Delhi District Court
State vs . Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another on 17 August, 2017
SC/44721/2015
State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44721/2015
CNR No. DLKA040001972011
State Versus 1. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Shri Fire Chand
R/o House No. S29, Welcome,
PS Welcome, Delhi
2. Ajay @ Ajju
S/o Shri Jamna Prasad
R/o JB6/62, Welcome,
PS Welcome, Delhi
FIR No.25/11
PS Welcome
under Section 307/34 IPC &
under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act
Date of institution of case : 01052012
Date of reserving the case for Judgement : 10082017
Date of passing of Judgment : 17082017
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby Prosecution FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 1 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another is seeking conviction of accused persons namely (1) Sonu Kumar @ Sonu S/o Fire Chand and (2) Ajay @ Ajju S/o Jamna Prasad, who had allegedly assaulted injured Kishan @ Babloo with a knife and some pointed weapon for the offences punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. It has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further pray for the acquittal of the accused persons.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that Prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further prays that accused persons may be convicted for the offences charged against them.
FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 2 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 2501 2011 at about 9.30 pm near R.D. Public School, Gali No.11, Subhash Park Extension, Kishan @ Babloo was assaulted by accused persons, who were armed with knife and some pointed weapon. Multiple injuries were received by injured Kishan @ Babloo and he had received treatment in Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the challan was received by the Court on 01052012. Charge was framed against the accused persons on 01052012 for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offences charged against them.
9. In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined as FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 3 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another many as 9 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju were recorded on 01 032017.
11. In their defence, no witness has been examined by the accused persons.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE AND THE DEFENCE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED AJAY THEREIN OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. In order to establish its case, Prosecution had examined injured Kishan @ Babloo as PW1, who had stated before the Court that on 25012011, he was riding a motorbike and was returning to his house. At about 9.40 pm, when he reached Gali JV6 Block, Welcome, three boys namely Sonu, Ajay and Sunny were present in the gali on a black colour motorbike. He has further stated that as soon as he had entered the gali, all the three accused persons FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 4 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another surrounded him, one on the front side and two on the back side and accused Ajay gave an exhortation to accused Sonu that "today Bablu is going alone", upon which accused Ajay inflicted knife blow injury on his left side under the armpit, however, he again stated that accused Ajay had caused injury by a weapon like blade on his face. He has also stated that one of the accused had inflicted knife blow on his left back side shoulder and another knife blow on his left hip. He has further stated that accused Ajay took out Rs.45,400/ from his pant pocket which he had collected from sale of his vehicle on that day. He has further stated that he raised hue and cry and his brother Sanjay and 23 other persons had arrived there but all the three accused persons including accused Sonu and Ajay ran away on motorbike. He has further stated that he remained admitted in the GTB Hospital for 1015 days. He has further stated that he was wearing black colour pant and a T Shirt with blue and white stripe at the time of incident.
13. In his cross examination, it has been elicited that on 16 052010, he had not caused any beating or assault to Ajay. The FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 5 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another witness had denied the suggestion that on 16052010, four boys namely Qasim, Dheeraj, Deepak and witness himself had assaulted accused Ajay and 100 number call was recorded regarding that beating and assault. He has further denied that accused Ajay had to be taken to a Government Hospital and this incident had happened in Narela, Delhi. The witness has further stated that it is true that on 16 052010, he had attended a marriage function in Narela wherein Ajay was also present. The witness had also denied the suggestion that Ajay had given complaint to various authorities regarding the incident of 16052010.
14. The major portion of the cross examination was devoted towards the incident of 16052010 as a defence.
15. On going through the cross examination, it could be gathered that the defence taken by accused Ajay that on 16052010, certain altercation had ensued between him and victim Kishan goes entirely in favour of victim Kishan than accused Ajay for the simple reason that as in retaliation/ revenge against that incident, the accused FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 6 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another persons must have given knife and blade injuries on the person of the victim.
16. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to demolish the testimony of PW1 Kishan as regards multiple injuries given to him.
17. As far as robbery of Rs.45,400/ is concerned, the victim has failed to corroborate and substantiate his case in this regard in any manner for the simple reason that the motorbike which he had sold does not belong to him. According to him, its actual owner is one Kake. He has completely failed to show as to why instead of Kake, he had sold the motorbike. It is not worthy of credence as to why Kake may have allowed him to sell his motorbike. He even does not remember the registration number of the motorbike which he had sold.
18. PW2 Sanjay, who is the brother of injured Kishan in his testimony has stated that on 25012011, when he was about 200 meters away from his house, he had heard the voice of his younger brother Babloo. He turned around and saw accused Ajay. He also FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 7 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another saw accused Sonu and Sunny were beating his brother. He also saw that accused Sonu was having knife in his hand and accused Ajay was having some pointed weapon in his hand. On seeing him, all the accused persons ran away from the spot. He saw blood was oozing out from the injuries. He saw injuries on his hip, abdomen, face, on neck and was also having injuries on his back. He took his brother to GTB Hospital and got him admitted there.
19. PW2 Sanjay has supported and corroborated the testimony of PW1 Kishan in all its material particulars.
20. In his cross examination, he has further reiterated that he was coming to his house when he had heard the cries of his brother and after committing the crime, all the accused persons ran away on a motorbike.
21. When the question regarding the incident dt.16052010 was put, he had stated that he cannot say if his brother had gone to Narela on that day to attend the marriage or his brother along with his friends had given beatings to accused Ajay. FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 8 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
22. In the cross examination, it is further elicited that at the time when the injuries were caused by the accused persons to his brother, he was not present there. However, he had seen accused Sonu carrying a knife in his hand.
23. The said fact in the cross examination that he had not seen accused persons at the time when they were inflicting injuries to the victim would not affect the case of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever as injured himself has stated that accused Ajay and Sonu had inflicted injuries on his person. Having said that, PW2 Sanjay had seen injuries on the hip, abdomen, face, neck and back of the injured at the spot itself.
24. It may be pointed out here that accused Sunny was not arrested by the police nor any charge sheet was filed against him. Therefore, no case was prosecuted or made out against him. Moreover, none of the material witnesses have clearly implicated Sunny in commissioning the offence.
FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 9 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
25. PW1 Kishan @ Babloo had clearly identified accused persons Sonu and Ajay in the Court. In the cross examination also, PW1 has stated that he knew both the accused persons even prior to the incident as they used to visit his locality as some of their cousins were resident of that locality.
26. PW2 Sanjay has also identified accused Ajay when he stated that he knew accused Ajay well prior to the incident and he clearly identified accused Ajay in the Court. He also identified accused Sonu in the Court.
27. PW2 Sanjay has also stated that on 26012011, accused Sonu was arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and accused Ajay was also arrested in his presence vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B. He also identified both the accused persons in the presence of police officials as well.
28. Therefore, as far as identity of accused Sonu and Ajay are FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 10 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another concerned, both PW1 Kishan, who is victim and PW2 Sanjay, who is brother of victim have unambiguously and unequivocally identified both the accused persons to be the same persons who had committed the crime upon victim Kishan @ Babloo.
29. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of PW1 Kishan and PW2 Sanjay made in this regard.
IDENTIFICATION OF CLOTHES OF THE INJURED
30. PW1 Kishan in his testimony has identified blue colour jeans and a full sleeve T shirt type woolen sweater having white and blue majenta stripes. Both the clothes were found to have blood stains which are Ex.P2 and Ex.P3.
31. PW2 Sanjay has also identified Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 in his testimony.
32. PW8 Ct. Umesh Kumar has also identified Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 to be the same clothes which were worn by the injured at the time of incident.
FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 11 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
33. PW1 Kishan, PW2 Sanjay and PW8 Ct. Umesh in their testimonies had clearly identified the clothes that injured was wearing on the day of incident when accused persons have inflicted multiple injuries on the person of the injured.
34. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination of PW1, PW2 and PW8 to discredit the witnesses on this aspect. IDENTIFICATION OF WEAPONS OF OFFENCE AND THEIR RECOVERIES
35. PW1 Kishan had clearly identified the button actuated knife which accused Sonu had used in causing injury to him which is Ex.P1. PW1 Kishan had also identified the shaving blade which accused Ajay had used in causing injury on his person which is Ex.P4.
36. PW2 Sanjay had also identified the Knife Ex.P1 which was in the hand of accused Sonu at the time of incident.
37. In the cross examination also PW2 had reiterated that he had seen accused Sonu was carrying a Knife in his hand.
38. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 12 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another demolish the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 with regard to the identification of weapons of offence used by accused persons Ajay and Sonu.
39. PW7 ASI Mahavir and PW8 Ct. Umesh Kumar had also identified the Knife Ex.P1 and shaving blade with mark Lazer Ex.P4.
40. As far as recovery of weapons of offence are concerned, PW7 ASI Mahavir had clearly stated that both the accused persons reached Jheel Park where they were able to locate a bush wherein the weapons of offence knife and blade were lying and were seized.
41. In the cross examination, PW7 ASI Mahavir had stated that the recovery of weapons were effected from Jheel Park area and the recoveries were effected from the spots which were around 100 or 150 meters inside Jheel Park.
42. In this regard, PW8 Ct. Umesh Kumar had also stated that both the accused persons took them to Jheel Park area and there FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 13 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another they pin pointed a bush and ASI Mahavir then put his hand into that bush and took out a blade and knife having blood stains which were taken into possession.
43. The statements made by PW7 ASI Mahavir and PW8 Ct. Umesh Kumar with regard to recovery of weapons of offence are admissible within the ambit of provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the weapons of offence were recovered by the police at the instance of accused persons.
FSL REPORT
44. The report of FSL shows that pant and sweater were having human blood whereas one pant of accused, Knife and Blade showed "No Reaction" but were found to have human blood on the pant of accused and Knife was having human blood.
INJURIES CAUSED ON THE PERSON
45. MLC Ex.PX1 and Patient Discharge Summary shows that there were multiple penetrating injuries on Chest, Face and Limbs and were found to have stab injury on the left side of Chest, Upper Back, FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 14 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another Left Gluteal Region.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
46. Besides these witnesses, Prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW3 HC Jaipal, MHCM 1. Proved entry at Serial No.214 as Ex.PW3/A
2. Proved RC No.68/21 as Ex.PW3/B
(Regarding case property)
2. PW4 Ct. Anil Deposited four sealed pulandas with FSL,
Rohini. Ex.PW3/B bears his signatures at point A.
3. PW5 ASI Kewal Krishan Proved DD No.26A as Ex.PW5/A Proved FIR as Ex.PW5/B Proved endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW5/C
4. PW6 Ct. Pramod, Computer Recorded FIR No.25/11 on the instructions of Operator PW5 CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
47. The prosecution has been able to establish that on 2501 2011, injured Kishan @ Babloo was returning to his house on his motorbike. At around 9.40 pm, when he reached Gali JV6 Block, Welcome, accused Ajay and Sonu surrounded him and Ajay said to Sonu that today Babloo is going alone upon which accused Sonu gave FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 15 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another Knife injuries to him and accused Ajay attacked him with a blade on his face. It is clearly found out that both accused Sonu and Ajay in furtherance of their common intention have inflicted injuries on the Chest, Face and Limbs of the injured with the help of Knife and Blade.
48. Both PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated that accused Ajay was having a blade and accused Sonu was having a knife in their hands and both of them have inflicted injuries on the person of the victim. After committing the crime, the accused persons had thrown the weapons of offence. These weapons of offence were subsequently got recovered by the police at the instance of accused persons, who led the police party to Jheel Park area where they pointed out a bush where they had thrown the weapons of offence after use. Though there is slight discrepancy in the manner in which knife and blade got recovered but this discrepancy does not go at the root of the case which could make the prosecution case unbelievable. The recovery of weapons of offence are admissible within the realm of Section 27 of FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 16 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another Evidence Act. It is evident that both accused persons Ajay and Sonu had acted in furtherance of their common intention and finding the victim alone, they had inflicted injuries on the person of victim. All the facts and circumstances of the case point towards the guilt of accused persons.
49. Especially keeping in view the type of injuries inflicted on the injured, it cannot be said that they had the intention to kill him. It is not a case where the accused persons have given number of blows on the vital parts of the body. It could be seen that only single injuries were inflicted on the Chest, Face and Gluteal Region. Had there been real intention to kill him, the same could have been reflected if they had given number of injuries on the vital parts of the body. From the type of injuries caused, the number of blows given and the parts of the body where the injuries had taken place, it cannot be said that ingredients of Section 307 IPC had been proved. The injuries were probably inflicted in order to settle some previous dispute when injured had some tiff with the accused Ajay on previous occasion FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 17 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another which is reflected from the defence of the accused itself when in Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., it has been pointed out by the accused that there was quarrel between accused Ajay and Shri Kishan @ Babloo and that is why he implicated him. The place of injuries inflicted and the nature of injuries clearly show that there was no intention on the part of the accused persons to kill the victim. Therefore, the case falls outside the scope of Section 307 IPC.
50. The facts and circumstances of the case clearly brings the case within the ambit of Section 326 IPC.
51. The essential ingredients of Section 326 IPC are as under;
(i) Accused must commit an act with the knowledge that thereby he was likely to cause hurt or grievous hurt to the victim. Reliance is placed on Keshub Mahindra v State of M.P. 1996 SCC (Cri) 1104.
(ii) Accused caused grievous hurt;
(iii) He caused it voluntarily;
(iv) He caused it by any of the following means, i.e. FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 18 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
(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;
(g) by means of any animal.
52. From the medical record, it is clearly evident that multiple penetrating injuries were caused on the Chest, Face and Limbs. It is also on record that accused persons have used Knife and Blade and both of them have caused serious injuries on the Chest, Upper Back and Gluteal Region.
53. In MLC Ex.PX1, the following injuries were noticed;
(i) 2 X 1 cm deep clear pressed wound at Gluteal Region.
(ii) 1 X 3 cm deep side chest (left side).
FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 19 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another
(iii) 1 X 3 cm deep left shoulder.
(iv) 1 X 3 cm below chin.
(v) 1 X1 and 1 X 3 cm left and right cheek respectively.
(vi) 1 X 4 cm part of right ear.
54. The aforesaid type of injuries caused clearly brings the case within the four corners of provisions of Section 326 IPC against both the accused persons. The knowledge that by their actions, both the accused persons would cause grievous hurt to Kishan @ Babloo is evident from the type of injuries, they have inflicted. The same have been delineated above.
55. The defence has not brought any witness in defence. Defence has completely failed to discredit, demolish or denounce any of the prosecution witnesses. The defence raised by the accused persons as a matter of fact goes more against them than in their favour.
56. As far as case under Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act is concerned, the Prosecution has completely failed to establish its case. FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 20 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another The prosecution has completely failed to establish if the knife used in commissioning the crime falls under the category of "prohibited arm". Even the length of the knife has not been proved as per law. In such a situation, the prosecution case must fail to that limited extent.
57. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved its case within the four corners of provisions of Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
58. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of injured Kishan which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards the accused persons Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju.
59. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the Prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Sonu FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 21 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
60. The accused persons Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17th AUGUST, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 22 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC/44721/2015 CNR No. DLKA040001972011 State Versus 1. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu S/o Shri Fire Chand R/o House No. S29, Welcome, PS Welcome, Delhi
2. Ajay @ Ajju S/o Shri Jamna Prasad R/o JB6/62, Welcome, PS Welcome, Delhi FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome under Section 326/34 IPC Date of institution of case : 01052012 Reserved for order on sentence : 19082017 Date of passing of order : 19082017 ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard learned counsel for the convicts and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of sentence for FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 23 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the convicts has submitted that convict Sonu Kumar has a wife, three children and old aged parents to maintain and he is the only earning member in the family. Learned counsel for convicts further prayed for a lenient view in the matter.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that convicts may be dealt with stern hands.
4. It is trite to say that at the time of considering the sentence of a convict, the theory of retribution, reformation, rehabilitation and correction of the convict must be kept in mind, so that in his life, he can assimilate himself better in society and societal conditions. He has to shun the path of violence which he has once fallen into. Better condition and atmosphere must be provided to such a person, so that he shall have the opportunity of correcting himself and once again rehabilitate himself in the society. No matter stricter laws are made but human being has shown his tendency to commit crime in one form FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 24 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another or the other. Having said that, if there is no deterrence factor pressed into service by the Court of Law, the society will be hounded by criminals. They will develop the tendency of glorifying their ill deeds. Therefore, there is a solemn duty cast upon the Court to sufficiently punish a person commensurate with the crime, he had committed.
5. In the present case, both Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju had perpetrated the crime by inflicting serious injuries on the person of the complainant. Convict Sonu Kumar had inflicted knife blows on the person of victim and convict Ajay had given injuries with the help of a shaving blade on the person of complainant.
6. Both Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju have acted in furtherance of their common intention as both of them have participated in inflicting injuries on the person of the complainant. Both have used weapons with the help of which they have committed the crime. Both the accused persons are almost of same age and both of them deserves punishment in consonance with the crime, both of FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 25 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act SC/44721/2015 State Vs. Sonu Kumar @ Sonu & Another them have committed.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the convicts Sonu Kumar @ Sonu and Ajay @ Ajju are sentenced Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years. Both of them shall also pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ (Five Thousand) each and in default thereof, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.
8. Both convicts shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., if applicable.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19th AUGUST, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.25/11 PS Welcome Page No. 26 / 22 U/s 307/34 IPC and U/s 25 & 27 of Arms Act