the father of the deceased found there alongwith blood stained chopper (dabia) who admitted his guilt. The statement of the eye witness ie Mustafa elder brother of deceased Munavar was recorded in which SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-1 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 he alleged that he alongwith his father and family resides in the aforesaid address and his brother deceased Munavar is a habitual drunkard and used to quarrel and beat his wife, therefore his wife alongwith two minor children left the parental house. On 28.12.2014 at around 8 pm when he came back after Namaz to his house found that the deceased in the state of intoxication abusing his mother Memul and at that time his father was at the shop and the deceased is bent upon beating his mother in the meanwhile, his father also came and then the deceased also started abusing the father and pushed him and due to this he also fell down, however after some time again started abusing his father and then slapped him, thereafter at around 8.35 pm his father went to the shop and took one chopper and came in the house concealing the said chopper and then pushed the deceased and started hitting him with chopper on his neck number of times, thereafter when he tried to intervene, he was also threatened by his father then he shouted, thereafter number of public persons gathered, police was called at 100 number. Pursuant to this statement present FIR was registered.
2. During investigation, police recorded the statement of other eye witnesses namely Memul wife of accused, Najmi daughter in law of accused, also seized the weapon of offence ie chopper. Exhibits were lifted from the spot, postmortem of the deceased was conducted. As per postmortem report, the cause of death is the injuries suffered by the deceased. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
3. On committal, vide order dated 06.04.2015, charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution for substantiating its case examined 17 prosecution witnesses.
The material witnesses (eye witnesses) are PW2 Mustrafa son of the accused, SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-2 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 PW4 Memul wife of accused, PW15 Najim daughterinlaw of the accused. The summary details of prosecution witnesses is reproduced as under.
5. PW2 Mohd. Mustafa son of the accused stated that his younger brother deceased Munavar is a habitual drunkard and used to have quarrel and beat with his wife and children and whenever his father intervened, he used to abuse him. On 28.12.2014 at around 8 pm, when he returned to his house after Namaz, he found his brother under influence of liquor, then he abused his mother and caught her from her hand and twisted her hand and then his mother cried for help. His father also reached from the shop, then the deceased also abused and assaulted his father. He further stated his father pushed the deceased and then managed to lay Munavar down, thereafter 10 minutes he woke up and used bad language against his mother, then also tried to bite her hand, thereafter his mother cried then his father again came, on which Munavar slapped his father then his mother told him to collect all the neighbours to overpower Munavar. thereafter, his father went inside the shop and came back keeping his hands behind, then his father put the head of Munavar on takhat from one hand and gave blow with the chopper, thereafter his mother raised alarm and when he tried to intervene, his father asked him to go away otherwise he would kill him, then he immediately went outside to call neighbours and returned back with neighbour and found Munavar dead. Then police was called. In crossexamination stated that police recorded his statement and accused used to abuse his mother and twisted her hand and accused tried to make understand the deceased not to beat the mother, however despite this deceased beaten his mother and father. He further stated that his father has inflicted injuries on provocation due to continuous beating given by the deceased to his mother and father.
SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-3 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018
6. PW4 Smt. Memul wife of the accused also stated that accused wife left him due to quarrel, and on 28.12.2014 her son came under influence of liquor and tried to bite her hand and then the accused objected to the same, thereafter the deceased gave kick blow to accused then accused also pushed him down. He became unconscious and after sometime he woke up, thereafter he slapped the accused, thereafter accused became angry and came back with chopper and gave chopper blow on his neck then she raised alarm and ran outside for seeking help from public. In crossexamination stated that deceased munavar demanded Rs. 50/ from her and she gave same to him and her husband (accused) reached when Munavar tried to bite her hand and at that time her son Mustafa was also present. Deceased also slapped his father. She also stated she has seen the accused hitting with chopper and police came after about one hour.
7. PW15 Najmi stated that accused is her fatherinlaw and deceased was a habitual drunker and used to quarrel everyday in the evening and night, and due to persistent quarrel his wife left him, and on the day of incident deceased came under influence of liquor and started abusing the family members and further caught hold of her motherinlaw form her hand to beat her and accused intervened to save her motherinlaw , however deceased abused him but matter pacified, lateron Munavar again started abusing then accused asked him to sleep thereafter accused went to his shop and returned back with dabia and assaulted the deceased, thereafter, her motherinlaw raised alarm and police was informed. In crossexamination stated that she is illiterate and when deceased came under the influence of liquor she alongwith her father inlaw and motherinlaw was present there. She further stated she had not seen accused assaulting the deceased and only her motherinlaw seen and SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-4 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 told this fact to her.
8. PW16 IO/Inspector Mahesh Kasana stated that on receiving DD no. 29A, he reached the spot and found the deceased as well as accused alongwith weapon, called the crime team at the spot. The deceased was found lying in pool of blood with number of injuries on his neck, thereafter he recorded the statement of Mustafa and prepared rukka pursuant to which FIR was registered, exhibits were lifted, dabia was seized, accused was arrested, his disclosure statement was also recorded. Lateron, postmortem was conducted. On completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet. In crossexamination stated that he has not obtained any subsequent opinion upon weapon of offence. PW13 SI Vikram Singh also reached the spot on receiving the DD no. 29A alongwith Ct. Mukesh and found the deceased lying in the pool of blood and injury marks over his face and neck. Accused was also found at the spot, thereafter he was interrogated and arrested, exhibits were lifted. He further stated crime team inspected the spot but he do not know whether any finger prints were lifted from the chopper (dabia).
9. PW1 ASI Jawahar Singh duty officer who recorded DD No. 29A and thereafter also registered the FIR. PW3 SI Sanjay Kumar crime team incharge inspected the spot and prepared the report. PW5 Dr. Hari Prasad who conducted the postmortem of the deceased and exhibited the postmortem report and opined that injury no.1 to 6 are individually as well as collectively sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW6 Ct. Mahesh photographer of crime team exhibited the photographs and further stated that one old man was also sitting alongwith iron chopper. PW7 SI Sachin also reached the spot on receiving DD no. 29A and witness to the seizure of the SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-5 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 exhibits from the spot. PW8 Inspector Mahesh Kumar draftsman who prepared the scaled site plan. PW9 Lok Pal Singh the neighbourer who called the 100 number and stated that deceased used to drink due to which his wife left the place and his brother Mustafa told that accused killed the deceased with chopper. PW10 Ct. Rati Ram delivered the copies of FIR to concerned officials and Ld. MM. PW11 Ct. Mukesh also reached the spot and took the rukka to the PS for registration of FIR. PW12 Ct. V.V. Surendran deposited the exhibits at FSL. PW14 Dr. Jagjivan Murmu exhibited the MLC of the deceased. PW17 ASI Ashok Kumar exhibited the malkhana entries.
10. Accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him however, not opted to lead DE.
Material Exhibits
11. Ex.PW2/A is statement of Mustafa. Ex.PW16/A is rukka. Ex.PW1/B is the FIR. Ex.PW16/G is DD no. 29A recorded at around 8.58 pm in the night of 28.12.2014 regarding the present incident. Ex.PW14/A is the MLC of the deceased. Ex.PW16/I colly are photographs of the spot showing the deceased lying in pool of blood and the chopper. Ex.PW12/B is rough site plan. Ex.PW8/A is scaled site plan of the spot. Ex.PW13/A is crime team report. Ex.PW7/A is the seizure memo of the blood in gauze lifted from dead body of deceased and spot. Ex.PW7/B is the seizure memo of the blood stained floor piece and earth control. Ex.PW2/C is the sketch of the chopper/dabia. Ex.PW2/D is the seizure memo of blood stained chopper. Ex.PW7/C is the blood stained chadar lifted from the spot. Ex.PW16/F is the seizure memo of exhibits and sample seal received from mortuary AIIMS hospital. Ex.PW7/E SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-6 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 is arrest memo of accused. Ex.PW7/D is disclosure statement of accused. Ex.PW7/F is seizure memo of jacket worn by accused at the time of incident. Ex.PW13/A is the seizure memo of blood stained clothes, chappal of accused. Ex.PW5/B is the postmortem report of the deceased. Ex.PW16/D is request for postmortem. Ex.PW16/C is unnatural death report. Ex.PW16/H is PCR intimation form. Ex.PW6/B are negatives of photographs taken at the spot. Ex.PX1, Ex. PX2 are biological and serological reports.
12. Ld. Counsel for the accused from legal aid submitted that the deceased son was habitual drunkard and used to beat the all family members and on the day of incident, he has beaten both mother and father and became uncontrollable, therefore in the state of anger and to save themselves, accused inflicted the chopper injuries to the deceased without any premeditation. Ld. Counsel submits that the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW15 do not at all suggest that accused has any prior intention to cause death of the deceased and the incident happened at the spur of the moment without premeditation, therefore no offence u/s 302 IPC is proved against the accused.
13. Ld. Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that PW2, PW4 and PW15 categorically stated that the accused caused multiple chopper injuries to the deceased and the said fact is duly corroborated by the postmortem report. The causing of multiple injuries itself suggests that the accused had every intention to kill the deceased. Ld. Addl. PP submits that the accused came to injure the deceased by keeping the chopper concealed on his back and all of a sudden inflicted number of injuries, and this fact categorically points out his intention to murder, therefore prosecution able to prove its case beyond SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-7 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 reasonable doubt and accused liable to be convicted for offence u/s 302 IPC.
14. Arguments heard. Record perused.
15. It is an unfortunate incident in which the father killed his son. Brief background of the case is that accused Mohd. Israil is married to PW4 Memul and out of the wedlock there were two boys namely PW2 Mustafa and deceased Munavar. PW2 Mustafa is married to PW15 Najmi and the deceased is also married, however his wife and children were not residing with him due to the fact that he is habitual drunkard and persistently used to beat her. The accused and his both sons used to reside together. Accused alongwith PW2 used to run the sewing shop at the house whereas the deceased Munavar used to do embroidery work at Neb Sarai.
16. This unfortunate incident occurred at around 8 /8.30 pm on 28.12.2014, when the deceased came to the house in drunken state and started abusing his mother PW4 Memul, thereafter also beaten her when the accused intervened to save her he was also beaten, however the matter pacified but after few minutes deceased again started biting the hand of his mother PW4 then when accused tried to save her, he was slapped by deceased, then accused went to his shop which is inside the house and taken a chopper, and came back with chopper and inflicted number of injuries on the deceased consequent to which he died on spot itself. Immediately, the police was called. Police first recorded the statement of PW2 Mustafa pursuant to which FIR was registered, and thereafter interrogated the accused who was present at the spot then lifted the exhibits, sent dead body for postmortem. As per postmortem report Ex. PW5/A, deceased suffered fatal injuries no.1 to 6 from the sharp object. The neck was almost cut and there are injuries on the head, face etc.
17. From the testimony of PW2, PW4 and PW15 as well as the corroborating SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-8 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 circumstances of apprehension of accused with the chopper from the spot, lying of dead body in pool of blood, seizure of blood stained clothes, FSL reports etc. categorically points out the involvement of accused in inflicting fatal injuries to the deceased Munavar. The death caused certainly homicidal.
18. Now the pertinent question before the court is whether the present case falls in the realm of section 302 or 304 IPC. Admittedly, the relationship between the accused and deceased is of father and son. Accused is living modest life and taking care of the family even in the age of more than 70 years. There is no criminal background of this accused. It is also not surfaced that this accused has at any point of time misbehaved with the deceased or any other family members or violent by nature. On the other hand, ample evidence came in testimony of the witnesses that the deceased is an habitual drunkard and of quarrelsome character, and in habit of beating the wife and other family members. Because of this habit, the wife and children of deceased already left him.
19. This court has to see whether there is any premeditation or not in commission of the offence. The material eye witnesses who has seen the actual occurrence is PW2 Mustafa and PW4 Memul, as PW15 Najmi in cross examination categorically stated that she had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased and the factum of assault told to her by his motherinlaw ie Memul. PW4 Memul appears illiterate lady, in her testimony categorically stated that on the said night deceased came to home under influence of liquor, and she put off his pant and lay him down on takhat. He asked her hand, then tried to bite his hand. In the meanwhile his father (accused) came and told him that his hand will be broken, then deceased gave the kick blow to the accused, thereafter he became unconscious however again regained SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-9 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 conscious, then she alongwith her husband taken out his coat, Munavar again slapped the accused and thereafter went to bathroom and came back to the room to the wooden takhat. In the meanwhile accused came with chopper in his hand hiding behind and gave injuries on the neck of the deceased, then she raised alarm. The testimony of this witness categorically suggest that the deceased was of quarrelsome nature and habitual drunker and on the said night also he came in drunken state and physically beaten the mother, thereafter when his father tried to intervene, he gave kick blow to father, and thereafter again both of them tried to calm the situation and even helped him taking out his coat but again the deceased started beating the mother, then when the father tried to save her, he also slapped the father. This entire sequence and the prior conduct of the deceased categorically suggests that his behaviour becomes unbearable on that day to the father, therefore he went to bring the chopper which was lying in the house in other room and gave multiple blows of the same to his son in the state of anger.
20. PW2 Mustafa also corroborated the statement of PW4 by stating that deceased had first beaten the mother and twisted her hand thereafter when she cried his father came to save her, thereafter he assaulted the father also and his father however became generous and removed coat and shoes and went to the shop. Thereafter again when deceased woke up and started abusing the mother, thereafter attempted to bite her hand, then mother cried and father came from the shop and then he started abusing the father and also slapped the father, then the mother told him to call neighbours because deceased got out of control, but his father went back and came with chopper in the hands keeping it behind, and then gave multiple blows on the neck of the deceased. This PW2 also explained the cruel behaviour of the deceased, and on that day SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-10 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 even in the drunken state he misbehaved with mother and father not once but also second time and after first misbehaviour the father kept cool, and also taken out his coat and made him easy to lie on takhat (cot), however he again woke up and started misbehaving with his mother by biting her hand and when on her cries, father intervened he again gave abuses and slapped the father and deceased got out of control, which made his father to loose tamper and thereafter immediately came with chopper from the other room and inflicted multiple injuries on deceased. The testimony of PW2 and PW4 categorically suggest that the father has not planned the murder of the deceased, it was all in the grave and sudden provocation, mere coming back to the room with chopper by keeping it behind do not suggests that he has any prior intention to kill the deceased.
21. The ultimate act of killing has to be seen from the entire facts and circumstances. The conduct of the deceased since beginning appears to be quarrelsome. He is habitual drunkard and used to beat and maltreat the family members, therefore his wife alongwith children already left, and now on the day of incident he misbehaved and assaulted both mother and father without any mistake, however despite this father kept calm but deceased has not left his cruel habits and again physically beaten both mother and father despite their decent behavior, which made the accused to loose his tamper, and out of this sudden provocation he brought the chopper and gave multiple injuries in one go to the deceased. The testimonies of these witnesses categorically shows that there is no pre meditation to kill on the part of the accused and entire act was committed under grave and sudden provocation as deceased became uncontrollable. There is no time gap to think. The chopper (meat cutting knife) used is normal tool in the house, lying in adjoining room and SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-11 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 not procured from anywhere else. The relationship of father and son do not at all to be inimical to attribute any motive in killing the deceased. The entire incident happened due to sudden and grave provocation. At this stage, it is pertinent to rely upon the judgment of apex court in case titled 'Budhi Singh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2012(13) SCC 663', held that:
" The doctrine of grave and sudden provocation is incapable of rigid construction leading to or stating any principle of universal application. This will always have to depend on the facts of a given case. While applying this principle, the primary obligation of the court is to examine from the point of view of a person of reasonable prudence if there was such grave and sudden provocation so as to reasonably conclude that it was possible to commit the offence of culpable homicide, and as per the facts, was not a culpable homicide amounting to murder. An offence resulting from grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could lose selfcontrol but only temporarily and that too, in proximity to the time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of acts done by the deceased to the accused resulting in inflicting of injury". (Para 18) "Another test that is applied more often than not is that the behaviour of the assailant was that of a reasonable person. A fine distinction has to be kept in mind between sudden and grave provocation resulting in sudden and temporary loss of selfcontrol and the one which inspires an actual intention to kill. Such act should have been done during the continuation of the state of mind and the time for such person to kill and reasons to regain the dominion over the mind. Once there is premeditated act with the intention to kill, it will obviously fall beyond the scope of culpable homicide not amounting to murder........." (Para 19) "In light of the circumstances which would help the court to gather the intention of the accused, the court also has to take into consideration the attendant circumstances. SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-12 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 One of the very vital factors is premeditation and intention to kill. These are the important factors which will weigh in the mind of the court while deter mining such an issue in light of the attendant circumstances".
(Para 23) ".....Premeditation and intention to kill are two vital circumstances amongst others which are to be considered by the court before holding the accused guilty of an offence under Section 302 or Section 304 IPC. It is not established that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased or it was a premeditated crime. Prosecution has contended that the very fact that the accused had come out with a tobru completely established the intention to kill and, thus, the offence would fall under Section 302 IPC. It cannot be disputed that the accused came out with a tobru but, at the same time, it is also clear that this is the most easily available weapon in that part of the hills and is used regularly by the communities. Beyond this factor, there is no evidence of animosity, premeditation or intention to kill. The accused id give a blow by tobru on the head of the deceased which proved fatal. This was result of the grave and sudden provocation where the father of both the deceased and the accused was being abused, assaulted and illtreated by the deceased, who was in the drunken state". (Para 25)
22. In that case also the injuries from the acts was caused by the brother to the brother while saving father under grave and sudden provocation. The injuries were on the vital part. There are two injuries from sharp edged part of the axe on the head. It is observed that the offence resulting under grave and sudden provocation would normally mean that a person placed in such circumstances could loose self control but only temporarily and that too, in proximity of time of provocation. The provocation could be an act or series of act done by the deceased to accused resulting in inflicting of the injury. In present case SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-13 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 facts and circumstances, there is no doubt that accused due to grave and sudden provocation lost self control, and in the said state inflicted multiple injuries. Furthermore, as per statement of PW4 deceased became uncontrollable, thus mother asked him to call neighbours. The mere act of committing multiple injuries in this state do not deprive the accused of exception u/s 300 IPC.
23. At this stage, it is also pertinent to refer to case tiled Ranjit Tanti Vs. State of Assam Crl.A (J) 119/2014 dated 01.06.2018, 2018 SCC Online (Gau) 585, in that case also father killed son under grave and sudden provocation, the division bench of Gauhati High Court in para 9 & 10 held as under:
"9. In the case of Muthu v. State, (2009) 17 SCC 433:
AIR 2008 SC 1, it has been held that when in the heat of the moment or in a fit of anger a person does an act without premeditation that person must also be punished but his punishment should be lesser that that of premeditated offences. The Supreme Court has observed that it is for this reason that Exceptions 1 and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Exceptions 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code clearly provides that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
10. Apparently, the incident took place on a sudden quarrel without any premeditation between the appellant and Mohan Tanti. The appellant somehow lost his selfcontrol and in the hit of passion caused two injuries on the head of Mohan Tanti with an axe.
It is unlikely that a father would deliberately cause death to his son, although adopted. Having regard to the facts of the case, we are of the considered view that the act committed by the appellant would fall SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-14 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 under Section 304 Part 1 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code".
24. On overall appreciation of the evidence, it can be safely inferred that during the aforementioned incident, deceased abusively as well as physically assaulted both mother and father, and became uncontrollable, therefore in the state of anger under grave and sudden provocation, accused inflicted multiple injuries resulting the death of the deceased. The act as committed by the accused, therefore falls in the category of offence u/s 304 Part 1 IPC and not u/s 302 IPC. The offence u/s 302 IPC not made out and accused is found guilty for offence u/s 304(1) IPC only.
25. In view of above discussion, prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed homicidal death and found guilty for commission of offence u/s 304 Part 1 IPC. Accused convicted accordingly. Accused be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 26th day of October, 2018 ASJ02 (South)
District Court Saket / New Delhi
SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-15 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018 In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge02, South District, District Court Saket, New Delhi Session Case No. 6734/16 (old No. 13/15) In the matter of :
State Versus Mohd. Israil S/o Late Sh Sahib Jan R/o H39/18, K1st Block, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.FIR No. : 686/14
Police Station : Sangam Vihar
Under section. : U/s 302 IPC
Convicted U/s : U/s 304 (1) IPC
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1) Vide judgment dated 26.10.2018, the convict Mohd. Israil held
guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 (1) IPC.
2) It is contended on behalf of the convict Mohd. Israil that he is aged around 75 years and having dependent old wife. The incident as occurred in the heat of moment. Ld. Counsel from Legal Aid for convict further submitted that convict has already remained in custody from 29.12.2014 till date ie for around 4 years. Ld. Counsel submits that in this scenario, lenient view may be taken.
3) Ld. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the acts of the convicts cannot be overlooked therefore does not deserves any leniency and requested for maximum punishment.
SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-16 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018
4) I have considered the submissions of the contesting sides and have gone through the record as well.
5) Sentencing is the most delicate aspect of criminal law. While considering an appropriate sentence for a convict, given in a set of facts and circumstances, a lot of factors come into play such as the age, gender, educational background, socioeconomic status of the convict, his role and impact on the society etc. The sentence needs to be adequate and in consonance with the offence committed, it should neither be harsh nor should be light. Striking such a delicate balance is very crucial for a judge.
6) The convict is found to be old aged person of around 75 years and have no criminal background. On the other hand leading the life in respectful manner and taking care of his old wife and children. The incident occurred in the heat of events and is in custody since 29.12.2014 ie for around 4 years.
7) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, convict Mohd. Israil is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and a fine of Rs 2000/ in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days for offence u/s 304(1) IPC. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict. Fine not deposited.
8) Copy of judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost. After compliance, file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 27th day of October, 2018 ASJ02 (South)
Saket Courts / New Delhi
SC No. 6734/16, S/v Mohd. Israil., FIR No. 686/14, PS Sangam Vihar, (pg-17 of 17 ) dated 26.10.2018