Delhi District Court
State vs . Babu Lal, Fir No.631/98, Ps Model Town, ... on 1 October, 2013
State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC. IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 631/98 PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 326 IPC STATE VS. Babu LAL JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 1122/03.
B. DATE OF OFFENCE : 27.10.1998.
C. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 05.04.1999.
D. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Sh. Brij Kishor
S/o Sh. Laxman.
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Babu Lal
S/o Sh. Baiju.
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 326 IPC.
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Convicted U/s 326 IPC.
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 01.10.2013.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision:
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from the charge sheet are that the complainant Sh. Brij Kishore and his brother Sh. Hakim were residing together in a jhuggi situated at Telephone Exchange, Shakti Nagar, GTK Road, Delhi. The State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
accused Babu Lal was their neighbourer and on 27.10.98 at around 7p.m. at the aforesaid jhuggi an altercation took place between accused Babu Lal and Sh. Hakim. During said altercation, the accused Babu Lal stabbed in the chest and stomach of Sh. Hakim by a vegetables cutting knife. Thereafter, PCR van was called at the spot and it took the injured Sh. Hakim to Hindu Rao Hospital. There, he was got medically examined and on his MLC, the concerned doctor opined that nature of injuries sustained by him were dangerous. The examining doctor further opined that injured was unfit for statement. Thereafter, the statement of complainant Sh. Brij Kishore was recorded and it was endorsed by IO/SI Manvinder Singh, to prepare a tehrir. In the said complaint, the name of accused Babu Lal was specifically mentioned as the perpetrator of the present offence. On the basis of the said complaint, the present FIR U/s 326 IPC was lodged at PS Model Town. The blood stained clothes i.e. a shirt and a vest of the injured Sh. Hakim were seized. However, during investigation, the weapon of offence could not be recovered and seized. The accused Babu Lal was arrested on 04.11.98. On conclusion of the investigation, the challan under the aforesaid section against the accused was filed in the court.
2. The accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offence. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the copy of challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s 326 IPC was made out against him. Accordingly, on 20.01.2003, the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined seven witnesses.
4. PW1 Sh. Hakim is the injured and he has deposed on 03.10.2007 that about 7 years back, he was working at GTK road as labourer (baildar). At about 7/8.00 p.m, one person namely Phool Chand was cooking fish at State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
his jhuggi behind school GTK road. He has testified that he along with his brother Vijender and accused Babu Lal were living in the same jhuggi as they were working with the same thekedar. He has further deposed that he asked Phool Chand to give him cooked fish, on that the accused Babu Lal, who was under the influence of liquor, started abusing him. He has further testified that he asked him not to abuse him, on that the accused Babu Lal scuffled with him. He has further deposed that the accused Babu Lal was having a knife used for cutting vegetables in his hand and he gave the blows of knife in his stomach, chest and back. Thereafter, the accused again tried to give further blow of knife to him. He caught his knife with his right hand, due to which he received injuries in his right hand, stomach, chest and back. He has further deposed that the blood started oozing from his hand, stomach, chest and back. He has further deposed that the accused Babu Lal ran away from the spot and he became unconscious. He has further deposed that he was taken to HRH by the police officials in their Gypsy and got him admitted in the hospital, where he got treatment. He has further deposed that he remained in the hospital for about 8 days and thereafter, he remained under treatment continuously for about 15 days. He has further testified that police officials reached at the hospital and inquired him about the said incident and recorded his statement. He has further deposed that his blood stained clothes i.e vest and shirt were taken into possession in the hospital. In his testimony, he has correctly identified the accused and the case property i.e his blood stained shirt and vest, which are exhibited as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 (which were taken out from a pullanda sealed with the seal of HRH and shown to him for identification). In his cross examination, he has stated that Sh. Brij Kishore was present at the spot of incident.
5. PW2 HC Harminder Singh was duty officer at PS Model Town, who recorded this FIR and he has proved its copy as Ex.PW2/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW2/B.
6. PW3 Sh. Brij Kishor is the complainant and he has deposed that State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
on 27.10.98, at about 7.00 p.m, he was present at his jhuggi situated near telephone exchange Shakti Nagar, GTK Road, Delhi. He has testified that his younger brother Hakim was outside his jhuggi and some conversation took place between accused Babu Lal and his brother Hakim. He has further deposed that he came out of his jhuggi and saw that the accused Babu Lal was having a knife (used for cutting the vegetables) in his hand and he was hitting the said knife in the stomach and other body parts of his brother Hakim. He has further deposed that accused ran away from the spot after seeing him and he rang up the police. He has further testified that his brother Hakim received injuries with the said knife in his stomach and chest etc. and blood was oozing from the injuries of his brother. He has further deposed that he immediately took his brother Hakim to HRH and got him admitted in the hospital. He has proved his complaint dtd.27.10.98 as Ex.PW3/A. He has further deposed that IO got the case registered and thereafter, he along with the IO reached on the spot and he pointed the place of incident to the IO. He has further deposed that his brother Hakim remained in the hospital for about two weeks. He has further testified that the worn clothes of his brother sustaining blood stains were sealed. He has correctly identified the accused and the case property i.e shirt and vest already exhibited as Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively.
7. PW4 Sh. K. K. Parashar, Medical Record Clerk, HRH has deposed that Dr. Vinod has left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known. He has testified that he can identify his handwriting and signatures as he has seen the same during the course of his service. He has further deposed that the MLC no.15911/98 of injured Hakim dtd.27.10.1998 is in the handwriting of Dr. Vinod. The said MLC is exhibited as Ex.PW4/A.
8. PW5 HC Vijender Singh has deposed that on 27.10.98, a DD no. 24A regarding a quarrel was handed over to SI Manvinder Singh and thereafter, he along with him went to the spot i.e Telephone Exchange Jhuggi, Shakti Nagar, GTK Road, Delhi. He has testified that there they State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
came to know that the injured was already shifted to HRH by PCR. He has further deposed that thereafter, they went to HRH and from there the MLC of the injured Hakim was collected by SI Manvinder Singh. He has further deposed that the concerned doctor had endorsed on the MLC that the injured was unfit for giving the statement. He has further testified that in the hospital they met the brother of the injured Sh. Hakim namely Sh. Brij Kishore, who narrated the incident and his statement was recorded by IO/SI Manvinder Singh. He has further deposed that IO prepared a rukka which was handed over to him for getting the case registered. He has further deposed that he got the case registered. He has further deposed that they tried to trace out the accused but the accused was not found at his jhuggi. He has further deposed that on 15.11.98, IO collected a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of HRH and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A.
9. PW6 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Medical Record Clerk, HRH has deposed that Dr. O. P. Mahajan has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He has testified that he can identify his writing and signature as he has seen the same during the course of his service. He has testified that nature of injury on MLC Ex.PW4/A is given by Dr. O. P. Mahajan as "Dangerous" and his signatures are at point B on the said MLC.
10. PW7 SI Manvinder Singh is the IO and he has deposed on the similar lines as that of PW5 HC Virender Singh. Therefore, his testimony in consistence with PW5 is not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid the repetition. In addition to the deposition of PW5, PW7 has testified that on 04.11.98 he arrested the accused Babu Lal vide his arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D respectively. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording the statement of the accused.
11. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further stated that he does not want to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter was listed for final arguments.
12. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
13. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
14. The prosecution is required to establish the following ingredients to bring home the guilt of the accused u/s 326 IPC:
(i) Accused caused grievous hurt;
(ii) He caused it voluntarily;
(iii) He caused it by any of the following means i. e.
(a)by any instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting;
(b)by any instrument, if used as a weapon of offence likely to cause death;
(c)by fire or heated substance;
(d)by poisonous or corrosive substance;
(e)by explosive substance;
(f)by any substance deleterious to the human body to inhale or swallow; and
(g)by means of any animal.
15. The prosecution has examined two eyewitnesses to substantiate its allegations. They are PW1/injured Sh. Hakim and the complainant/PW3 Sh. Brij Kishor. The said witnesses have consistently, specifically and categorically testified that the accused criminally assaulted the injured Sh. Hakim by stabbing him in his stomach, chest and back with a vegetable cutting knife. Complainant/PW3 Sh. Brij Kishor has also proved his State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
complaint Ex. PW3/A dtd. 27.10.1998. Both the eyewitnesses including injured Sh. Hakim were neighborers of the accused and were known to each other prior to the incident. Thus, the possibility of mistaken identity can be conclusively ruled out.
16. The MLC of injured / PW1 Hakim Ex.PW4/A corroborates the testimony of both the eye witnesses including injured PW1/Hakim. The said MLC Ex.PW4/A reflects that on 27.10.1998 at about 7:50pm the injured was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital with stab injuries in his umbilical region, back and right side of his chest, below his nipple. It further shows that said injuries were caused on his body with a sharp object. Thus, the ocular testimony of both the eye witnesses is further corroborated and buttressed by the said MLC dated 27.10.1998. Further, Dr. O.P. Mahajan has given his opinion on the said MLC that the nature of injuries sustained by the said injured were "Dangerous" and his signatures are identified by PW6 Sh. Dinesh Kumar, who has seen the said Doctor writing and signing during the course of his official duties. The said MLC Ex.PW4/A has not only been substantiated, but the same has also not been disputed by the accused. Hence, it is established that on the alleged date and time, the injured PW1/Hakim sustained dangerous injuries with a sharp object/instrument, that can be used for the purpose of cutting. The eighthly of Sec.320 IPC provides that any hurt which endangers life is designated as "grievous". Therefore, it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the nature of injuries suffered by the injured PW1/ Sh.Hakim are covered within the ambit and purview of Sec.326 IPC.
17. Ld. Counsel for the accused has contented that there are material contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses interse and also in their respective previous statements. The said alleged contradictions are in respect of body parts of the injured, on which the knife was inflicted. He has also pointed out that the complaint Ex.PW3/A is conspicuously silent regarding the motive and cause of State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
criminal assault, though the said defect is cured by PW1 Sh. Hakim in his testimony. Thus, he has asserted that it is a material improvement to fill up the said lacuna. He has also contended that the complainant PW3 Sh. Brij Kishore has not specified in detail all the body parts of the injured, on which the injuries were inflicted. Ld. Defence counsel has also averred that injured PW1 Sh. Hakim has not mentioned the exact date of incident. Therefore, he has contended that the eye witnesses are unreliable and not trustworthy.
The witnesses are not expected to meticulously remember each and every minute details, all the more, when they are examined after nearly a decade of the incident. The human memory is fallible and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as a picture perfect memory. Thus, the said contradictions are of no consequence and being minor in nature, does not adversely effect the case of the prosecution. Besides, the FIR is not expected to be the encyclopedia of the entire incident and it need not contain the name of all the witnesses present at the spot or even the motive or the cause of the incident.
Only those improvements are fatal, which are inherently improbable and does not naturally fit into the sequence of events as asserted in the previous complaints/statements. In the present case, the alleged improvements does not destroy the crux of the allegations and the said improvements can at the most be called as explanation of the attending circumstances at the spot. Thus, the said contention of the accused does not hold any ground and therefore, it is discarded. The essence of the testimonies of both the eyewitnesses are same as they have consistently testified that the accused criminally assaulted the injured PW1 Sh. Hakim. The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. It is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC 161, which are as follows: "A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation."
18. The other defence raised by the accused is that the eyewitnesses are partition or interested witnesses and their testimonies are not corroborated by the independent public witnesses. It is therefore, contented by the defence that the testimonies of the interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. It is not denied that complainant and the injured are real brothers. However, at the same time they are natural witnesses as the incident took place in the front of their Jhuggi. The testimony of a natural witness cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is an interested witnesses. I find support from the findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776, wherein it is held that : "Rejection of testimony of the interested witness on the ground that they all were relatives of deceased and no independent witness were examined, not proper. Over insistence as witness having no relation with the victim often results in criminal justice going away. When any incidence happens in dwelling house, the most natural witness would be inmates of the house".
In these circumstances, the said eyewitnesses are natural witnesses and the nonjoining of independent public witness does not adversely effect the case of the prosecution, if the said witnesses are otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. The testimony of the witness is weighed and not counted. One credible witness outweighs the testimonies State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
of number of other witnesses. Thus, the corroboration by an independent public witness is not always mandatory for believing the testimony of the injured. Hence, the said contention of the defence is also of no consequence.
19. The consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses regarding criminal assault upon the injured PW1 Sh. Hakim have been duly corroborated by his MLC Ex.PW4/A. The said injuries did not occur in vacuum, rather they are to be accounted for. There is no reason why the complainant/injured would have implicated the innocent persons by concealing the name of actual perpetrator of the crime/offence, who caused the duly proved injuries upon him. I find support from the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in VII (2010) SLT 724 that: "Evidenceinjured Witnesses Testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone."
Thus, the alleged motive of falsely implicating the accused is not credible. On the other hand, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are reliable and trustworthy, who have consistently testified that the accused Babu Lal criminally assaulted injured PW1 Sh. Hakim.
20. The other thing that is pointed out by the defence are that the IO has failed to recover weapon of offence and the investigation is defective. The nonrecovery of weapon of offence cannot be the sole ground for the acquittal of the accused. The complainant /injured cannot be deprived of justice merely because the third party/investigating agency, on which he admittedly does not have any control, fails to diligently discharge its lawful duties. Further, the weapon of offence is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and the testimonies of the eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely because the said corroborative piece of evidence has not been produced in the court.
State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
21. The burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general or special exception lies with the accused himself and as per Section 105 of Evidence Act, 1872, the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. In the instant case, the accused has not led any evidence to substantiate his defence. Therefore, it is conclusively presumed that the accused does not have any plausible defence for the offence committed by him.
22. The above discussion reflects that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are trustworthy and they inspire sufficient confidence. Therefore, not only the identity of the perpetrators of the present offence has been established, but it is also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused criminally assaulted the injured / PW1 Sh. Hakim with a knife and thereby, caused grievous injuries to him.
23. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has successfully discharged its onus by conclusively substantiating its case against the accused Babu Lal that he voluntarily caused grievous injury to PW1 Hakim by using a knife (instrument used for cutting). Thus, all the essential ingredients of the offence punishable U/s 326 IPC are established and satisfied. Accordingly, accused Babu Lal is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 326 IPC. Copy of this judgment be given free of cost to the convict.
Put up on 14.10.2013 for arguments on quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (DHEERAJ MOR) COURT TODAY I. E. 01.10.2013. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH)/ROHINI/DELHI State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
FIR NO. 631/98.
PS. Model Town.
U/s. 326 IPC.
01.10.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Babu Lal on bail with Ld. Counsel.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, the accused stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 326 IPC.
Put up on 14.10.2013 for argument on quantum of sentence.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM(N)/Rohini/Delhi 01.10.2013 14.10.2013.
Present : Ld. APP for the state.
Convict Babu Lal in person.
Today, matter is listed for addressing arguments on quantum of sentence. However, the convict has sought an adjournment for addressing arguments on quantum of sentence on the ground that his counsel is not available today. The said request is allowed.
At request, put up on 26.10.2013 for addressing arguments on State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
quantum of sentence.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM(N)/Rohini/Delhi 14.10.2013 State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 631/98.
PS. Model Town.
U/s. 326 IPC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 01.11.13.
Present: Sh. Ravi Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict Babu Lal.
Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard. Case file perused. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the convict be sentenced to a maximum punishment so that a deterrent message be given to the society and like minded people be discouraged from entering into the criminal activities.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict has contended that he has clear antecedents. It is further submitted that convict Babu Lal is 45 years of age. It is submitted that the convict has a large family consisting of aged parents, wife and a daughter to support. It is also submitted that the daughter of the convict is of marriageable age and the convict has responsibility of getting her married. He is stated to be sole bread earner in his family and he is a labourer by profession. It is further submitted that after the convict has already suffered a lot due to commission of this offence as he is facing the ordeal of trial since last 15 years. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the convict that he be given an opportunity for reformation and a lenient view may be taken. It is further submitted that the accused has already State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
compensated the injured by paying an amount of Rs.10,000/ to him and they had also approached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of the present FIR. However, unfortunately, same was dismissed on the ground that the trial had already reached its fag end. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the accused has placed on record the internet copy of order dtd.12.08.2013 passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court. It is further submitted that the convict and the injured were neighborers and the said incident took place at the spur of moment and without any preplan. It is therefore, submitted that lenient view may be taken.
No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. There is no denial, that reformative theory of penology has taken precedence. However, the deterrent theory has neither lost its importance nor has become irrelevant. Rather, this is one of the cardinal guiding factors, that is to be kept in consideration while awarding appropriate sentence, as punishment in the given offences of grave nature.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Muralidhar, AIR 2009 SC 1621 observed that: "Undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed etc. This position was illuminatingly stated by this Court in Sevaka Perumal etc. Vs State of Tamil Nadu ( AIR 1991 SC 1463)......................
The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the Courts would operate the sentence system so State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meagre sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be resultwise counter productive in the long run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system."
The mitigating factors are also required to be kept in mind while awarding sentence. In the instant case, the family, social and economical background of the convict are important mitigating factors. The compromise of the convict with the injured is the utmost relevant mitigating factor. In the light of said mitigating circumstances, the maximum punishment if awarded shall be harsh for the convict.
In the wake of the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, the convict is hereby sentenced U/s 326 IPC for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/ and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo sentence for a period of one month SI. The benefit of section 428 Cr. P. C be given to the convict. He has remained in J/C for total 26 days during investigation and trial. The convict is taken in custody.
At this stage, the counsel for the convict has moved an application for suspension of the sentence of the convict U/s 389 (3) Cr. P. C. The convict was on bail in the present case and he is sentenced for less than three years. Therefore, the sentence of the convict is hereby suspended for a period of 30 State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
days or till the day the convict files appeal against the present order, whichever is earlier. Bail bonds and Surety bond furnished and they are accepted till 02.12.2013. Accordingly, convict is hereby released on bail. Copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict.
Now to come up on 02.12.2013 for further proceedings.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor)
today on 01.11.2013 MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi
01.11.2013.
State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.
FIR NO. 631/98.
PS. Model Town.
U/s. 326 IPC.
01.11.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict Babu Lal.
Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard. Case file perused. Vide separate order on sentence, the convict Babu Lal is sentenced for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/ U/s.326 IPC and in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo sentence for a period of one month SI. Fine is paid. The benefit of section 428 Cr. P. C be given to the convict. He has remained in J/C for total 26 days during investigation and trial. The convict is taken in custody.
At this stage, the counsel for the convict has moved an application for suspension of the sentence of the convict U/s 389 (3) Cr. P. C. The convict was on bail in the present case and he is sentenced for less than three years. Therefore, the sentence of the convict is hereby suspended for a period of 30 days or till the day the convict files appeal against the present order, whichever is earlier. Bail bonds and Surety bond are furnished and they are accepted till 02.12.2013. Accordingly, convict is hereby released on bail.
Now to come up on 02.12.2013 for further proceedings.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi 01.11.2013 State Vs. Babu Lal, FIR No.631/98, PS Model Town, U/s 326 IPC.