Delhi District Court
Sc No:3 /14 State vs . Jogender & Ors. on 11 August, 2014
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
DISTRICT COURTS DWARKA ; NEW DELHI
In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 03/14
FIR No. 35/09
Police Station Palam Village
Under Section 186/353/333 IPC &
129/177/184 MV Act
ID No. 02405R0438102009
State
Versus
1. Pardeep @ Yogender
S/o Sh. Surinder
R/o RZ-296/I, Durga Park,
Main Nasirpur, New Delhi -46
2. Ravinder
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
3. Joginder
S/o Sh. Prem Raj
Both Resident of :-
WZ-1122 Palam Village
Badial Mohalla
New Delhi ......Accused Persons
Judgment 1 of 21
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
Date of institution 28/10/2009
File received on transfer 15/01/2014
Judgment reserved on 22/07/2014
Judgment Pronounced on 07/08/2014
Decision Pradeep stands Convicted
Accused Ravinder &
Yogender are acquitted
JUDGMENT
1. The FIR in question arises out of complaint made by SI Rajbeer Mann that on 24.01.2009 he along with other traffic staff were on vehicle checking drive near Dwarka Flyover. A team comprising of SI Subhash, HC Shyam Lal, HC Ved Parkash, HC Rakesh Kumar & Ct. Puspender were checking vehicles under Dwarka Flyover Road which was leading to Dada Dev Chowk, Palam. Ct. Puspender was standing at chowk on right turn half loop side. At about 12.30 p.m, a motorcyclist (accused Pardeep @ Yogender) without helmet came from Sec-1 Dwarka side on black motorcycle No. DL-9S N 8527, make Hero Honda Karizma and was signaled to stop by Ct. Rakesh Judgment 2 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
Kumar and further signaled to stop by HC Shayam Lal but the motor cyclist sped up and hit HC Shayam Lal who sustained injuries and fell unconscious on the road. The motorcyclist also got dis-balanced and fell on the road. HC Shyamlal and the motorcyclist were rushed to the hospital by a private vehicle. Meanwhile, two boys namely Joginder and Ravinder came at the spot. They threatened and physically assaulted SI Rajbeer Mann. On the complaint of SI Rajbeer Maan the accused persons were booked U/s 186/353/332/279/338/IPC.
2. The charge for the offence punishable U/s 333/186/353/IPC and U/s 129/177/184 Motor Vehicle Act was framed against the accused Pardeep @ Yogender who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The charge for the offence U/s 186/353/34 IPC was framed against the accused Jogender and Ravinder on 08.10.2010 to which both of them pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove this case the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses.
Judgment 3 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
4. PW1 SI Rajbeer is the main complainant. He has proved his statement given to the police which is Ex. PW1/A. The witness narrated the facts as stated in his complaint and testified that at the time of the incident many persons gathered at the spot and somebody pulled the collar of his shirt from behind as a result of which the button of his shirt was broken. However, the witness was declared hostile and upon his cross examination by Ld. APP the witness testified that the two boys Ravinder and Jogender pounced upon him and started man- handling him by saying that "we would forget checking at the spot in future". The witness testified that both of them had obstructed the police team while discharging their official duty and tore his uniform. The witness deposed that the torn shirt was seized by the IO after sealing with seal of MS and he identified his torn shirt as Ex. P1 and the motor cycle in question as Ex. P2.
Judgment 4 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
5. PW2 Pooran Chand deposed that he is retired DTC mechanic and he conducted the inspection of the motorcycle as per his report Ex. PW2/A.
6. PW3 Dr. Tapeshwar Sehgal deposed that he examined HC Shaymlal and testified that the patient had sustained multiple injuries in the form of nasal bone fracture & upper lip cut which were grievous in nature. PW3 proved the MLC prepared by him as Ex. PW3/A and treatment record of HC Shyamlal as Ex. PW3/B.
7. PW4 SI Subhash Chand deposed that he was present with a traffic team under Palam Flyover when a boy on a motorcycle had hit the HC Shyam Lal due to which HC Shyam Lal fell down and sustained injuries. The witness identified the accused Pradeep as the motorcyclist. The witness was declared hostile and on cross examination by Ld. APP, PW4 deposed that two boys had come at the Judgment 5 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
spot and started abusing SI Rajbeer Maan and both the boys manhandled SI Rajbeer Mann and torn his uniform. The witness could identify only accused Ravinder to be one of those two boys.
8. PW5 HC Shyam Lal deposed on the lines of the complaint and testified that Ct. Rakesh had signaled the motorcyclist to stop but he did not stop his motorcycle and then PW5 shouted at him to stop but the motorcyclist turned the motorcycle towards him and hit him due to which he fell down and became unconscious. The witness identified the the motorcyclist to be the accused Ravinder.
9. PW6 ASI Ganesh Prasad proved the duty roaster for 24.01.2009 of Traffic circle, Dwarka as Ex. PW6/A.
10. PW7 HC Dharmender deposed that he along with ASI Mahender Singh reached near Palam Flyover where a motorcycle Hero Honda was found in accidental condition. Two boys were in the custody of SI Rajbeer Maan. At the spot ASI Mahender Singh received Judgment 6 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
a DD No. 16A to the effect that the injured has been admitted at Mata Channan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri. ASI Mahender Singh left for hospital and both the boys were handed over to him. At about 02.30 p.m,ASI Mahender Singh returned to the spot. ASI Mahender handed over him a rukka to register the case. SI Rajbeer Maan handed over his shirt to ASI Mahender which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Motorcycle was also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex PW7/B. The accused Ravinder and Joginder were arrested vide memos Ex PW7/C & D and their personal search was taken vide memos Ex PW7/E & F. On 25.01.2009. PW7 along with IO went to spot where the accused Pradeep @ Yogender was arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW7/G and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW7/H.
11. PW8 ASI Mahender Singh recorded the statement of SI Rajbeer Mann, he prepared rukka Ex PW8/A and got registered FIR through Ct. Dharmender. He arrested the accused persons and got the motorcycle inspected. He also prepared the site plan.
Judgment 7 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
12. PW9 HC Ved Prakash also testified that he was member of traffic team when the motorcyclist had hit HC Shyam Lal and the two boys had come at the spot who manhandled and torn the uniform of SI Rajbeer.
13. PW10 Ramesh Kaushik deposed that as ACP, South West District, he prepared a complaint Ex. PW10/A under section 196 IPC.
14. PW11 Ct. Rakesh deposed that he was the member of the traffic team when the motorcyclist hit HC Shyam Lal. The two boys also reached at the spot who man-handled SI Rajbeer Mann and torn his uniform.
Judgment 8 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
15. PW12 Ct. Pushpender deposed that he was the member of the traffic team when the motorcyclist hit HC Shyam Lal. He shifted HC Shyamlal to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital in a private vehicle. The witness was unable to identify the motorcyclist.
16. On conclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of accused persons were recorded wherein they submitted that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. In their defence the accused persons examined HC Rajesh Kumar as DW1 who has proved the DD No. 9 dated 24.01.2009 Ex. DW1/A and the DD No. 9 A his Ex. DW1/B.
17. I have heard the Ld APP for State and Ld Counsel for the accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
Judgment 9 of 21
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
Case Against Accused Pradeep @ Yogender
18. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.01.2009, the complainant PW1 SI Rajbeer Mann along with SI Subhash, HC Shyam Lal, HC Ved Parkash, HC Rakesh Kumar & Ct. Puspender were on vehicle checking drive near Dwarka Flyover. At about 12.30 p.m, accused Pardeep @ Yogender who was driving motorcycle bearing registration No. DL-9S N 8527 without helmet came from Sec-1, Dwarka side and was signaled to stop by Ct. Rakesh Kumar but he did not stop thereafter he was further signaled to stop by HC Shyam Lal but the accused instead of stopping the motorcycle sped it and hit against HC Shyam Lal. HC Shyam Lal sustained injuries and became unconscious.
19. In order to prove that the injured HC Shyam Lal was on duty at the time and place of the incident along with the other Traffic Police staff the prosecution has examined PW6 ASI Ganesh Prasad has proved the duty roaster for 24.01.2009 of Traffic circle, Dwarka as Judgment 10 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
Ex. PW6/A, duty roaster shows that on 24.01.2009, SI Rajbeer, HC Shyam Lal, Ct Rakesh & Ct Pushpender were deputed at Zone-I, (Dwarka Gate, Palam Flyover & Palam Railway Phatak). It is not in dispute that the incident happened at near Palam Flyover. Thus, the prosecution has able to establish that the injured was on Traffic Duty for checking vehicle at the time and place of incident.
20. Now, let us examine as to whether the motorcycle driven by accused Pradeep had hit the injured HC Shyam Lal and if yes, the mode and manner in which the incident had happened.
21. The PW1 SI Rajbeer Maan, SI Subash Chand(PW4), injured HC Shyam Lal (PW5), HC Ved Prakash, Ct Rakesh(PW11) & Ct Pushpender (PW12) have deposed in unison that despite given signal to stop by Ct Rakesh and HC Shyam Lal the accused who was driving the motorcycle without helmet did not stop and instead sped up the motorcycle and hit HC Shyam Lal.
Judgment 11 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
22. The incident has duly been proved by the aforesaid witnesses and even otherwise the injuries sustained by HC Shyam Lal through the motorcycle of the accused has not been denied by the defence. Rather, a suggestion has been given to the witnesses of the incident that when the HC Shyam Lal caught hold of the motorcycle of the accused from behind during that process injured fell down and both the accused and HC Shyam Lal sustained injuries.
23. Even presuming the suggestion of the accused to be true then also it has to be explained by the accused that why he did not bother to stop the motorcycle after being signaled to do so first by Constable Rakesh (PW11) and then by injured HC Shyam Lal. Once the accused was signaled to stop then he was under obligation to abide by the traffic signal instead the accused who was found to be driving the motorcycle without helmet tried to speed up the bike with the obvious motive to escape facing a challan. Even if the injured did try to stop the motorcycle by holding it from behind even then the action on part of the injured was a consequence of the act of the accused of Judgment 12 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
not stopping the bike. None the less, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses prove beyond any doubt that accused did not stop his motorcycle even after signaled to do so and in the process hit HC Shyam Lal.
24. It is in evidence that PW5 HC Shyam Lal after being hit by the motorcycle fell down, sustained injuries, the injured was taken to Mata Channan Hospital. PW3 Dr. Tapeshwar Sehgal who examined HC Shaymlal deposed that the patient had sustained multiple injuries such as nasal bone fracture and full cut over upper lip which were grievous in nature. PW3 proved the MLC prepared by him as Ex. PW3/A and treatment record of HC Shyamlal as Ex. PW3/B.
25. It has been contended on behalf of the accused Pradeep that neither the injured PW5 HC Shyamlal nor PW12 Pushpender have been able to identify the accused Pradeep @ Yogender as a motorcycle rider and therefore, in absence of his identification by the injured, he cannot be convicted in the present case.
Judgment 13 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
26. PW1 Rajbir Mann, PW4 SI Subhash Chand, PW9 HC Vedprakash and PW11 who are eye witnesses to the incident, all have correctly identified the accused Pradeep as the motorcycle rider. The accused Pradeep himself has not disputed that he was driving the motorcycle. In his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has admitted that he was riding motorcycle without helmet and has merely disputed that no signal was given to him to stop the bike. Therefore, merely because the injured and Ct. Pushpender have not identified the accused Pradeep to be the motorcycle rider would not hamper the case of the prosecution in any manner as all other witnesses have proved the incident and identity of the accused without shadow of doubt.
27. The evidence led by prosecution proves that:
i) The injured HC Shyam Lal was discharging his duty as public servant at Dwarka Flyover by checking the vehicles.
ii) Despite being given stop signal the accused sped up his motorcycle Judgment 14 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
with intent to prevent HC Shyam Lal from discharging his duty and hit his motorcycle against him.
iii) By speeding up the motorcycle the accused caused grievous hurt to HC Shyam Lal and this action on the part of the accused is voluntarily and with a reason to believe that his such a rash act can cause serious consequences which exactly had happened.
28. The accused while not abiding with the signal to stop and instead hitting the HC Shyam Lal has not only caused the obstruction in the work of all the Traffic Police Team but also accused by hitting the injured and causing him the grievous hurt with his motorcycle is also guilty of using criminal force with intent to stop HC Shyam Lal and others in discharging their traffic duty. Thus, the accused is found to be guilty for the offence punishable under section S.186/333/353 IPC and he stands convicted for the said offences.
Judgment 15 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
29. It is also in evidence that the accused Pradeep was driving the motorcycle without helmet and he did not stop the bike despite being signaled to do so. The accused not only disobeyed the traffic signal given by the injured PW5 & PW11 but he sped up his motorcycle. The act of the accused of driving the motorcycle without helmet and not abiding by the stop signal amounts to dangerous driving and is punishable U/s 129/177/184 MV Act and hence the accused is convicted for these offences as well. Case Against Accused Jogender and Ravinder
30. The prosecution has alleged that while the HC Shyam Lal got injured, the accused Jogender and Ravinder came at the spot and both of them threatened and physically assaulted SI Rajbeer Mann. They manhandled him and tore buttons of his uniform.
Judgment 16 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
31. SI Rajbeer Mann is the main complainant of the case and he testified in his examination in chief that after the incident somebody pulled collar of his shirt from behind as a result of which the button of his shirt was broken and nothing else had happened in his presence. The witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Ld. APP and in his cross examination PW1 had deposed that the accused Ravinder and Joginder pounced upon him and started man-handling him by saying that "Saalon ne tamasha bana rakha hai aur roz yahan pe checking kar rahe hain". The witness testified that the accused persons obstructed the traffic team and tore his uniform. The shirt of the witness with a torn pocket and two of its buttons missing is proved as Ex. P1.
32. During the course of his cross examination PW1 testified that he does not remember when his shirt was seized by the IO and testified that his signatures were taken on the seizure memo by the IO, however, the signatures of the witness were not found to be on the seizure memo.
Judgment 17 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
33. PW4 SI Subhash Chand in his examination in chief testified that one Ravinder from the public started quarreling PW 1 SI Rajbeer and thereafter nothing else happened in his presence. This witness was also declared hostile and during his cross examination, the witness deposed that the accused Ravinder and Yogender had come on the spot and pounced upon PW1 and started man-handling PW1 by saying that "Saalon ne tamasha bana rakha hai aur roz yahan pe checking kar rahe hain". The witness testified that the accused persons obstructed the traffic team and tore the uniform of PW1. However, in his cross-examination PW4 did not support the case of the prosecution and deposed he remained at the spot for about 5-6 minutes after the incident and thereafter, he went to the Hospital to see HC Shyam Lal and he did not know what happened thereafter at the spot.
34. PW9 HC Ved prakash testified that the accused persons had came at the spot and had started quarreling with PW1 and had torn the uniform of PW1. The accused persons were apprehended by the Judgment 18 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
traffic police staff. During his cross-examination the witness testified that he had not seen the shirt of SI Rajbeer and cannot tell the time when the seizure memo of the shirt was prepared by the IO.
35. PW11 Ct Rakesh also testified that the accused persons had came at the spot and had started quarreling with PW1 and had torn the uniform of PW1. The accused persons were apprehended by the traffic police staff. During his cross-examination deposed that he cannot tell which pocket of the shirt was torn and he does not remember if the shirt was seized at the spot or not.
36. The above stated testimonies would show the inconsistencies in the version of the prosecution witnesses. PW1 who is the complainant in the case deposed in his examination in chief that somebody pulled the collar of his shirt from behind as a result of which the button of his shirt was broken. It is only after the witness was declared hostile and was cross examined by the Ld APP the witness could tell that his shirt was torn by the accused persons.
Judgment 19 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
37. Similarly, PW4 SI Subhash Chand in his examination in chief testified that one Ravinder from the public started quarreling with PW 1 SI Rajbeer and thereafter nothing else happened in his presence and only after his cross-examination by Ld APP the witness named the accused persons as culprits never the less during his cross- examination by the defence the PW4 deposed that he only remained at the spot for about 5-6 minutes after the incident and thereafter, he went to the Hospital to see HC Shyam Lal and he did not know what happened thereafter at the spot.
38. The testimonies of PW9 & PW11 would show that either they had not seen the torn shirt or that they do not know about the seizure of the same.
39. PW1, complainant and PW4 themselves have not come clean over the role of the accused persons. There testimonies qua the acts of the accused persons are under cloud and there is lot of Judgment 20 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
ambiguity in the deposition of prosecution witnesses as to the seizure of the torn shirt.
40. The defence has proved a DD No.9 lodged by SI Rajbeer Mann as Ex DW1/A at about 1:00 PM about the incident and in his entire information there is no mention of the assault by the accused persons on SI Rajbeer Mann.
41. Thus, in the light of the above discussions, I am of the view that the prosecution has been unable to bring home the charge against the accused persons, hence both the accused persons Joginder & Ravinder are acquitted for the offence punishable under section U/s 186/353/34 IPC.
It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in the Open Court on 7th August 2014.
(Gautam Manan)
ASJ-04/South West,
Dwarka Courts/N.Delhi
07.08.2014
Judgment 21 of 21
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
07.08.2014
Present: Ld. APP for State
Accused Pradeep & Ravinder on bail.
Sh. Dinesh Mudgil, Ld Counsel for accused persons. Accused Joginder is exemped for today.
Vide separate judgment, the accused Pradeep @ Yogender is convicted for the offence punishable under section U/s 186/333/353 IPC& U/s129/177/184 MV Act. Copy of the judgment be given to him free of costs.
Accused persons Joginder & Ravinder are acquitted for the offence punishable under section U/s 186/353/34 IPC. They are directed to furnish a personal bond in sum of Rs10,000/- with surety in the like amount under the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C.
Matter be listed for arguments on order on sentence qua the accused Pradeep @ Yogender on 11.08.2014 (Gautam Manan) ASJ-04/South West, Dwarka Courts/N.Delhi 07.08.2014 Judgment 22 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 ; SOUTH WEST DWARKA ; NEW DELHI In the matter of:-
S. C. No. 03/14/14 FIR No. 35/09 Police Station Palam Village Under Section 186/353/333 IPC & 129/177/184 MV Act ID No. 02405R0438102009 State Versus Pradeep @ Yogender & Others ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide judgment dated 07.08.2014, Pradeep @ Yogender is convicted for the offence punishable under section U/s 186/333/353 IPC & u/s129/177/184 MV Act.
2. I have heard detailed arguments on the point of sentence.
Judgment 23 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
3. It is submitted that convict Pradeep is 25 years old and he has no record of previous conviction against him and has clean antecedents. It has been submitted that the convict was merely 20 years of age when the offence was committed and keeping in view of the age of the convict and his future prospects the convict be released on Probation.
4. Ld APP has submitted that the convict has been guilty of causing hurt to a public servant voluntarily and without any reason to do so, hence, no leniency be shown to the convict while sentencing him.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sitaram Paswan Vs .State of Bihar, 2005 Cri LJ 4135, held that:
For exercising the power which is discretionary, the court has to consider the circumstances of the case the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take a realistic view of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim. The benefit available to the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act is subject to the Judgment 24 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
limitation embodied in the provisions and the word "may" clearly indicates that the discretion vests with the court whether to release the offender in exercise of the powers under Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, having regard to the nature of the offence and the character of the offender and overall circumstances of the case.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2000, Cri LJ 2283 while dissuading the courts to give benefit of Probation of Offenders Act under Section 304A IPC held as under:
"13. Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A IPC as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the PO Act."
6. The act of the convict not to stop the bike despite given signal to stop and instead hitting the injured is a grave act and must had a demoralizing effect on the victim who was on duty of controlling the Traffic. Managing traffic in Delhi is a big task and as its Citizen we should not only religiously obey Judgment 25 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
the traffic rules but help the cause of the police managing traffic. The hostility of the convict towards traffic police is unacceptable and he must be informed in clear terms that for his callous act, he cannot escape from jail sentence. Hence, I do find that it is a fit case to grant the benefit of Probation to the convict.
7. However, keeping in view the age of the convict, I find that he can still be granted some relaxation while awarding the sentence to him. Accordingly, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of One year under Section 333 IPC in addition to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the injured as compensation in default whereof the above convict shall undergo SI for a period of 1 month.
The convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 months under Section 353 IPC and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof the above convict shall undergo further SI for a period of 10 days. The convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 1 month under Section 186 IPC.
Judgment 26 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
The convict is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 months under Section 129/177/184 MV Act and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof the above convict shall undergo further SI for a period of 10 days.
8. All the sentences imposed on the convict shall run concurrently.
9. Copy of the order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court 11th Day of August, 2014 (GAUTAM MANAN) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE - 04 DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS Judgment 27 of 21 SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
11.08.2014
Present: Ld APP for State
Accused Pradeep & Ravinder on bail.
Sh. Dinesh Mudgil, Ld Counsel for accused
persons.
Accused Joginder is stated to be in custody in some other case.
HC Shyamlal (injured) in person.
Vide separate order on sentence, the convict Pradeep @ Yogender is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of One year under Section 333 IPC in addition to payment of fine of Rs.10,000/-, which shall be paid to the injured as compensation in default whereof the above convict shall undergo SI for a period of 1 month.
The convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 months under Section 353 IPC and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default whereof the above convict shall undergo further SI for a period of 10 days.
Judgment 28 of 21
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
-2-
The convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 1 month under Section 186 IPC.
The convict is further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for period of 3 months under Section 129/177/184 MV Act and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default whereof the above convict shall undergo further SI for a period of 10 days.
All the sentences imposed on the convict shall run concurrently.
Copy of the order on sentence & judgment has been supplied to the convict free of cost.
The amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid by the convict to the injured HC Shyamlal as compensation.
Remaining amount stands deposited in the Court as a fine.
Judgment 29 of 21
SC No:3 /14 State Vs. Jogender & Ors.
-3-
The convict has filed an application seeking grant of bail filing an appeal against the order of conviction in sentence. The convict is admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bond and surety bond in sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the period of 30 days.
The bond has been furnished and accepted.
Accused Ravinder has furnished a personal bond in sum of Rs10,000/- with surety in the like amount under the provisions of section 437A Cr.P.C. The bond is accepted.
File be consigned to record room.
(Gautam Manan)
ASJ-04/South West,
Dwarka Courts/N.Delhi
11.08.2014
Judgment 30 of 21