Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Nivas Goyal Etc. on 13 April, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT,
(New Delhi & South East District)
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No.61/10
FIR No.371/04
U/s 308/341/506/34 IPC
PS Sangam Vihar
State
Vs.
1. Ram Nivas Goyal s/o Jai Narain (Since Expired on 19.12.07)
2. Ashok Kumar goyal s/o Ram Nivas Goyal
3. Mukesh Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal
4. Raj Kumar Goyal s/o Roshan Lal Goyal
5. Ramesh Kr Goyal s/o Jai Narain
6. Pawan Kumar Goyal s/o Roshan Lal Goyal
7. Naresh Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal
8. Roshan Lal Goyal s/o Jai Narain
9. Rohtas Goyal s/o Ram Kumar Goyal
10.Vijay Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal
......Accused
Challan filed on : 12.12.06
Received by Fast Track Court on:01.11.2010
Reserved for Order on : 30.03.2011
Judgment delivered on : 08.04.2011
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 1 of 20 20.04.04 SI Kuldeep got registered the case on the typed complaint received from injured Krishan Kumar. In the said complaint Ex.PW1/A, the complainant has alleged that he is doing the business of grocery. Sh Roshan Lal Goyal is having fair price shop in the vicinity where he is running his shop. Roshan Lal Goyal is a black marketeer and he had lodged a complaint with A.C.Food Supplies namely Sh. Yashpal Garg. Sh Roshan Lal alongwith his co associates were having grudge against him as he had lodged complaint against them. On 12.11.03 at about 8 p.m, he was accompanying his brother Suresh Kumar Garg and were coming from market to their residential place where he along with his brother was stopped by Sh Roshan Lal Goyal and he was accompanied by Ramesh Goyal, Rohtash Goyal, Ram Niawas Goyal, Pawan Goyal, Raju Goyal, Mukesh Goyal, Vijay Goyal, Naresh Goyal and Ashok Goyal. They all were carrying iron rod, wooden sticks and sharp edge weapons. They all in connivance with each other started beating them mercilessly and Sh. Roshan Lal Goyal categorically stated that they will kill him today as he has given complaint against them. Sh Pawan Goyal took out some sharp edged weapon and gave a blow on his forehead. He could not see the weapon used by them as it was dark. He got unconscious and fell down on the road. His brother was beaten up by iron rod and sticks and he also fell down. They restrained him as he tried to run away to save himself. His elder brother came to know from the public of the aforesaid incident and his brother Sh Madan Lal Garg gave a call to PCR and he was taken to AIIMS Hospital alongwith his brother and they both were admitted in State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 2 of 20 the hospital. He had received 8 stitches on his forehead. The investigating officer was in connivance with the accused persons and was from the very beginning pressuring him to compromise and did not register FIR u/s 308 IPC against the culprits and instead was taking the side of the accused persons who were accompanied by the local leader of the area. The IO told him that the FIR is not registered as the police is under pressure from the local leaders as it is the time of election. He had given a complaint to the police but no action was taken. Action was not initiated by the police inspite of repeated requests. Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared only against four persons and they were released on the next day by the S.E.M. No FIR till today has been registered. All the accused persons have been threatening to kill him if he pursue the matter. He is leading a fearful life at their hands. After receipt of this complaint, SI Kulbir Singh made his endorsement Ex.PW9/A and got the case registered. The investigation was done and accused persons were arrested. After completing the investigation the accused persons were challaned to the court.
2. This case being triable by the court of session, after committal proceedings, it was committed by the Ld.MM and received by the court of sessions on 24.01.07.
3. The charge against all the accused persons has been framed u/s 308/341/506/34 IPC on 21.09.07 by Ms. Mamta Sehgal, the then Ld. State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 3 of 20 ASJ to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 11 witnesses.
5. The evidence against the accused persons were put to them in their statements recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which they have pleaded their innocence and deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The accused persons have opted to lead defence evidence and examined one witness DW1 Ravinder Kumar. Thereafter the case was fixed for final arguments.
6. I have heard Ld APP for the State as well as Ld. defence counsel and perused the testimonies of all the PWS and exhibited documents carefully.
7. PW1 Krishan Kumar is the complainant and injured in this case and he has stated that he made complaint to the police.
8. PW2 Madan Lal is also the injured and he has also stated that police recorded his statement.
9. PW3 ASI Satbir Singh is the FIR recorder and he produced the FIR register containing copy of present case FIR. The copy is Ex.PW3/A. State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 4 of 20
10. PW4 Chaman Lal is the brother of Krishan Kumar, complainant and he has also stated about the quarrel taken place with his brother Krishan.
11. PW5 Suresh Kumar Garg is also the injured and he has also sustained injuries on his legs.
12. PW6 ASI Raj Nath has deposed that he recorded DD no.23A copy of which is Ex.PW23/A.
13. PW7 Sh Bhuwan Ram is the Medical Record Technician from AIIMS and he has produced the MLC of injured Krishan Kumar Ex.PW7/A, Rajesh Kumar Ex.PW7/B. Suresh Kumar Ex.PW7/C and Madan Lal vide MLC Ex.PW7/D.
14. PW8 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has stated that he has given the opinion on MCL of Suresh Kumar and Madan Lal on 12.11.03 as simple blunt.
15. PW9 Insp. Kulbir Singh has deposed that he made endorsement on the complaint dated 23.4.04, prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and got the case registered. He prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B. He formally arrested the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW9/C to L. State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 5 of 20
16. PW10 Insp. Brahm Prakash has deposed that he collected the result of MLC of injured Madan and Suresh and thereafter he filed the challan.
17. PW11 SI Devender Singh is the witness from Crime Branch and he has deposed that on 12.11.03 on receipt of DD no.23A he alongwith Ct. Fateh Singh reached near SBI Tigri and found a huge gathering and two persons Krishan and Madan were found injured. They were removed to hospital. Lots of people were abusing in filthy language loudly. A person namely Suresh and anr. Person met him and told him that Ramesh Chand Goyal had made complained against Krishan Lal in Aug 2003 and got the permit of Krishan Lal cancelled and at about 7.30 p.m Ramesh Chand was shifting his articles of ration shop to his own shop upon which Krishan Lal had intimated the ACP Rajesh Kumar of Food and Supplies Deptt and on this Krishan Kumar, Madan and other persons had been beaten. Abusing language was used at the spot and Addl. SHO also reached there. Despite request to cool down they continued to used abusing language and keeping in view the breach of peace and public tranquility and apprehension of commission of any cognizable offence and in order to maintain law and order he arrested Ramesh Kumar Goyal, Rohtash, Naresh and Vijay u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. All the accused got medically examined. I have also considered the defence evidence led by the accused persons.
State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 6 of 20
18. DW1 Ravinder Kumar has deposed that he is running business of supply of building material. He know accused persons and the complainant. The complainant was having grudge with accused persons as they were having doubt that their ration licence was got cancelled due to the complaint of the injured persons. On 12.11.03 at about 8 p.m complainant had come to the house of accused Rohtash and started shouting on them about the complaint to the officials for cancellation of ration licence. On this the family of Rohtash and other persons of the society got gathered there. Some verbal arguments between the parties had taken place and later on police was called and case u/s 107/151 Cr.PC was registered against some of the accused persons.
19. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the witnesses it is revealed that PW1 Kishan Kumar is the complainant and injured and PW2 Madan Lal, PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Suresh Kumar Garg are the injureds. They are the star witnesses of the prosecution and whole case of the prosecution depends on their testimonies. Infact they are the backbone of the prosecution case. In his testimony PW1 Kishan Kumar has stated that on 23.4.04 he was coming from Khanpur and when he reached near SBI Tigri Road, a quarrel was going on near the ration shop. He met Pawan, Vijay and Rohtas. They stopped him and started an argument with him and a quarrel took place. Thereafter the brother of Pawan, Vijay and Rohtash also came there. They were Ramesh Goel, Roshan Goel and Ram Nivas Goel. They also started fighting with him. State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 7 of 20 He sustained knife injury on his forehead. The knife blow was inflicted by Vijay who is present in the court and correctly identified. Except Ram Nivas all the accused are present in the court. All the accused were having dandas in their hand and caused injuries to him with dandas. He was removed to the hospital and his head was stitched. The fight took place on account of dispute with the accused persons regarding ration material like wheat and rice. They both have ration shops in the same lane. His shop licence was got cancelled as Roshan Goyal had taken money from them to save the shop from cancellation of its licence but it could not be done. In cross examination he has stated that incident occurred on 23.4.04. Prior to this there was never any fight between them. He had stated in his statement before the police that he was coming alone at the time of incident at 8 p.m on 23.4.04. He had not stated that there was a quarrel going on near the ration shop when he reached there. He denied the suggestion that the incident had occurred 6 months ago and there was no incident on 24.5.2004. He cannot recollect whether any incident had occurred between him and accused on 12.11.03. He denied that incident of dated 12.11.03 was reported by him on 23.4.05 vide Ex.PW1/A. Ex.PW1/A was drafted by his advocate after one or two days after the incident. Kalendra u/s 107/151 as mentioned in Ex.PW1/A relates to this incident. He does not recall if there was any incident of 12.11.03. He does not remember having stated that these four accused persons had abused and given beatings to him and Madan Lal. He does not recollect whether this incident was of 12.11.03 or 23.4.03. It is correct State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 8 of 20 that he had grudge against accused Roshan Goyal. He had made allegations against police officer Devender Yadav in Ex.PW1/A. He denied the suggestion that he and his brother is having enmity with several people of Khanpur in relation to property. He did not see any complaint or other thing to show that their shop was got cancelled by the accused party. He admitted that he had only a doubt that these people had got the shop cancelled.
20. PW2 Madan Lal has deposed that on 12.11.03 at about 8 p.m he was sitting at the shop of his brother Chaman Lal. He heard cries of his brother Kishan Kumar as Bachao Bachao. He reached near Bank and saw that accused Naresh, Ramesh, Rohtash Vijay etc were beating his brother. He tried to rescue his brother and they also started beating him. Accused gave beatings with lathi and iron rods etc. Accused Ramesh Goel snatched his gold chain from his neck. In cross examination he has stated that a kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.PC was registered against the accused persons. His statement was not recorded by SEM in these proceedings. The place where I was sitting was next to the place of incident. He did not made any complaint to any authority. Large number of people gathered at the place of incident. He has made improvement that 910 people were assaulting his brother. He also made improvement that he saw Naresh, Ramesh, Rohtash, Vijay Goel etc. beating his brother. He made improvement that he tried to rescue his brother and he was also beaten. He made improvement that his gold chain was snatched. It is correct that State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 9 of 20 his brother had moved an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC in pursuance to which the present FIR was registered. He made improvement that he had stated in that complaint that he had been assaulted with dandas and sarias. He admitted that he used to run ration shop. He does not know whether Krishan Kumar had complaint to the Food Inspector regarding the shop of accused and as a result of the complaint the licence of the accused persons to run a ration shop was cancelled.
21. PW4 Chaman Lal has deposed that on 12.11.03 there was a quarrel with his brother Krishan Kumar and Ram Nivas Goel and Roshan Lal Goel. His brother was beaten by Ram Nivas Goel, Ramesh Goel, Roshan Goel, Pawan Goel, Raju Goel, Mukesh Goel and two other persons with danda and iron rod. When he reached at the spot his brother was lying injured and blood was oozing out from his head. All the accused persons assaulted him with dandas. Police got blank papers signed from him in the PS. A knife was also got recovered from the accused persons. In cross examination he has stated that it is correct that when he reached at the spot his brother had already received the injuries. The public persons were trying to settle the quarrel. His statement was recorded by the police on 12.11.03. All the accused kept on standing after the injuring his brother alongwith their dandas. On seeing the police officers, accused persons dropped their dandas at the spot and police taken the dandas in possess. Police recorded the statement of his younger brother Kishan at the spot. Police was pressuring to compromise but they State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 10 of 20 did not agree to it. He did not complaint against the said police officials. He improved his statement that accused assaulted him with danda. He admitted that police registered kalendra u/s 107/150 Cr.PC regarding this incident. The knife had been recovered inside a room while he was standing outside the room. The knife was not recovered in his presence. He admitted that his brother had filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and thereafter the present FIR was registered. His brother had filed application after 15 days - one month of the incident.
22. PW5 Suresh Kumar Garg has deposed that on 12.11.03 at about 8 p.m he came to know that his brother Krishan Kumar Garg has been beaten by the accused. He tried to intervene on which he was also beaten with hockey sticks. He received injury on his leg and waist. In cross examination he has stated that he came to know on 12.11.03 that his brother had been beaten by the accused persons. His friend Ram Gopal Verma had informed him. Police reached at the spot after 3045 minutes of his reaching there. His brother was lying on the road and blood was oozing out from his head. Police picked up the lathi and knives from the spot. No document for seizure was prepared. He does not know whether any kalandra u/s 107/150 Cr.PC was registered regarding this incident. He does not know about anything about the enmity between his brother and the accused persons regarding ration shop.
23. In view of the testimonies of PW1,2,4 & 5 it is revealed that State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 11 of 20 they are the main star witnesses of the prosecution in this case. Infact they are the backbone of the prosecution case. Considering their deposition it is revealed that PW1 Kishan Kumar has assigned the role of each accused in his statement recorded before the court that they have caused injuries on his persons. His testimony has been corroborated by PW2 Madan Lal, PW4 Chaman Lal and PW5 Suresh Kumar Garg that the accused persons have caused injuries on the person of PW1 Kishan Kumar. Even PW2,4 & 5 have also stated that they were also given beatings by the accused persons when they intervened to save PW1 Kishan Kumar. I have also perused the medical evidence. MLC of injured Kishan Kumar Ex.PW7/A, Rajesh Kumar Ex.PW7/B, Suresh Kumar Ex.PW7/C and Madan Lal Ex.PW7/D mentions 'alleged history of assault' and even laceration (5cm x 1cm on forehead of complaint is mentioned. Injuries have also been mentioned on other MLC. So, the version of PW1,2,4 & 5 regarding causing injuries to them have also been corroborated by the medical evidence. I have also considered the cross examination of these star witnesses. It is revealed that no suggestion has been put by the Ld. Defence counsel to these witnesses that accused persons have not caused any injuries of their persons. So, their testimonies in this respect remained unchallenged. Remaining cross examination has been done just to create contradictions. So, their testimonies could not be shattered in cross examination. It is well settled law observed by our Own Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Hardutt & Others Vs.The State that injured/eye witnesses are the best witnesses to give true and correct account of the State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 12 of 20 incident and there does not seem any plausible reason to disbelieve the injured witnesses. In this case Pw1 is the complainant and injured and PW2,4 & 5 are also injured and they are the star witnesses of the prosecution. In fact they are the backbone of the prosecution case and whole prosecution case rests upon their testimonies and in their testimonies they have assigned specific role of each accused. However, I have found some contradiction in their statements but those are of trivial nature which can be natural and possible due to lapse of time and these contradictions can be ignored rightly by the court in view of the observation of case law Asha @ Ashanand & Ors.etc. Vs. The State of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) CC Cases SC 155. In view of the corroborative and supportive evidence in respect of the prosecution I have also perused and given my thoughtful consideration on the testimonies of other official witnesses.
24. PW9 Insp. Kulbir Singh has stated that on the basis of complaint dated 23.4.04 he prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and got the case registered. PW3 ASI Satbir Singh is the FIR recorder and he produced copy of FIR no.371/04 which is Ex.PW3/A. Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is delay in recording the FIR. I have also perused the FIR Ex.PW3/A. It was recorded on 20.5.04 and dated of incident has been shown as 12.11.03. As per complaint of the complainant Ex.PW1/A dated 23.4.04, he has averred that after quarrel Kalendra u/s 107/151 Cr.PC was prepared. It seems that after quarrel between the accused and State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 13 of 20 complainant the police in order to maintain peace had prepared kalendra u/s 107/151 Cr.PC. PW4 Chaman Lal injured has admitted in cross examination that his brother PW1 had filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC and thereafter the present FIR was registered. His brother had filed an application after 15 days - one month of the incident. PW9 in cross examination has stated that FIR was registered during the pendency of writ petition filed by the complainant for registration of FIR because no action was taken by the police on their complaint. So, it is crystal clear that the present case FIR was registered only after filing of application u/s 156(3) Cr.PC while the date of quarrel is 12.11.03 where the injured have suffered injuries mentioned in the MLC. So, the delay in recording FIR has been explained by the prosecution and I am of the opinion that FIR has successfully been proved by the prosecution. PW9 Insp. Kulbir Singh has further stated that he arrested the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW9/C to L. No question has been put to him in cross examination that he did not arrest the accused persons. So, arrest memo of each accused stand proved. PW10 Insp. Brahm Prakash is the formal witness who collected the result on MLC. PW6 ASI Raj Nath is a formal witness who recorded DD no.23A copy of which is Ex.PW23/A. PW11 SI Devender Kumar has stated that he reached at the spot on receipt of DD no.23A regarding quarrel. He found lots of people abusing in loud language. SHO also reached there but despite their request they did not stop abusing. So, he arrested Ramesh Kr Goel, Rohtash, Naresh and Vijay u/s 107/151 Cr.PC . From the statements it is crystal clear that first State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 14 of 20 the accused persons were arrested in proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC and these proceedings were conducted by PW11 SI Devender Kumar. But later on the application of complainant u/s 156(3), the present case FIR was registered. I have also perused the medical evidence.
25. The prosecution has examined PW7 Bhuvan Ram, Record Clerk who appeared on behalf of Dr. Kruti Sunder Mandal. He has stated that said doctor has prepared the MLC Ex.PW7/A of Krishan Kumar, Ex.PW7/B of Rajesh Kumar, Ex.PW7/C of Suresh Kumar and Ex.PW7/D of Madan Lal. Pw8 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has opined the nature of injury on the MLC of Suresh and Madan as Simple. Ld. Defence counsel has taken the plea that only photocopy of the MLC are available on file. From the evidence on record it is emphatically clear that before this FIR proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC were initiated against the accused persons. It seems that original MLCs have been filed in those proceedings. However, the clerk of the hospital has duly verified that the MLCs available on record have been prepared by Dr. Kruti Sunder Mandal and even Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has opined the nature of injury as simple on two MLCs. The MLCs have been exhibited. So, the plea of defence counsel is not sustainable. I have also perused the MLCs. On the the MLCs, the nature of injuries has been opined as simple blunt. Also the incident has taken place on the spur of moment. The injuries are also superficial. Even the doctor who prepared the MLC has not been examined in this case by the prosecution. PW9 Dr. Sanjeev Lalwani has State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 15 of 20 opined the nature of injury as simple only on two MLCs. In consideration of the case law 1994 JCC 522 and 1994 JCC 689 and case law observed by our own Hon'ble High court in 1998 II A.D. (Cr.) Delhi, 21, by Hon'ble justice Mr. Dalbeer Bhandari that: "In the absence of doctor's examination it is difficult to come to conclusion whether the injury caused by the appellant was grievous in nature? There is no other material on record by which it can be observed that the injury caused to the appellant was dangerous to the life. In this view of the matter the conviction of the appellant u/s 307IPC can not be sustained. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and in interest of justice I deemed it an appropriate to set aside the appellant conviction u/s 307 IPC maintaining the conviction of the appellant u/s 324 IPC the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone"
26. In this case as per the MLC the injury was opined by the doctor as simple. So, in view of the above case law and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that this case does not fall u/s 308 IPC and it falls only u/s 323/34 IPC.
27. In this case charge has also been framed against the accused persons u/s 341/506 IPC. On perusal of the testimony of PW1 Kishan Kumar he has stated that the accused persons Pawan Vijay and Rohtas stopped him and started arguments and thereafter other accused persons came there. So, there is evidence for the commission of offence u/s 341 IPC. However, none of the witness has deposed as to what threatening has been given to them by the accused persons. There is no evidence for criminal intimidation. So, case 506 IPC is not made out against the State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 16 of 20 accused persons.
28. In view of the above discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the prosecution could not prove its case for the commission of offence punishable u/s 506 IPC. I therefore acquit all the accused persons for the commission of offence punishable u/s 506/34 IPC. However, the prosecution has been able to prove its case for the commission of offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC. I therefore hold accused Ashok Kumar Goyal, Mukesh Goyal,Raj Kumar Goyal, Ramesh Kr Goyal, Pawan Kumar Goyal, Naresh Goyal, Roshan Lal Goyal, Rohtas Goyal and Vijay Goyal guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC and convict them thereunder. Announced in the open Court on 08.04.2011 (SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track CourtNew Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 17 of 20 IN THE COURT OF SH.SURESH CHAND RAJAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, FAST TRACK COURT, (New Delhi & South East District) PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No.61/10 FIR No.371/04 U/s 308/341/506/34 IPC PS Sangam Vihar State Vs.
1. Ashok Kumar Goyal s/o Ram Nivas Goyal
2. Mukesh Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal
3. Raj Kumar Goyal s/o Roshan Lal Goyal
4. Ramesh Kr Goyal s/o Jai Narain
5. Pawan Kumar Goyal s/o Roshan Lal Goyal
6. Naresh Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal
7. Roshan Lal Goyal s/o Jai Narain
8. Rohtas Goyal s/o Ram Kumar Goyal
9. Vijay Goyal s/o Sulekh Chand Goyal ......Accused ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE Accused Ashok, Mukesh, Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Naresh, Roshan Lal, Rohtas and Vijay Goyal have been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 18 of 20 IPC and convicted thereunder vide Judgment dated 08.04.2011.
2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the accused as well as accused/convicts on the point of sentence. During the course of arguments it has been submitted on behalf of the convict Raj Kumar that he is 28 years of age. Accused Naresh Kumar is 32 years of age. Convict Ramesh Kumar Goyal is 53 years of age. Convict Mukesh is 35 years of age, Convict Pawan is 33 years old, Convict Ashok Kumar is 29 years of age, Convict Rohtash Goyal, Roshan, Vijay are 44, 59 & 28 years of age respectively.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of all the convicts that they are the first offenders. There is no other case registered against them in any court of law nor they have been convicted earlier. They are only the bread earners in their families and entire families are dependent upon them. It is further submitted that the parents of the convicts are old aged and they do not have any other source of income. It has further been submitted on behalf of all the accused persons that they belongs to very poor families and they have burden on their shoulders as they are only the earning members in their families. They undertake to maintain peace and be of good behaviour if they are released on probation. Ld.counsel has submitted that benefit of probation may be given to all the accused persons.
State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 19 of 20
4. In consideration of the submissions made by ld.defence counsels on behalf of the convicts and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused persons have not been involved or engaged in any other criminal proceedings, any activities and case & as per their version they undertake to maintain and keep peace and be of good behaviour. They are the first offenders. So, I feel it to give the benefit of probation to the convicts in this case. Therefore, convicts Ashok Kumkar, Mukesh, Raj Kumar, Ramesh Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Naresh, Roshan Lal, Rohtash and Vijay Goyal are given the benefit of probation. They be released on probation on their entering into bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/ each with one surety each in the like amount, to appear and receive the sentence when they are called upon during the period of one year from the date of entering into the bond and in the mean time they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour u/s 323/341/34 IPC. Copy of judgment and copy of order on the point of sentence be given to the convicts free of cost. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 13.04.2011.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track CourtNew Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Ram Nivas Goyal etc. FIR no.371/04 Page No. 20 of 20