Delhi District Court
Sc No.46/15 State vs . Dilshad Etc. Page No. 1/23 on 30 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF
CASE NO. 56687/2016
SESSIONS CASE NO.46/15
FIR No. 139/15
P.S Nangloi
U/S 307/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
(1) DILSHAD
S/O MOHD.IRSHAD
R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY,
CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
(2) SHEHJAD
S/O MOHD.IRSHAD
R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY,
CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
(3) NAUSHAD
S/O MOHD.IRSHAD
R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY,
CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 12.05.2015
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 26.08.2016
DATE OF DECISION : 30.08.2016
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 1/23
JUDGEMENT
1. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.02.2015 on receipt of DD no.34A, ASI Dilbagh Singh alongwith Ct.Ashish went at the spot i.e.H.No.X193, Camp No. 1, Nangloi, Delhi and came to know that injured has been shifted to SGM hospital, Mangolpuri, by PCR Van. At the spot, Saima met him and she gave statement regarding receiving injuries and teasing by Gulzar and others. Thereafter, ASI Dilbagh Singh reached at SGM hospital and collected the MLC no. 2733/15 of Gulzar S/o Akhiyar. He gave his statement that he is residing alongwith his family and manufacturing LED bulbs. The sons of his real uncle Mohd.Irshad namely Naushad, Dilshad and Shehzad are also manufacturing the LED bulbs at H.no. 189 X Block, Camp no.I, JJ Colony, Delhi and due to this reason, they are annoyed with him. They without any reason used to quarrel with him. On 16.01.2015, accused Dilshad and Naushad gave beatings to his younger brother Bilal @ Istkar and he was stabbed in the area of Sultan Puri and FIR no. 62/15 was registered in PS Sultan Puri. Due to this reason also, accused persons and his family members used to abuse SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 2/23 him. He has further stated that on 16.02.2015, he was sleeping at his house. He heard the noise of abusing. At about 04:00 PM, he came out of his house and accused Naushad, Dilshad and Shehjad and their family members started abusing him. When the complainant forbade them, accused Naushad and Shehjad caught hold of him and accused Dilshad gave stab blow on his abdomen. Thereafter, all the accused persons exhorted "Aaj tera kaam tamaam kar dete hai" and accused Naushad gave an iron rod blow on the head of the complainant. In the meantime, his father intervened and rescued him. He has also stated that accused persons with the intention to kill, gave him injuries on his abdomen and head.
2. On the basis of statement of the complainant Gulzar, a case FIR no.139/15 U/s 307/34 IPC was registered against all the accused persons and the investigation of this case was carried out. During investigation, accused persons were arrested. They disclosed that they had thrown the weapon of offence from a running train which was going from Delhi to Rohtak. Site plan was prepared and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the court.
3. Charge for the offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 3/23 against all the accused persons was framed by this court on 18.05.2015 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh.Gulzar, PW2 Sh.Akhiyar, PW3 SI Ravi Dutt, PW4 Ct.Ashish, PW5 Dr.Shailender, PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dalal and PW7 ASI Dilbagh Singh.
5. PW1 Sh.Gulzar has deposed that he is residing at the H.No.X193 alongwith his family members and they are indulged in a business of manufacturing of LED Bulbs. His uncle namely Mohd.Irshad and his sons namely Naushad, Dilshad and Shehzad were also running a business of manufacturing of LED bulb in H. No. X189, Camp No. 1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. He has further stated that on 16.02.2015 at about 4:00 PM, he was sleeping in his house and his brothers were present on the ground floor of the house. He heard the noise. Thereafter, he came down and saw accused Naushad, Dilshand and Shehzad were present in the gali outside his house and they were abusing his brother Ishtikhar @ Bilal. Earlier accused Naushad and Dilshad had caused stabbed injuries on his younger brother Ishtikhar @ Bilal SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 4/23 in the area of PS Sultan Puri and in this regard FIR No. 62/15 at PS Sultan Puri was registered against accused persons. He tried to pacify the matter and told the accused persons why they were intentionally abusing his younger brother. All the three accused persons also started abusing him. He has further stated that he was caught hold by accused Naushad and Shehzad and accused Dilshad stabbed on his stomach with a knife with such intention to cause his death. In the meanwhile, accused Naushad hit iron rod (sariya) on his head with such intention to cause his death. Thereafter, he fell down and was semi conscious. All the accused persons fled from the spot after they assaulted him. Police was called by his mother. PCR reached at the spot and he was removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, where, he was medically examined. This witness has identified his signatures at point A on Ex.PW1/A. He has further stated that after discharge from the hospital, he came to his house and at that time police also visited the spot and on his pointing out, police inspected the spot and prepared site plan. This witness has proved the arrest memos of accused persons as Ex.PW1/B, Ex. PW1/C & Ex. PW1/D. SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 5/23
6. PW2 Sh.Akhiyar has deposed that he is running the business of manufacturing of LED bulbs with his sons. All the three accused persons namely Dilshad, Naushad, Shehzad are the sons of his younger brother Mohd. Irshad. He has further stated that he saw his son Gulzar bleeding from his stomach. Police also reached at the spot and his son was removed to hospital. He has further stated that police did not make inquiries from him and they had only obtained his signatures. He has further stated that he did not know how his son Gulzar received injuries on his stomach.
This witness was crossexamined by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State wherein he has admitted that he has stated in his statement to the police that on 16.02.2015 at about 4:00 PM, he was present in his house and in the meanwhile, the sons of his younger brother Irshad namely Shehzad, Dilshad and Naushad came in front of their house and they started giving abuses to his elder son Gulzar. This witness has stated that he had not stated in his statement Mark A to the police that when his son objected the same, accused Naushad, Dilshad and Shehzad with such intention to kill his son, accused Shehzad stabbed the knife on the stomach of his son SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 6/23 Gulzar and accused Naushad hit the iron rod on the head of his son. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State that accused persons intentionally caused the injuries to his son with such intention to kill him. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State that he being the uncle of all the three accused persons intentionally not deposing true facts in the Court regarding the injuries sustained by his son Gulzar. He has denied the suggestion put to him by the Ld.Addl. P.P.for the State that due to close relation with the accused persons, he is deposing falsely in respect of incident in order to save the accused persons from penal punishment.
7. PW3 SI Ravi Dutt has deposed that on 16.02.2015, at about 06:35 PM, he received a rukka recorded by ASI Dilbag Singh and brought by Ct.Ashish for the registration of the case. Accordingly, he got registered FIR no. 139/15 U/s 307/34 IPC through computer operator and obtained computer generated copy of FIR which is proved as Ex.PW3/B. This witness has also proved his endorsement on the rukka which is Ex. PW 3/A.
8. PW4 Ct.Ashish has deposed that on 16.02.2015, at about SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 7/23 04:15 PM, he accompanied ASI Dilbagh in pursuance of DD no.34A and reached at SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi. One injured Gulzar was found admitted in the hospital. IO recorded the statement of Gulzar, prepared a rukka and handedover the same to him for registration of the case. Accordingly, he left the hospital around 06:00 PM and reached PS Nangloi. There he handedover the rukka to duty officer and after getting the FIR registered, he obtained original rukka and copy of FIR and handedover the same to ASI Dilbagh in the hospital. He has further stated that on 17.02.2015, again he joined the investigation of this case with ASI Dilbagh. Accused persons namely Shahzad, Dilshad and Naushad, were arrested by the IO from their houses. This witness has identified his signatures at point B on Arrest Memo of Shahzad Ex.PW1/B, that of accused Dilshad Ex. PW1/C and that of accused Naushad Ex. PW1/D. He has also identified his signatures at point A on the personal search memos of accused Shahzad Ex.PW4/A, that of accused Dilshad Ex.PW4/B and that of accused Naushad Ex.PW 4/C. Accused persons were identified by injured Gulzar. He has further stated that no recovery was effected at the instance of accused persons.
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 8/239. PW5 Dr.Shailender has deposed that on the basis of record produced before him, he has opined the nature of injuries as "Simple", but final opinion could not be given as patient was absconded on 17.02.2015 as per available record. This witness has proved his noting on the MLC encircled red as Ex. PW5/A.
10.PW6 Dr.Rajesh Dalal has deposed that on 16.02.2015 at 4.55 PM, injured Gulzar S/o Sh. Akhiyar was brought in the hospital by SI D P Dagar with alleged history of stab injury as told by patient himself. Patient was conscious oriented. On local examination, patient had incised wound over abdomen right side 10cm X 1cm, another injury (CLW) over mid parietal region ie., on scalp 12cm X 0.5 cm was noted. After initial treatment, patient was referred to SR surgery for further examination, management and opinion. MLC to this effect was prepared by him except encircled portion Ex. PW5/A and writing appearing in black ink. He identified his signature at point B on MLC Ex. PW6/A.
11.PW7 ASI Dilbagh Singh has deposed that on 16.02.2015, at about 04:10 PM, DD no. 34A, Ex.PW 3/DA was assigned to him for action in the matter. DD no. 36 was also received in PS, copy of which is marked SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 9/23 PW3/DB. Accordingly, he alongwith Ct.Ashish reached at H.No. X193, Camp no.1, J J Colony, Nangloi, Delhi and it was revealed at the spot that injured Gulzar has been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri by the PCR. One girl namely Saima met at the spot who informed that she was assaulted and teased by Gulzar and others. He recorded her statement in this regard and called Ct.Madhu Bala, who reached the spot and then sent that girl Saima to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital with Ct.Madhu Bala. Separate proceedings were drawn by some other police official in this regard. He has further stated that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Ashish reached Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital, Mangol Puri, where injured Gulzar was found admitted there on MLC no. 2738/15. Injured was fit for statement. His injury was under observation. He recorded statement of Gulzar which is proved as Ex.PW1/A. Then he prepared rukka which is proved as Ex.PW7/A and gave it to Ct.Ashish Kumar at about 06:00 PM for registration of the case. Injured Gulzar remained admitted in the hospital. Ct.Ashish Kumar gave him the copy of FIR and original rukka then he proceeded for the spot and prepared site plan of the spot which is proved as Ex.PW7/B. SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 10/23 This witness has further stated that on 17.02.2015, at the instance of injured Gulzar, he arrested accused Shahzad, Dilshad and Naushad vide arrest memos Ex.PW1/B, Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D from their house. All the accused persons are real brothers. He conducted personal search of accused Shahzad, Dilshad and Naushad vide personal search memos Ex. PW4/A, B and C respectively. He recorded disclosure statements of all the accused persons, but no recovery was effected at the instance of any of accused persons. He has further stated that he obtained result on the MLC of Gulzar which was opined as "Simple" which is proved as Ex. PW 5/A and Ex.PW6/A.
12.Thereafter statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. have been recorded wherein they have stated that the injuries received by the complainant were self inflicted. They have been falsely implicated in this case just to pressurize them and their family members to withdraw their complaint which was made by their sister Saima against the complainant and his family members for molesting her.
13.Accused persons have examined DW1 Ms.Shafiqan and DW2 Sh.Shaukat Ali in their defence.
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 11/2314.DW1 Ms.Shafiqan has deposed that she is familiar with all the accused persons as well as the family of Gulzar, the complainant in the present case as all of them are resident of same vicinity where she is residing. She has further stated that Gulzar is residing just opposite to her house, whereas accused persons reside in same gali where her house is situated. Her house is built up upto first floor. The house in which Gulzar resides is built up upto second floor. Some business activities are carried out on ground floor of the house in which Gulzar resides. Father of gulzar resides with his wife at first floor. Gulzar resides in the second floor. She has further stated that on 16.02.2015, at about 03:00 PM, she noticed that sister of accused persons namely Saima was coming down from the stair case of the house of Gulzar and Gulzar and his brothers were following her and on coming to the downstairs, she raised alarm. She has further stated that she also noticed that her upper portion of the Kameez from shoulder was torn and she was shouting "Bachao Bachao". She has further stated that thereafter, she saw from her house that Gulzar was having some blade type article in his hand and his father and mother were trying to snatch that article. She saw SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 12/23 that from that blade type article, Gulzar self inflicted injuries on his abdomen and head. In the meanwhile, Gulzar came down and picked up a big stone and tried to hit accused Naushad @ Nanhey, which hit accused Dilshad.
15.DW2 Sh.Shaukat has deposed that he knew accused persons as well as family of Gulzar being the resident of same vicinity and they all are not related to him otherwise. Gulzar is residing at a distance of 45 houses, from the house of accused persons. He is residing at a distance of further 56 houses from the house of accused persons. He has further stated that it was 16 th day of the month, about one & half years ago, at about 02:30 to 03:00 PM, he heard a noise and was in his house. He came out and went to the house of Gulzar and there one girl namely Saima, sister of the accused persons was making hue and cry. She was saying that she is being molested by her uncle Akhiyar and her clothes were torn. Complainant Gulzar came down from his house, smeared with blood. Thereafter, a scuffle took place between Gulzar and Naushad @ Nanhey.
16.I have heard ld.Addl.P.P.for the State, Sh. R.D.Rana, ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and have perused the SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 13/23 record carefully.
17.It is contended by the ld. Counsel for all the accused persons that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. The complainant is involved in other cases and it has come in his evidence that he is involved in other cases. There is no evidence corroborating the testimony of PW1. PW2 Sh.Akhiyar also did not corroborate the testimony of PW1 Gulzar. PW1 Gulzar has admitted that his mother called the police but statement of mother of Gulzar was not recorded. It is also contended by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that defence of the accused persons is corroborated by the two witnesses. They are not their relatives and injuries on the person of the complainant are self inflicted. Complainant himself received injuries. There are contradictions in the statement of PW1 Gulzar. It is prayed that accused persons be acquitted.
18.On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State that the prosecution is able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons are not able to prove that the injuries on the person of the complainant are self inflicted. The testimonies of DW1 and DW2 are an after thought. The accused persons SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 14/23 have not given any suggestion to the complainant that injuries on his person are self inflicted and at that time, DW1 and DW2 were present. It was not suggested to the complainant that the injuries at his abdomen was caused by blade and no suggestion was given to the doctor that injuries are possible with blade.
19.Now I am dealing with the contentions of ld.defence counsel one by one.
20.DD no.34 was received at PS Nangloi on 16.02.2015 to the effect that at about 04:10 PM, one person residing at H.No. 189 Block X, J J Colony, has given threat of shooting. Again DD no.36A was received at PS Nangloi to the effect that there is a quarrel at H.No. X193, Nangloi, Delhi. The accused persons are residing at H.no.X189 and as per DD no. 34A, threat has been extended by a person who was residing at 189 Block X. Thus, the threat was given by a person who is residing at H.no. 189 and accused persons are residing at X189.
21.It is contended by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case and the injuries are self inflicted by the complainant.
In the present case, PW1 Gulzar has given the SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 15/23 statement that his uncle Mohd.Irshad and his sons are indulged in the manufacturing of LED Bulbs and he is also manufacturing the LED bulbs and due to this reason, they are annoyed with him. It is also deposed by PW1 that earlier accused Naushad and Dilshad had stabbed his younger brother Ishtikhar @ Bilal in the area of PS Sultan Puri and in this regard a FIR no. 62/15 was registered against the accused persons. It is also stated that on 16.02.2015 at the time of incident, accused persons were abusing his younger brother and he came down and saw accused Naushad, Dilshad and Shehzad were present in the gali outside his house and they were abusing his brother Bilal. He has further stated that he tried to pacify the matter and told the accused persons as to why they were intentionally abusing his brother. Then they also started abuses him. He has further stated that he was caught hold by accused Naushad and Shehzad and accused Dilshad stabbed on his stomach with a knife with such intention to cause his death. In the meanwhile, accused Naushad hit iron rod on his head with such intention to cause his death.
This witness was crossexamined by the ld. counsel for the accused persons. Nothing fruitful was SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 16/23 extracted during the crossexamination of PW1. A suggestion was given to this witness that "it is wrong to suggest that I got inflicted injury on my person from my brothers and falsely cooked up this case, when I came to know that Saima had informed the police and a case was going to be registered against me". Suggestion was given to PW1 that he got inflicted injury on his person from his brothers, but accused persons in their statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C.had stated that injuries on his person were self inflicted. DW1 has stated that complainant inflicted self injuries on his abdomen and head with a blade. Thus, there is contradiction in the testimony of DW1 and stand taken by the accused persons in their statements recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C.
22.Moreover, no suggestion was given to PW1 that he received injuries with blade. DW1 has deposed that she saw that from the blade type article, Gulzar self inflicted injuries on his abdomen and head. Perusal of the file further reveals that injured received two injuries i.e. (1) Incized wound over abdomen right side 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm and (2) CLW over mid parietal region size 12 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm and the injuries on the parietal region is not possible by blade. Moreover, accused persons have SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 17/23 not given any suggestion to PW5 and PW6 that injuries on the person of the complainant are not feasible by knife and iron rod and are only possible by blade. Taking into consideration that the suggestion was given to PW1 that he got inflicted injury on his person from his brothers and DW1 has deposed that complainant self inflicted injuries on his abdomen and head and no suggestion was given to PW5 and PW6 that injuries are possible with blade, it cannot be said that the complainant received self inflicted injuries. Thus, this contention of the ld.defence counsel carries no force.
23.It is also contended by the ld.defence counsel that the complainant has assaulted and molested the sister of accused persons namely Saima and her statement was recorded and due to fear, complainant inflicted self injuries on his abdomen and head and falsely lodged a complaint against the accused persons. I fail to appreciate this contention of the ld.defnce counsel as it is not proved by the accused persons that the injuries on the person of the complainant were self inflicted. Moreover, DW1 is silent as to with what weapon, the injuries were given to the complainant and DW2 has not stated that Gulzar SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 18/23 received self inflicted injuries. DW2 only deposed that complainant came down from his house and was smeared with blood. He has also admitted that a scuffle took place between Naushad, Dilshad and Shehzad. DW1 has also deposed that Gulzar came down and picked up a big stone and tried to hit accused Naushad @ Nanhey, which hit accused Dilshad. Accused Dilshad was not medically examined nor accused Dilshad examined himself in defence to prove that he was hit by stone by the complainant. Moreover, no suggestion was given to PW 1 that he also gave big stone blow to accused Dilshad. No suggestion was given by the ld. Counsel for the accused to PW7 that DW1 and DW2 were also present at the spot. From the testimony of both Dws, it can be held that a quarrel had taken place between the complainant and accused persons on the day of the incident.
24.The complainant was medically examined at SGM hospital and he gave history to the doctor that he has been stabbed. The incident is at about 04:00 PM and he was medically examined at 04:55 PM. He was brought to SGM hospital by PCR van. This fortify the testimony of IO that when he reached the spot, the injured has already SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 19/23 been shifted to PCR Van.
25.It is vehemently contended by the accused persons that sister of the accused persons namely Saima was molested by the complainant and his father and to avoid the case being registered against him, the complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. Saima has not come to the witness box nor any of the accused persons appeared in the witness box to prove this fact. The accused persons during the crossexamination of PW1 had not denied their presence at the spot. Thus, this contention carries no force.
26.In the present case, accused persons have motive to cause injuries to the complainant as he has specifically stated that accused persons used to manufacture the LED bulbs and he also used to manufacture the LED bulbs. He has also deposed that on 16.01.2015, accused Naushad and Dilshad had caused stab injuries on his younger brother Ishtikhar @ Bilal in the area of PS Sultan Puri and in this regard an FIR no. 62/15 at PS Sultan Puri was registered against the accused persons. It is no where denied by the accused Dilshad that FIR no. 62/15 of PS Sultan Puri is not registered against him. I am of the view that all the accused persons have SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 20/23 motive to cause injuries to the complainant as earlier also they caused stab injuries to the brother of complainant namely Bilal.
27.Further, Site plan Ex. PW7/B shows that the incident had taken place in front of H.no. X193 and the complainant was residing at H.No. X193. The accused persons are residing at H.No. 189 B Block. Thus this shows that the accused persons gave injuries in front of the house of the complainant.
28.It is also contended by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the complainant has criminal antecedents and FIR nos.516/08 of PS Mangopuri and 524/11 of PS Shalimar Bagh were registered. The complainant has also admitted that in case FIR no. 524/11, he was sentenced to seven years imprisonment and he has filed an Appeal and at present he is on bail. He has also admitted that another case FIR 682/15 of PS Nangloi is registered against him and NBWs have been issued against him in that case.
If the complainant is involved in other criminal cases, then it is no ground to acquit the accused persons. PW1 is an truthful witness and his testimony can not be doubted in any manner.
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 21/2329.Ld.defence counsel has placed reliance upon the Judgment titled as Ramaiah @ Rama Vs. State of Karnataka in Crl.Appeal No. 1671 of 2011, but this judgment is not helpful to the accused persons in any manner.
30.In the present case, the accused persons have been chargesheeted for the offence U/s 307/34 IPC. PW5 has opined the nature of injuries received by the complainant as "Simple" and he deposed that final opinion could not be given as patient was absconded on 17.02.2015. As PW5 has opined the nature of injuries as "Simple", I am of the view that the accused persons cannot be convicted for the offence U/s 307/34 IPC and they are acquitted for the offence U/s 307/34 IPC.
31.In the present case, the accused persons gave injuries with a knife at the abdomen of the complainant measuring 10 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm. Injured also received CLW over mid parietal region size 12 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm., I am of the view that as the injured received simple injuries, all the accused persons namely Dilshad, Naushad and Shehzad are hereby held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 323/324/34 IPC.
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 22/23They be heard on Quantum of Sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) COURT ON: 30.08.2016 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.
SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 23/23IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 56687/2016 SESSIONS CASE NO.46/15 FIR No. 139/15 P.S Nangloi U/S 307/34 IPC STATE VERSUS (1) DILSHAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
(2) SHEHJAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
(3) NAUSHAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, JJ COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI.
31.08.2016 :
ORDER ON SENTENCE : SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 24/23
Contd....2.
: 2 :
Present : Sh.B.B.Bhasin, Ld. Addl. P.P.for the State.
All the Convicts are in produced from J.C. Sh.R.D.Rana, ld. Counsel for all the convicts.
Arguments on the point of Sentence have been advanced.
It is contended by the ld. Counsel for the convicts that convict Dilshad is aged about 32 years and remained in J.C. w.e.f.17.02.2015 to 20.05.2015. Convicts Shehjad and Naushad are aged about 20 years & 21 years and they remained in J.C.w.e.f. 17.02.2015 to 04.04.2015. Further it is contended that they are only earning members in their family. They all are unmarried. They are having old aged parents and their father is suffering with tuberculoses. They are having three unmarried sisters, who are also dependent upon them. They are not previous convict. Further it is prayed by the ld.defence counsel that lenient view be taken.
Ld.defence counsel has also prayed for probation. He has also placed reliance upon the Judgments titled as Karaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1997 (3) CC Cases 474 (HC) and Boota Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (2) CC Cases HC 407.SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 25/23
On the other hand, it is contended by ld. Addl.PP for the State that all the convicts gave injuries with dangerous weapon Contd....3.
: 3 :
I.e.knife and iron rod on the person of complainant and in view of above, all the convicts are not entitled for probation as they had also attacked upon the brother of the complainant with knife and an FIR no. 62/15 of PS Sultan Puri has also been registered against the accused Dilshad and Naushad.
Ld.Addl.P.P.for the State has also drawn my attention towards the Section 19 of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958 according to which "The provisions of Section 360 of Cr.P.C. stand ceased to apply in the State, where Probation of Offenders Act has been enforced". In Delhi, the Probation of Offender Act has already been enforced, thus, these judgments are not helpful to the convicts. It is prayed that no lenient view be taken.
I have perused the record.
I have also perused the judgments produced by the ld.defence counsel with utmost regard. However, these judgments are not helpful to the convicts. Moreover, accused Dilshad and Naushad have also given injuries to the brother of SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 26/23 the complainant and case FIR no. 62/15 has already been registered against them and their conduct is not justified to enlarge them on probation. I am of the view that as injuries given by the convicts to the complainant with dangerous weapon I.e.knife and iron rod, probation cannot be given to all the convicts. Contd....4.
: 4 :
In the Judgment reported in case titled State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishan AIR 2005 SC 1250, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the observation that the court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and the victim belong. The court observed that the punishment to be awarded for crime was not be irrelevant but it should conform to and consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated.
In Sidharma Vs. State of Karnataka AIR 2006 SC 3265, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reemphasized the need to strike a balanced proposition between the crime and the punishment. The court observed that imposition of appropriate punishment is the manner in which the court responds to the SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 27/23 society's cry for justice against the criminal. It was held that justice demands that court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the court reflects public abhorrence of the crime and the court must not only keep in view the rights of a criminal but also the rights of victims of the crime and society at large while considering the imposition of appropriate punishment.
Contd....5.
: 5 :
In a recent decision in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Surender Kumar 2015(V) AD (SC) 315, the Apex Court has observed that undue sympathy by means of imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the criminal justice system as it may undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law. It was held that it was the duty of the court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed.
In Ahmad Hussain Vali Mohd.Saiyed Vs.State of Gujarat 2007 (7) SCC 254, a three judges bench of the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of taking liberal attitude by imposing meager sentence or making or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time. The court held that such a practice would be counter productive in SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 28/23 the long run and against the interest of the society which needs to be cared for and strengthened and string of deterrence should be inbuilt in the sentencing system. It was held that it is the demand of justice that court should impose punishment befitting the crime so that the court reflects public abhorrence of the crime. It was reiterated that the court would be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime.
Taking into consideration that all the convicts gave injuries Contd....6.
: 6 :
with knife and iron rod on the person of complainant. The injured did not appear before the doctor for subsequent treatment and therefore, the doctor has opined the nature of injuries as "Simple". If the injured would have subsequently appeared before the concerned doctor, then the circumstances of the present case would have been different. In these circumstances, I deem it appropriate, if all the convicts namely Dilshad, Shehjad and Naushad are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and fine of Rs.3,000/ each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days each U/s 324/34 IPC.
Further it is ordered that all the convicts namely SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 29/23 Dilshad, Shehjad and Naushad are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year each and fine of Rs.500/ each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 10 days each U/s 323/34 IPC.
Further it is ordered that out of the amount of fine of Rs.10,500, an amount of Rs.9,000/ will go to the injured I.e.PW1 Sh.Gulzar.
Fine paid by all the convicts.
Both the sentences of all the convicts shall run concurrently.
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to all the convicts.
Contd....7.
: 7 :
Copy of the Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to all the convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (NARESH KR. MALHOTRA) COURT ON: 31.08.2016 ASJ05 (West), THC, Delhi.SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 30/23
FOR TRIAL WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE (SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 56687/2016 SESSIONS CASE NO.46/15 FIR No. 139/15 P.S Nangloi U/S 307/34 IPC To The Jail Superintendent Tihar, Delhi.
In the abovesaid case, accused NAUSHAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, J.J.COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI, aged about 21 years is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 324/323/34 IPC.
Accordingly, convict Naushad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days U/s 324/34 IPC.
Further it is ordered that convict Naushad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 31/23 for 10 days U/s 323/34 IPC.
Fine paid by the convict.
Both the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently.
Contd....2.SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 32/23
: 2 :
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive the said convict into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant to undergo the sentence as awarded by this Court.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 31 st day of August, 2016.
Note : Fine paid. (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) ASJ 05/West/THC/Delhi/31.08.2016 SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 33/23 FOR TRIAL WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE (SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 56687/2016 SESSIONS CASE NO.46/15 FIR No. 139/15 P.S Nangloi U/S 307/34 IPC To The Jail Superintendent Tihar, Delhi.
In the abovesaid case, accused SHEHJAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, J.J.COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI, aged about 20 years is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 324/323/34 IPC.
Accordingly, convict Shehjad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days U/s 324/34 IPC.
Further it is ordered that convict Shehjad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 34/23 for 10 days U/s 323/34 IPC.
Fine paid by the convict.
Both the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently.
Contd....2.SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 35/23
: 2 :
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict. This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive the said convict into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant to undergo the sentence as awarded by this Court.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 31 st day of August, 2016.
Note : Fine paid. (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) ASJ 05/West/THC/Delhi/31.08.2016 SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 36/23 FOR TRIAL WARRANT OF COMMITMENT ON A SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT BY A SESSIONS JUDGE (SECTION 383 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE) IN THE COURT OF SH. NARESH KUMAR MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
IN THE MATTER OF CASE NO. 56687/2016 SESSIONS CASE NO.46/15 FIR No. 139/15 P.S Nangloi U/S 307/34 IPC To The Jail Superintendent Tihar, Delhi.
In the abovesaid case, accused DILSHAD S/O MOHD.IRSHAD R/O H.NO. X189, J.J.COLONY, CAMP NO.1, NANGLOI, DELHI, aged about 32 years is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 324/323/34 IPC.
Accordingly, convict Dilshad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3,000/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 15 days U/s 324/34 IPC.
Further it is ordered that convict Dilshad is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo SI for 10 days SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 37/23 U/s 323/34 IPC.
Fine paid by the convict.
Both the sentences of the convict shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the convict.
Contd....2.SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 38/23
: 2 :
This is to authorize and require you, the said Superintendent, to receive the said convict into your custody in the said jail together with this warrant to undergo the sentence as awarded by this Court.
Given under my hand and the seal of the Court on this 31 st day of August, 2016.
Note : Fine paid. (Naresh Kumar Malhotra) ASJ05/West/THC/Delhi/31.08.2016 SC No.46/15 State Vs. Dilshad etc. Page No. 39/23