Delhi District Court
State vs Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli on 14 September, 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.10/11
FIR No.402/07
U/s 307/34 IPC
PS Mandir Marg
State
Vs.
Ramvilas @ Bikas @ Babli s/o Paras Ram
17/169 Kalyanpuri
Delhi
......Accused
Challan filed on : 26.02.2009
Received by Fast Track Court on:18.04.2011
Reserved for Order on : 06.09.2011
Judgment delivered on : 13.09.2011
JUDGMENT
Briefly stated the facts of the prosecution case are that on 22.11.2007 at about 7.45 p.m on receipt of DD no.22A copy of which is Ex.PW14/A HC Kaushlender Kumar reached at gate no.4 RML Hospital towards Baba Kharak Singh Marg where he noticed blood lying on the road near Prepaid Booth and he came to know that injured has already been removed to Hospital. SI DD Meena also reached at the spot. He left State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 1 of 21 HC Kaushlender at the spot and went to RML Hospital where he collected the MLC of injured which is Ex.PW11/A and recorded the statement of complainant Yogesh Pratap Singh Ex.PW4/A in which he has alleged that on 22.11.2007 he had come to Delhi to attend the court as he had dispute with his wife and date of hearing was 23.11.2007 in Karkardooma court. In the evening he came to meet his lawyer Ganji Sahab in Patiala house court. After meeting the lawyer he came to Connaught Place and from there he reached in front of RML Hospital from where he was to board a bus. At about 7.30 p.m near RML Hospital his brother in law Vilas alongwith his one associate whom he can identify if produced before him, came on motorcycle. Vilas uttered 'tum minister ke paas ja rahe ho vah hamara kya ker lenge, adalat me jab jaoge, jab hum tumhe jinda bachne denge'. Second boy uttered maar de sale ko. In the meantime Vikas gave blow on his head and stomach with sharp edged weapon due to which he fell down on the ground. Two public persons removed him to hospital. The investigation was done and accused was arrested. After completion of the investigation the accused was 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 fast track court on 18.04.2011.
3. The charge against the accused has been framed u/s 307/34 IPC on 30.04.2011 by this court to which the accused pleaded not guilty State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 2 of 21 and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in all has examined as many as 15 witnesses.
5. The evidence against the accused was put to him in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C in which he has pleaded his innocence and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of complainant. The accused has also led defence evidence and examined DW1 Deepak 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 Ct. Roop Chand has deposed that on 22.11.07 when he reached at the spot on being called by the IO he found blood lying on patri. He took photographs which are Ex.PW1/A2 and negatives are Ex.PW1/A1.
8. PW2 HC Ravinder has deposed that he alongwith Ct.Sudarshan, finger print proficient went to gate no.4 RML Hospital where blood was lying. He took ten photographs from different angles. The negatives are Ex.PW2/A1 to A10 and print photographs are Ex.PW2/B1 to B8.
State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 3 of 21
9. PW3 Ct Sudarshan has deposed that he is the finger print proficient and he has also deposed about taking photographs by HC Ravinder. He has inspected the spot but could not find any finger print at the spot.
10. PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh is the complainant and injured and he has stated that police has recorded his statement which is Ex.PW4/A.
11. PW5 Ct. Rajender has deposed that on 22.11.07 one injured Yogesh Pratap Singh was brought to RML Hospital. He handed over the parcel of clothes and blood sample to the IO which were seized vide memo Ex.Pw5/A. The personal search of injured was also seized vide memo Ex.PW5/B.
12. PW6 HC Kaushlender Kumar has deposed that on 22.11.07 at about 7.45 p.m DD no.22 A was handed over to him and he reached at the spot i.e. Gate no.4 of RML Hospital where he found blood lying on the road. He has further deposed that SI DD Meena also reached there and after leaving him at the spot, SI DD Meena went to hospital who returned back after sometime and handed over rukka to him and then he went to PS and got the case registered. He has further deposed that blood stained tile was seized after breaking the same and earth control was also seized from there and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. Duty Ct. State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 4 of 21 handed over two parcel with the seal of hospital which were seized vide memo Ex.Pw5/A.
13. PW7 SI Suresh Kumar ( the then Constable) has deposed that on 12.12.07 accused Rambilas @ Babli took the police party to house no. 17/169, IInd Floor, Trilokpuri and got recovered one knife which was kept on the slab of a room and disclosed that he caused injury on the person of Yogesh Pratap by this knife. The sketch of the knife is Ex.PW7/A and it was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/B. He identified the knife as Ex.P1.
14. PW8 W/Ct Meenakshi has deposed that she received information on 22.11.07 from Veer Pal (telephone no. 9911464317) regarding lying of one person in injured condition at gate no. 4 and she filled up CPCR form which is Ex.PW8/A.
15. PW9 HC Kirori Lal Meena has deposed that he alongwith SI DD Meena went to village Purva Hasoor of Distrit Barabanki in search of accused Ram Vilas Paswan and he was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B. He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex.PW9/C. He has further deposed that accused was produced in the court on 10.12.07 and thereafter brought back to Delhi on 11.12.07. he has further deposed that on 11.12.2007 accused pointed out State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 5 of 21 the place of incident vide memo Ex.PW9/D.
16. PW10 ASI Ram Singh has deposed that he deposited six parcels in CFSL Kolkata vide RC no. 111/21/07 .
17. PW11 S Mehto, Medical Record Technician has deposed that Dr. Akram Javed has prepared the MLC of Yogesh Pratap Singh which is is Ex.PW11/A.
18. PW12 Suresh Babu, Astt. Director, CFSL has deposed that he examined the exhibits and prepared report which is Ex.PW12/A.
19. PW13 Dr. P Paul Ramesh is the Sr. Scientific Officer from CFSL Kolkatta and he also examined the exhibits and prepared report which is Ex.PW13/A.
20. PW14 ASI Surender Pal Singh has deposed that PCR call was received on 22.11.07 which was recorded in DD no.22A Ex.PW14/A and it was marked to SI DD Meena. He recorded the FIR of this case, the copy of FIR is Ex.PW14/B.
21. PW15 SI DD Meena is the IO of this case and he reached at the spot on receipt of DD no.22A copy of which is Ex.PW14/A. He went to hospital and recorded the statement of injured Ex.PW4/A, made his State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 6 of 21 endorsement Ex.PW15/A and got the case registered. He lifted the blood with the help of gauze and blood earth control vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. Duty constable in the hospital handed over parcels to him which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/C. He prepared the site plan which is Ex.PW15/C. He has further deposed about arrest of accused from his village Urva Asodh on 9.12.07 vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A. He recorded the disclosure statement which is Ex.PW9/C. Accused pointed out the place of incident on 11.12.07 and on 12.12.07 accused got recovered one knife which was kept on the slab situated at IInd floor. He prepared the sketch which is Ex.PW7/A and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW7/b. He sent the parcels to CFSL, Kolkata, West Bengal. He identified the case property i.e. knife Ex.P1.
22. In defence accused has examined DW1 Deepak Kumar who is the Assistant Ahlmad in the court of Ms. Sunaina Sharma, Ld.MM and he has produced the file of FIR no. 282/03 u/s 498A/406 IPC. It was registered against Yogesh Pratap and Smt. Sujja Devi. The certified copies are Ex.DW1/D1 to D25. He has also produced the execution file petition no.228/03. The same are Ex.DW1/D26 to D44.
23. In the overall analysis of the testimonies of all the witnesses it is revealed that PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh is the complainant and injured in this case. He is the star witnesses of the prosecution and whole case of the prosecution rests on his testimony. Infact he is the backbone of the State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 7 of 21 prosecution case. In his testimony PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh has deposed that on 22.11.2007 at about 730 p.m he was going on foot from Connaught Place to RML hospital bus stand to board in a bus which goes to Nangloi. When he reached near gate no.4 of RML Hospital at that time two persons including accused Ram Vilas @ vikas came to the court and asked him as to whether he is going to Minister and they threatened that they will not spare him. In the meantime accused Vikas having knife in his hand gave blow on his head with the said knife and he also gave knife blow on his stomach. He raised alarm 'bachao bachao'. Thereafter they both disappeared from there and he does not know where they had gone. Two passersby look after him from falling on the road due to injury caused by the accused. Thereafter he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. The accused persons gave him beatings as a case is pending between him and the sister of accused in Karkardooma court. In the hospital he was medically examined and police came there and his statement was recorded which is Ex.PW4/A. In cross examination he has stated that he gave his statement to the police in RML Hospital on 22.11.07 at about 8.30 p.m. He admitted that a maintenance petition is pending against him in Karkardooma court filed by the sister of accused. He does not recollect when he appeared last time in Karkardooma court. He cannot deny or admit that he did not appear in Karkardooma court after 2006. He cannot recollect whether some public persons were present near gate no.4 at that time or not.He does not recollect whether near the place of incident metro work was State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 8 of 21 going on or not. He admitted that due to close of Baba Kharag Singh marg only two wheelers were allowed to go from there not heavy vehicles like buses etc. He admitted that due to pendency of maintenance petition, the relations with accused are strained. He denied the suggestion that prior to this case incident many time he alongwith his family members asked the accused and his sister to withdraw the maintenance petition otherwise they will face the consequences. He came to know about next date in Karkardooma court as 2311.2007. He left Barabanki for Delhi on 19.11.2007. In Nangloi his cousin sister is residing. He denied that he left Barabanki for Delhi on 20.11.2007. He met his counsel on 22.11.07 again said his counsel did not meet him on that day. He did not take the police officer to the house of accused at any time in respect of this case. He denied the suggestion that accused alongwith his associate have not caused injury to him.
24. In view of the testimony of PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh it is revealed that he is only the main star witnesses of the prosecution in this case. Infact he is the backbone of the prosecution case. Considering his deposition it is revealed that PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh, injured/complainant has assigned the particular and specific role of accused Rambilas @ Vikas @ Babli as he has stated that accused Vikas was having knife in his hand and he gave blow on his head with the said knife and also gave knife blow on his stomach. Thereafter he became unconscious and when regained consciousness,he found himself in the State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 9 of 21 hospital. No other witness to the occurrence is available in this case. So, for corroboration of the testimony of PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh, I have also considered the MLCs of injured and complaint Yogesh Pratap which is Ex.Pw11/A. In the MLC alleged history of assault by some sharp object with injury to scalp and lower abdomen is mentioned. PW4 has also stated that accused gave knife blow on his head and abdomen. On Local Examination the doctor has found injuries i.e. 10x1 cm incised wound, bone deep on parital region active spurting bleeding and (2) superficial incised wound over left paranmstical region, no bleeding. So, the version of PW4 is corroborated by the MLC. I have also perused the cross examination of PW4. In cross examination it has come that a case u/s 498A/406 IPC and maintenance petition is pending between the sister of accused Rambilas and accused in Karkardooma court due to which the relations between the accused and complainant got strained. The testimony of PW4 could not be shattered by the Ld. Defence counsel in cross examination. PW4 has stated in his statement that the accused persons gave beatings to him as the case is pending between him and the sister of accused in Karkardooma Court. The certified copies of proceedings are available on file. So, motive to cause injury on the person of PW4 has also been established by the prosecution. In this case ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence and PW4 has given consistent statement. 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.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 10 of 21 incident and there does not seem any plausible reason to disbelieve the injured witnesses. On perusal of the testimony of PW4 Yogesh Pratap Singh it is revealed that he has assigned the particular role of accused Rambilas. However, I have found some contradiction in his statement 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.
25. Ld. Defence counsel has contended that complainant injured had given two statements one in the hospital which is Ex.PW4/A on which the present case was registered and another on 24.11.07 which is Ex.PW1/DX and both the statements are contradictory. I have also perused both the statements. In the first statement on which the present case was registered, the complainant/injured has described only about the incident but in the second statement he has also described about the background of the case. In the second statement I find mention about the injuries caused to complainant by the accused. The backgrounds of the case deposed by PW4 in second statement cannot be considered as contradictions.
26. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case because case is going on in Karkardooma court between sister of accused and complainant u/s State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 11 of 21 498A/406 and execution petition is also pending. He has examined DW1 Deepak Kumar, Assistant Ahlmad who has produced the said case file. The documents are Ex.PWDW1/D1 to D21 and D33 to D25. The accused in his statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.PC has also stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the police in connivance with the complainant as a case against the complainant is pending in Karkardooma court which was lodged by his sister. The MLC of injured clearly indicate that complainant Yogesh Pratap had sustained injury on his head and stomach. The photographs Ex.PW1/A1, PW2/B1 to B8 of the spot also clearly indicate that there was blood lying there. It is crystal clear that Yogesh Pratap Singh, complainant had sustained in injury or that he was beaten by someone. There is no suggestion in evidence from the ld. Defence counsel that complainant has fallen on his own or that he was given beatings by someone else and he named the present accused falsely because of enmity. The injured has clearly named accused Rambilas that he had caused injury on his head and stomach with knife. The pendency of case between sister of accused and injured can be the motive to cause injury. So,the plea of Ld. Defence counsel regarding false implication of accused cannot be sustained.
27. In view of the supportive and corroborative testimonies of PW4, I have also perused the testimonies of other official witnesses. PW8 W/Ct.Meenakshi has recorded the information in CPCR form which is Ex.PW8/A regarding the present case incident. As per Ex.PW8/A State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 12 of 21 some Veerpal having telephone no. 9911464317 had given information regarding lying of one person in injured condition at gate no.4, RML Hospital and thereafter SI DD Meena got recorded that injured has informed that two persons on motorcycle had beaten him and public person have got him admitted in the hospital. The first information was recorded at 7.43 p.m. PW15 SI DD Meena is the IO of this case and he reached at the spot on receipt of DD no.22A Ex.PW14/A. PW6 HC Kaushlender Kr also reached at the spot. PW15 left him at the spot and went to hospital where he recorded the statement Ex.PW4/A of complainant, made his endorsement and handed over the rukka to PW6 for registration of the case. PW6 has also deposed that he got the case registered. PW14 ASI Surender Pal Singh who has recorded the FIR has stated that he received rukka through HC Kaushlender. All these three witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other regarding registration of FIR. So, copy of FIR Ex.PW14/C stand proved. Pw15 has further deposed that he lifted the blood stained tile after breaking the same and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.Pw6/A and also seized the parcels given by ct. Rajender vide memo Ex.Pw5/A. PW6 has corroborated his version regarding seizure of tile as well as about lifting of earth control and he has also stated about handing over of two parcels by Ct. Rajender. Ct. Rajender has been examined by the prosecution as PW5 who handed over two parcels to IO after these were handed over to him by the doctor who examined the complainant/injured. No suggestion has been put to PW6 HC Kaushlender or PW15 SI DD Meena by the Ld. State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 13 of 21 Defence counsel that nothing was seized from the spot by the IO. So, seizure of tile has been proved by the prosecution. PW15 SI DD Meena has further stated that on 09.12.2007 he went to village of accused Urva Asodh District Barabanki from where accused Rambilas was arrested vide memo Ex.PW9/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/C. Pw9 HC Kirori Lal Meena had accompanied PW15 to the village of accused from where he was arrested. Both the PWS have deposed that on 10.12.07 they obtained the transit remand of accused and brought him to Delhi. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused has admitted that he was arrested. But stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He has replied in negative that he was not arrested from village Urva Ashodh district Barabanki. In cross examination PW9 HC Kirori Lal Meena has denied the suggestion of ld. Defence counsel that the accused was arrested from the Market of his village Barabanki. By putting this suggestion it has been admitted by the defence that accused was arrested from market of his village, District Barabanki.The arrest memo Ex.PW9/A also shows place of arrest as District Barabanki, village Urva Hasaur and information regarding arrest was given to Paras Ram, father of accused whose signatures are also available on arrest memo. The order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki dated 10.12.07 regarding transit remand is available on file. So, the arrest of accused from his village has been proved by the prosecution.
28. PW15 SI DD Meena has further stated that he interrogated the State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 14 of 21 accused and recorded his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW9/C. He has further stated that on 12.12.07 he alongwith Ct. Suresh and accused went to his house situated in Trilokpuri from where accused got recovered one knife which was kept on the slab in the second floor in a room. The sketch of the knife is Ex.PW7/A and it was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. PW7 SI Suresh Kumar accompanied IO to the house of accused. Though knife has not been shown to PW4, but PW7 SI Suresh Kumar and PW15 SI DD Meena have identified the knife as Ex.P1 which was got recovered by the accused. The place of recovery was the house of accused. So, on the basis of disclosure statement of accused recovery of knife has been effected and this portion of his disclosure statement Ex.PW9/C is admissible in evidence. PW15 has further stated that the knife was sent to CFSL Kolkata. PW10 ASI Ram Singh has taken the case property to Kolkatta. The prosecution has examined PW12 Suresh Babu and PW13 Dr.P.Paul from CFSL who had examined the exhibits. The reports are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW13/A. As per report Ex.PW12/A, Ex.2&3, the Ex.2(tile sample) has been found to be similar to Ex.3 (tile control). As per report Ex.PW13/A, human blood was detected on Ex.1 i.e. blood gauze and Ex.2 i.e. tile sample and human blood was not detected on Ex.6 i.e. knife. Ex.1&2 were lifted from the spot and presence of blood indicate that the incident had taken place there. I have also perused the cross examination of these official witnesses. The testimonies of officials witness could not be shattered by the ld. Defence counsel in cross examination. Ld. defence counsel has relied upon case State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 15 of 21 Law 2011(1) JCC 526 titled Rohtash Vs. State in which it was observed that: 'IPC 1860, Sec. 307 Attempt to - Murder - benefit of doubt, when given
- injured/victim could not corroborate his Police Statement, While testifying in the court - The only corroboration is identification of the accused/appellant - Alleged incident took place at thickly populated area, but no one brought the injured to the Hospital, and not informed the police - Prosecution could not produce any independent witness to prove the offence - Benefit of doubt given and acquitted'.
29. In the present case in hand the injured/victim PW4 Yogesh Pratap while testifying in the court has fully corroborated his police statement and assigned the role to accused Rambilas that he had given knife blow on his head and stomach which is further corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW9/A. As per PCR Form Ex.PW8/A, SI DD Meena had informed the duty officer that injured has given information that he was admitted by the public in the hospital. The MLC of injured Ex.Pw11/A suggest that he was admitted in the hospital by 'Public'. The public person Veerpal has given information from his mobile no. 9911464316 in this case. So, with due respect this case law is not application to the present facts and circumstances of the case.
30. I have also given my thoughtful consideration on medical evidence. PW11 S Mehto, Medical Record Technician has stated that MLC of Yogesh pratap Singh dated 22.11.2007 was prepared by Dr. Akram Javed who has left the service of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not know. The MLC is Ex.PW11/A. So, the prosecution State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 16 of 21 has failed to examined the doctor who prepared the MLC of injured Yogesh Pratap Singh. I have also perused the MLC. On the MLC the nature of injury has been opined as 'Simple' by Dr. Praveen Kumar. The prosecution has also not examined the said doctor who opined the nature of injury. In order to constitute the offence u/s 307 IPC, the intention & knowledge of the accused must be such as necessary to constitute murder. The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of sec. 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. In the present case the accused was coming on motorcycle. The complainant was going on foot from Connaught Place to RML Bus stand. The complainant/injured met the accused suddenly near RML Hospital. So, he had no intention to kill the complainant. The injuries inflicted have been opined as 'simple'. Intention is question of fact which is to be gathered from the acts committed by the accused and knowledge means awareness of the consequences of the act. It means the knowledge that specified consequences would result or could result by doing an act. By applying the aforesaid test, I am of the view that the incident has taken place on the spur of moment. Further in consideration of the case law 2010 (3) JCC 1595 titled Rajpal & Anr Vs. State that : 'Penal Code, 1860 - Sec. 307/34 - Attempt to cause death - since the wound caused to the complainant was superficial, it cannot be said that the knife blow to the complainant was given with a substantial force - the appellant gave only one knife blow to the complainant, had the intention been to cause death, State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 17 of 21 multiple injuries must have caused to the complainant - the injury to the complainant was caused in the course of quarrel, consequent to the quarrel on the previous day on keenness of the complaint to get the house vacated - Convict under section 307/34 not justified, appellants ought to be convicted u/s 324/34'. It is stated in 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"
31. On perusal of the MLC it is revealed that the nature of injury has been opined as 'simple'. . The doctor who gave the nature of injury on the MLC of Yogesh Pratap has not been examined. So, this case does not fall under section 307 IPC and it falls only u/s 324 IPC. State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 18 of 21
32. In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove its case for the commission of offence punishable u/s 324 IPC. I, therefore hold accused Rambilas @ Vikas @ Babli guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and convict him thereunder.
Announced in the open Court on 13.09.2011 (SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track CourtNew Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 19 of 21 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.10/11 FIR No.402/07 U/s 307/34 IPC PS Mandir Marg State Vs. Ramvilas @ Bikas @ Babli s/o Paras Ram 17/169 Kalyanpuri Delhi ......Accused ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE Accused Ramvilas @ Bikas @ Babli has been held guilty for the commission of offence punishable u/s 324 IPC and convicted thereunder vide Judgment dated 13.09.2011.
2. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the convict as well as accused/convict on the point of sentence. During the course of arguments it has been submitted on behalf of the convict that he is young boy of aged about 25 years. He is married having one daughter aged about five months. He is doing mobile repairing job. It has further been submitted on behalf of the convict that he has burden of his family on his shoulders. It has further been submitted that he is the first offenders. There is no other case registered against him in any court of law nor he is previous convict. He is only the bread earner in his family and entire family is dependent upon him. It has further State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 20 of 21 been submitted that the convict belongs to very poor family and he is only the earning member in his family. He undertake to maintain peace and be of good behaviour if he is released on probation. Ld.counsel has submitted that benefit of probation may be given to the accused/convict.
3. In consideration of the submissions made by ld.defence counsels on behalf of the convict and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the accused/convict has not been involved or engaged in any other criminal proceeding, any activities and case & as per his version he undertake to maintain and keep peace and be of good behaviour. He is the first offender. So, I feel it to give the benefit of probation to the convict in this case. Therefore, convicts Ramvilas @ Vikas @ Babli is given the benefit of probation. He be released on probation on his entering into bonds in the sum of Rs.5000/ with one surety in the like amount, to appear and receive the sentence when he is called upon during the period of one year from the date of entering into the bond and in the mean time he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour u/s 324 IPC. Copy of judgment and copy of order on the point of sentence be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open Court on 14.09.2011.
(SURESH CHAND RAJAN) ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (Fast Track CourtNew Delhi and South East District) NEW DELHI State Vs.Rambilas @ Bikas @ Babli FIR no.402/07 Page No. 21 of 21