Delhi District Court
St vs Sonu Singh Fir No. 231/09 Ps Shahdara , ... on 31 May, 2011
1 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC IN THE COURT OF SH. B.S. CHUMBAK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI Case ID Number 02402R0051462010 Sessions Case No. 28/10 Assigned to Sessions 09/08/10 Arguments heard on 28/05/2011 FIR NO. 231/09 Police station SHAHDARA Under Section U/Sec. 307/34 IPC Date of order 28/05/2011 Out come of the case Convicted STATE VS. SONU SINGH S/O LALLAN PRASAD R/O 183/3, GALI NO.1 BIHARI COLONY, SHAHDARA. PR : Sh. S.K Dass, Ld. Addl. PP for the state. Sh. S.K Santoshi Advocate on behalf of accused. JUDGMENT
1. On 25/7/09 a case u/s 307/34 IPC was registered at PS Shahdara vide FIR No. 231/09 on the basis of statement of Neeraj s/o Sh. Makhan Singh r/o Madan Ka Makan, Gali No.2 Bihari Colony, Shahdara Delhi against accused Sonu Singh s/o Sh. Lallan Parsad r/o 183/3 Gali No.1, Bihari Colony Shahdara Delhi and Moni @ Monu being tried by Juvenile Court.
2. Brief facts arising out of this case are that on 24/7/09 at about 10.20 p.m 1 2 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC on receipt of information through PCR vide DD No.42A ASI Dharmender along with Const. Gagan Giri reached at the spot i.e Friday Market chowk Kabool Nagar Shahdara Delhi and on reaching there they came to know that injured had already been taken to GTB hospital. Both the police officials reached at GTB Hospital and obtained the MLC bearing No.3328/09 of injured Neeraj s/o Sh. Makhan Singh. Doctor declared the injured fit for making statement, therefore, his statement was recorded wherein he stated as under:
`` On 24/7/09 at about 9.30 p.m he had gone to Friday market chowk Kabool Nagar Shahdara Delhi for purchasing the house hold goods. Two/three months ago, prior to the aforesaid date a girl namely Mamta resident of Gali No.14 became known to him, however, Sonu started raising objection on his said Act. When he (injured) was present in Friday market chowk, Sonu met him and started abusing him. One Moni @ Jishan, friend of Sonu was with him.
When he was returning from the market, in the mean time Sonu and Moni attacked on his back with sharp edge weapon/object continuously with the intention to kill him. On receipt of injuries he fell down at the spot, his friend Prince reached at the spot 2 3 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC and took him to the GTB hospital.''
3. After registration of the case, investigations were initiated, Site plan was prepared at the instance of witness Prince. The pullanda of the exhibits and blood samples which were handed over by the doctor were taken in possession, supplementary statement of witness Prince was recorded on 26/7/09 and on his identification accused Moni @ Jishan was arrested and his personal search was taken but he was found to be Juvenile and was produced before Juvenile Justice Board. At the instance of accused Moni @ Jishan a blood stained knife was recovered from his house, sketch of knife was prepared. Knife was found to be button actuated knife, therefore, section 25 of Arms Act was also added. On 28/7/09 accused Sonu Singh was arrested, identification memo of the spot was prepared at his instance, enquiries with regard to the age of Sonu was conducted, age proof of Sonu was obtained from the school in which his date of birth was mentioned as 09/3/1991, opinion with regard to nature of injuries was collected, ossification test of coaccused Monu was conducted wherein his age was opined as 1920 years. But he has been declared Juvenile vide order dt. 28/5/2010 of Juvenile Justice Board, therefore, challan against him was presented before Juvenile 3 4 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC Justice Board. Result of CFSL was obtained and statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of all necessary investigation challan u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/sec. 307/34 IPC was presented against the accused Sonu Singh in the court of Ld. MM.
4. Ld. MM after taking cognizance for the offence supplied the copies of the challan to the accused as provided u/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the court of Sessions and on turn allocated to this court for trial. Thereafter case was fixed for arguments on charge.
5. After hearing arguments and on perusal of the material placed on record charge for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, thereafter case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. PW.1 H.C Subhash Chand appeared as (PW1), Sh. Neeraj/complainant appeared as (PW2), Sh. Prince Narula appeared as (PW3), Const. Gagan Giri appeared as (PW4), Const. Mahesh Yadav appeared as (PW5), Dr. Parmeshwar Ram appeared as (PW6), SI Dharmender Kuamr appeared as (PW7), Dr. Rajan Kumar appeared as (PW8), and SI Hukum Singh appeared as (PW9). Thereafter no witness left to be 4 5 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC examined and therefore, prosecution evidence was closed.
7. Brief testimony of all the PW's are as follows:
a).PW.1 deposed that in the intervening night of 24/25.7.09 he was posted as duty officer at P.S Shahdara and on that day at about 12:40 a.m he registered a FIR of this case vide FIR No. 231/09 on the basis of rukka sent by SI Dharamender through Ct.. Gagan Giri. He also brought the original FIR register and proved the computer copy of the same as Ex. PW1/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/B. After registration of the FIR, the copy of the FIR and original rukka were sent to IO for further investigation.
b).PW.2 deposed that on 24.07.2009, at about 9.30 pm he had gone to Shukar Bazar Chowk, Shahdara for purchasing some clothes. Accused Sonu present in the court and Moni (being tried in juvenile court) met him there. Both the accused had abused him.
When he protested, Sonu asked Moni to stabbed him with a knife, and on the instigation of accused Sonu, accused Moni stabbed him continuously on his back and also caused injuries on his backbone. He further deposed that after receiving injuries, he fell down. His friend Prince reached there, took him to the GTB hospital. Local police officials reached at GTB hospital 5 6 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC and got his statement recorded which is Ex. PW 2/A bearing his signature at point A. He identified accused Sonu present in the court. He also deposed that he can identify the accused Moni if produced before him ( but he is being tried in juvenile court). He further deposed that due to those injuries, the lower portion of his body become totally paralysed. During crossexamination he denied the suggestion that accused Moni had not stabbed him at the instance of accused Sonu.
c). PW.3 deposed that on 24.07.2009 at about 9.40 pm, he had gone to liquor shop to purchase liquor. When He reached near Kabul Nagar Chowk, Shahdara, he found a crowd of many persons present there and when he went near the spot, he found his friend Neeraj lying in an injured condition. Blood was oozing out from his body. He immediately took him(Neeraj) to the GTB hospital in an Auto and got him admitted there. Police officials reached at hospital and recorded statement of injured Neeraj. Injured Neeraj told the police in his presence that accused Sonu and his friend Moni had stabbed Neeraj on his back with the intention to kill him. Police asked him to join the investigation and accordingly he accompanied the police officials till the spot and as per his pointing out, the IO had prepared the site plan.
6 7ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC His statement was also recorded by the IO.
During his crossexamination he denied the suggestion that injured has not told to the IO in his presence that Moni had stabbed him at the instance of accused Sonu.
d). PW.4 deposed that on 24/7/09 he along with SI Dharmender went to SukerBazar( Friday market) Kabool Nagar, at about 10.30p.m. On reaching there they came to know that injured had already been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter they both went to GTB Hospital where they found injured Neeraj admitted there. IO recorded the statement of injured Neeraj, prepared rukka and handed over the same to him to got the case registered. He went to police station and after registration of the FIR, returned to the hospital and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO.
He further deposed that duty constable handed over one sealed pullanda and one sample seal to the IO in his presence. IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 4/A. Thereafter he along with the IO and public witness Prince went to Bihari Colony in search of the accused but accused could not be traced.
He further deposed that on 25/7/09 concerned doctor 7 8 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC of GTB hospital handed over to him one sealed pullanda containing the blood stained clothes of the complainant and one sample seal which he handed over to IO later on and IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 4/B. He further deposed that on 28/7/09 accused Sonu was arrested from Bihari colony vide arrest memo Ex.PW 4/C and his personal was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 4/D. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded vide memo Ex.PW.4/E and as per his disclosure statement he took the police team to the spot and at his instance, pointing out memo was prepared which is Ex.PW 4/F. He also identified the accused Sonu present in the court.
During his crossexamination by Ld. Counsel for accused, he deposed that, his statement was recorded twice or thrice I.e on 24/7/09, 25/7/09 and also on 28/7/09 and accused was arrested at about 9.40 p.m. He further stated that IO has not interrogated any other person except Sonu in his presence and denied the suggestion that he has not joined the investigation of this case or that all the proceedings were not conducted. Rest of his testimony is reiterated by him as submitted during examination in chief.
8 9ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC
e). PW.5 deposed on 25/7/09 he was posted as duty constable at GTB Hospital and on that day injured Neeraj was got admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that during treatment concerned doctor handed over him one sealed pullanda containing the blood stained shirt and Baniyan of injured Neeraj which he handed over to the IO and IO seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 4/A which bears my signatures at point B.
f). PW.6 is doctor who had proved the MLC No. 3328/09 dt. 24/7/09 pertaining to complainant/injured Neeraj. He further deposed that the said MLC was prepared by Dr. Pawan Gupta who had now left the services of the hospital and his present address was not available in the office record. He further stated that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Pawan Gupta as he had worked with him. MLC prepared by Dr. Pawan Gupta is Ex.PW 6/A bearing the signature of Dr. Pawan Gupta at point A. He further deposed that he also perused the noting of Dr. Pawan Gupta, Rajan Kumar and Dr. Naveen Kumar on MLC and as per opinion given by Dr. Naveen Kumar and Rajan Kumar, the nature of injuries were opined as grievous. He also identified the handwriting and signature on MLC Ex.PW 6/A, of Dr. Rajan as he had worked with him.
9 10ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC
g). PW.7 deposed that on 24/7/09 on receipt of DD No.42A he along with Const. Gagan Giri went to Friday Market chowk Kabool Nagar Delhi. On reaching there he came to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital. Accordingly he along with Const. Gagan Giri went to GTB Hospital and found injured Neeraj s/o Sh. Makhan Singh got admitted there. He collected the MLC of injured, doctor declared the injured fit for making the statement. The statement of injured Neeraj, vide Ex.PW 2/A was recorded, he made his endorsement Ex.PW 7/A, prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Const. Gagan Giri for registration of the FIR. Accordingly Const. Gagan Giri got registered the case at the police station and returned with the copy of FIR and rukka at GTB Hospital. Duty constable(PW.5) also handed over to him one sealed pullanda and sample seal which he seized vide memo Ex.PW.4/A. He further deposed that one public witness namely Prince met him at the hospital, he interrogated him. He along with Const,. Gagan Giri and witness Prince went to Bihari colony in search of accused persons but they could not be traced. Prince took them to the spot and as per his pointing out he prepared the site plan Ex.PW 7/B. He further deposed that on 25/7/09 he sent Const.
10 11ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC Gagan Giri to GTB Hospital for collecting the blood sample of injured, with an application and accordingly Const. Gagan Giri returned to the police station with one sample seal and one pullanda and handed over the same to him which he seized the same vide memo Ex.PW 4/B. He went to GTB Hospital and recorded the supplementary statement of injured Neeraj.
He also deposed that on 26/7/09 accused Jishan @ Moni ( being tried before Juvenile Justice Board) was apprehended by him. After following the procedures prescribed under the Juvenile Justice Act, accused Moni @ Jishan was arrested, was handed over to Juvenile Officer/ SI Hukam Singh, at police station. Thereafter the investigation of this case was transferred to SI Hukam Singh.
During his crossexamination he reiterated his testimony as submitted during examination in chief.
h). PW.8 is doctor who deposed that he had seen his opinion on the MLC No. A3328/09 dt.
24/7/09 pertaining to Neeraj s/o Sh. Makhan Singh. He further deposed that after going through the neuro surgical record and the noting on the MLC, he gave his opinion on 15/9/09 thereby opined the nature of injuries as grievous. His noting appears at point X on 11 12 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC the MLC Ex.PW 6/A which is in his handwriting and bearing his signatures at point B.
i). PW.9 is the second IO of this case and deposed that on 26/7/09 coaccused Moni @ Jishan ( being tried in Juvenile Justice Board) was apprehended by ASI Dharamender and custody of the accused was handed over to him being juvenile officer of the police station. He interrogated the accused Moni @ Jishan and one knife was got recovered by the accused at his instance.
He further deposed that on 28/7/09 accused present in court was arrested from Bihari colony vide arrest memo Ex.PW 4/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW 4/D. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex.PW 4/E was recorded. At the time of his arrest, accused Sonu told him that he was juvenile, therefore, he was produced before juvenile justice board and lateron he was declared major. He also deposed that further investigation were initiated and during investigation accused Sonu took the police party to the spot and at his instance pointing out memo Ex.PW 4/E was prepared, he collected the MLC, recorded the statement of witnesses and after completion of investigation challan u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C was presented against the accused Sonu, to the court of 12 13 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC Ld. MM.
During his crossexamination he reiterated his testimony as submitted during examination in chief.
8. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed and case was fixed for examination of accused as required u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C.
9. During the course of examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C he controverted all the allegations as alleged against him and submitted that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He did not desired to lead defence evidence. Therefore, the defence evidence was closed and the case was fixed for final arguments.
10.I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. counsel for all the accused persons and Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
11.Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused submitted that before convicting the accused under any penal law, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and on perusal of the testimonies of witnesses in the present case there are material contradictions brought on record by the witnesses. In support of his contentions it is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused as under:
13 14ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC
a). It is established that PW2 in his statement before the court submitted that coaccused Moni who is being tried before Juvenile Justice Board, landed a knife blow on his back part of his body due to that he received injuries. It is also established that knife was also recovered at the instance of Moni @ Jishan and nothing has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused Sonu who is being tried before this court.
b). PW.3 is public witness, he no where stated that he had seen the accused persons causing injuries on the person of PW.2 by using knife. However, whatever he has stated before the court is stated only at the instance of PW.2 (injured in this case), which on the face of it appears to be hearsay evidence and cannot be considered in corroboration of testimony of PW.2.
c). PW.4,5,7 and 9 all are police officials and they investigated the case only on the basis of statement made by PW.2 injured in this case.
d). PW.6 and PW.8 are the doctors who examined the injured and gave their opinion with regard to the nature of injuries, but they are not the witnesses of spot and neither the police witnesses nor the doctors have deposed before the court that they 14 15 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC had seen the accused causing injuries on the person of Neeraj/PW.2.
12.On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the case was initially registered on the basis of statement of injured PW.2 Neeraj and in his statement he specifically stated that on 24/7/09 at about 9.30 p.m he had gone to Friday Market Chowk, Kabool Nagar, Shahdara for purchasing some house hold goods/clothes. Accused Sonu present in the court and Moni(being tried before JJB) met him there and they both abused him and when he protested, Sonu asked Moni to stab him by a knife by which accused Moni stabbed him on his back and also on his backbone. He further deposed that after receiving injuries, he fell down. His friend Prince reached there and took him to the GTB hospital. The factum of taking him to GTB Hospital is further corroborated by PW.3 Prince who had stated that on 24/7/09 at about 9.40 pm, he had gone to liquor shop to purchase liquor. When He reached near Kabul Nagar Chowk, Shahdara, he found a crowd present there and when he went near to the spot he found his friend Neeraj was lying there in an injured condition. Blood was oozing out from his body. Thereafter he immediately took him(Neeraj) to the GTB hospital by an Auto and got him admitted there. On perusal of column in the MLC Ex. PW. 6/A wherein it 15 16 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC is mentioned that injured was brought to GTB Hospital by PW.3/Prince which again corroborates the fact that Neeraj received injuries at the spot and he was taken to GTB hospital by PW.3 Prince. Nature of injuries, as per Neuro surgical report is opined as grievous by PW.8 and nature of injuries, as per surgical report as grievous opined by Dr. Naveen/PW.6 and the parts of body injured due to said injuries is also mentioned in the MLC, which further corroborates the testimony of injured as he has received injuries on the back portion of his body.
13.PW.1 proved the factum of registration of FIR on the basis rukka sent by SI Dharmender through Const. Gagan Giri vide FIR Ex.PW 1/A.
14.PW.3 proved that injured Neeraj received injuries and he took the injured to GTB Hospital.
15.PW.4 proved the factum of visiting the spot immediately on receipt of information at about 10.30 p.m and they proved the factum of causing injuries on the person of PW.2 at Friday Market chowk Kabool Nagar Shahdara Delhi. He further corroborated the fact that when they reached at the spot the injured had already been taken to GTB hospital and he along with PW.9/IO both reached at GTB Hospital and found PW.2 admitted there which again corroborates the fact that PW.2 after 16 17 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC receiving the injuries, was taken to GTB hospital by PW.3. The factum of recording his statement is further proved by other witnesses.
16.PW.5 was duty constable at GTB hospital and he further corroborated the fact that injured Neeraj was got admitted in the hospital and during the treatment doctor concerned handed over one sealed pullanda containing the blood stained shirt and Baniyan of injured Neeraj which he handed over the same to the IO. Blood stained shirt and Baniyan and blood sample were got analyzed by Sr. Scientific Officer and report made by Sr. Scientific Officer is admissible u/sec. 293 Cr.P.C and on perusal of the report it is opined that human blood was detected on Ex.1A(one foul smelling cut/torn banian having darker stains), Ex.1b(one foul smelling cut/torn shirt having darker stains), Ex.2( one sealed cloth parcel with the seal of MLC GTB Hospital Delhi containing blood sample of injured) and Ex.3 (one knife having brown stains). On Biological examination Ex.1a, Ex.1b was found to contain human blood having 'A' group and knife allegedly recovered at the instance of coaccused Moni, was found to contain human blood. No opinion could be given with regard to the blood group due to the reason that sample was putrefied.
17.PW.6 and PW.8 both are the doctors who have proved the factum of 17 18 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC admitting of injured to GTB hospital and also nature of injuries inflicted by the accused persons in the said incident. On perusal of the MLC Ex.Pw 6/A the following injuries are mentioned :
i. Incised look on injury with sharp margin over the scapular region of diameter 1c.m x1.5cm(depth cannot be assessed) ii. Incised look on injury with sharp margin over mid back at the level of abdomen 1.5cmx 1cm that cannot be assessed. Iii. Incised injury superficial 2cm x 0.5cm below injury No.1 and 2. iv. Loss of sensation difficulty in bleeding and inability in lower limb with senselessness. The injured was also referred for Xray chest, Xray spine A P & Lateral. The injured was also referred to surgery and Neurological department for seeking further opinion and on the basis of aforesaid injuries Dr. Rajan Kumar opined the nature of injuries as grievous as per Neuro surgical report, and Dr. Naveen Kumar opined the nature of injuries as grievous on the basis of surgical report.
18.PW.9 is the second IO of the case and corroborated the testimonies of all the witnesses and in view of the aforesaid testimonies of all the witnesses, it is submitted that prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requested for conviction of the accused for the offence as alleged against him.
18 19ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC
19.After hearing the arguments and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the fact that no evidence in rebuttal to the testimonies of PWs is brought on record by the accused. In such circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of injured/PW.2 who had been seriously injured and also received grievous injuries on the vital part of his body i.e the backbone/spinal cord. The accused also failed to brought on record any reason of his being falsely implication in this case as stated by him during his examination Under/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C .
20.On the other hand injured in his statement Ex.PW.2/A specifically stated that he was having some knowning relations with the sister of accused Sonu due to that Sonu become annoyed and on the day of incident he along with Moni landed several knife blows on the back part of his body due to that he received serious grievous injuries. Accused also failed to lead any defence evidence in his defence and also in rebuttal to the testimony of prosecution witnesses, therefore, minor contradictions as discussed above by Ld. Counsel for accused shall have not effect on the merit of the case and are not fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, I am not in agreement with the contention of ld. Counsel for accused. On 19 20 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC perusal of the description of injuries mentioned on the MLC it is established that three attempts were made on the vital part of the body by using a button actuated knife by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and in such circumstances it is established that accused Sonu in furtherance of his common intention with accused Moni @ Jishan( who is being tried by JJB) landed knife blow on the vital part of injured Neeraj/PW.2 and if their said Act caused death, he would be guilty of murder and in such circumstances I am of the considered view that prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused for the offence punishable u/sec. 307/34 IPC.
21.In view of the aforesaid facts of circumstances of this case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution, circumstances under which grievous injuries caused on the vital part of the body of injured/PW.2 Neeraj i.e at backbone/ spinal cord, I am of the view that prosecution succeeded in proving its case against the accused for the offence u/sec. 307/34 IPC. Accordingly I hold the accused Sonu Singh s/o Lallan Parsad guilty for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ3/North East District KKD/Delhi Announced in the open 20 21 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC court on 28 th Day of May 2011 21 22 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC IN THE COURT OF SH. B.S. CHUMBAK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : DELHI SC No. 28/10 FIR NO.: 231/09 PS Shahdara State Vs. Sonu Singh.
PR : Sh. S.K Dass , Ld. Addl. PP for the state.
Sh. R.K Santoshi Advocate on behalf of accused. ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard the arguments on behalf of Ld. Addl. P.P for State as well as ld. Counsel on behalf of the convict Sonu Singh on the point of quantum of sentence.
2. Ld. counsel on behalf of convict pleaded that the convict Sonu Singh s/o Lallan Parsad was 18 years and three months old at the time of commission of offence and at the initial stage of the investigation he was produced before the Juvenile Justice Board. He also submitted that elder brother of convict died in the rail accident and copy of receipt of dead body is placed on record. Father of convict also expired on 13/10/06 due to illness, one younger brother of the convict who is unable 22 23 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC to work. It is further pleaded that none of the family member is earning except the convict. Convict has also to look after his old aged widow mother aged about 50 years and suffering from various ailments and also liable to maintain his younger brother Monu and requested for taking lenient view on the point of sentence.
3. It is further pleaded that convict Sonu remained in jail at the initial stage of this case and has been regularly appearing since the registration of this case, during the said period the conduct of the convict remained good and pleaded for a lenient view on the point of sentence and also requested for granting benefit of section 428 of Cr.P.C.
4. It is further pleaded that the injured during examination before the court specifically stated that the convict caught h old of him and coaccused Moni @ Jishan landed several knife blows on the back of the injured is clearly goes to show that the role of the convict cannot be put at par with the role of other coaccused who is being tried before Juvenile Court.
5. It is further pleaded that accused/convict was only 18 years and three months old at the time of commission of offence therefore, requested for releasing the accused/convict on Probation of Good conduct as provided 23 24 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC u/sec. 3 &4 of the Probation Of Offenders Act r/w Sec. 360 Cr.P.C and also placed his reliance on a decided case cited as 'KHEM CHAND VS. STATE (DELHI) 1987(2) 753' and also placed a reliance on another case cited as 'RAJENDER SINGH VS STATE 1997 JCC 98' wherein it is observed as under:
``The appellant was a young man coming from a lower middle class family. Though he has passed his secondary examination however, due to parental negligence he came under the influence of unwanted elements but he seems to be improving considerably after the punishment and is repentant about the offence and as per report of the Probation Officer,he has improved considerably. Therefore, having regard to the nature of offence, the character and mental condition of the offender and his behaviour in jail and the facts and circumstances revealed in the report of the Probation Officer, this case was observed to be a fit case to grant the benefit of doubt.''
6. It is further pleaded that convict is not a previous convict and is on bail and there is nothing brought on record against his character and 24 25 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC antecedents and requested that one chance may be given to the convict to reform himself. Reliance is also placed on a decided case cited as 'DHARMA & ORS. VS STATE OF HARYANA, Crime VII 1984 (2) page 114'
7. On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for state argued that on the day of commission of offence, injured was only 17 years old and on perusal of the nature of injuries opined by PW.6 and PW.8 i.e grievous on the basis of neurological and surgical report it is established that it is not a fit case to take lenient view on the point of sentence. It is also brought in evidence that three knife blows were inflicted on the vital part of the body of injured i.e on the backbone/spinal cord. It is further pleaded that due to injuries inflicted by the convict in furtherance of common intention with coaccused Moni @ Jishan the injured has become permanent disabled to enjoy his life in future. The physical condition of the injured has become worse than hell. The intention to commit the offence is proved by the witnesses and has also been disclosed by the convict in his disclosure statement i.e the injured used to tease the sister of convict Sonu due to that he was not happy with the said Act of the injured. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the role of causing injury on the person of injured is not attributed to the convict.
25 26ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC
8. In view of the contentions of Ld. Counsel for both the parties I also have gone through the observations given by their lordships in the aforesaid decided cases and analyzed the facts and circumstances in this case and the circumstances under which the said offence was committed wherein it is established that the injury is caused to the injured with the intention to cause the death of injured but some how, his death is prevented by providing medical treatment. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that in such nature of cases the benefit of Probation Offenders Act, is not to be granted, However, considering the age of the convict i.e 18 years and three months at the time of commission offence, I am of the view that some sort of lenient view is to be taken at the time of awarding him sentence.
9. Before awarding sentence I would like to discuss the provision of section 307 IPC which reads as under:
`` Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be 26 27 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned.''
10.In view of the aforesaid discussion I hereby sentence the convict Sonu s/o Lallan Parsad for a term of RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.
2000/ in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for three months for the offence punishable u/sec. 307/34 IPC. Fine not paid.
8. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C shall be given to the convict as per law. Copy of the judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to the Record Room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ3/North East District KKD/Delhi Announced in the open court on 31 st Day of May 2011 27 28 ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC 31.05.2011 Present: Sh. S.K. Dass Ld. Addl. PP for state. Convict produced from J/C. Sh. R.K Santoshi Advocate on behalf of convict. Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard.
Vide separate order on the quantum of sentence , I hereby sentence the convict Sonu s/o Lallan Parsad for a term of RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/ in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for three months for the offence punishable u/sec. 307/34 IPC. Fine not paid.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C shall be given to the convict as per law. Copy of the judgment and this order be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to the Record Room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ3/North East District KKD/Delhi/3152011.
28 29ST VS SONU SINGH FIR No. 231/09 PS SHAHDARA , U/SEC. 307/34 IPC 28/05/2011 Present: Sh. S.K. Dass Ld. Addl. PP for state. Accused present on bail.
Sh. R.K Santoshi Advocate on behalf of accused. Vide separate detailed judgment I hold the accused SonuSingh s/o Lallan Parsad guilty for the offence u/s 307/34 IPC. Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence on 31/5/2011. (B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ3/North East District KKD/Delhi/28.5.2011 29