Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Praveen Kumar on 23 May, 2009
1 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL: ASJ-V: OUTER:
ROHINI: DELHI
SC NO. 97/08
FIR No. 427/06
P.S. Mangol Puri
U/s 452/308/34 IPC
State Vs. 1. Praveen Kumar
S/o Sh. Kiran Pal
2. Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Kiran Pal
3. Anil Kumar
S/o Sh. Kiran Pal
All resident of X-246, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Date of Institution in Sessions Court: 8.9.2006
Date of transfer to this Court: 1.12.2008
Date of Judgment: 23.5.2009
JUDGMENT
In brief, the prosecution story is that on 23.6.06, the mother of the accused persons Smt. Sneh Lata came to the house of the complainant Jamaluddin for demanding interest to which he requested that he will pay the interest on the next day and asked her 2 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri to return the amount which was given by him to Vinod on the guarantee of Kiran Pal the husband of said Sneh Lata and thereafter, the said Sneh Lata went back and at around 9 p.m. on the same day, when the complainant Jamaluddin alongwith his nephew Riajuddin and wife Raisan were taking dinner at their house, accused persons came to their house while accused Parveen was having stone in his hands, which he raised to throw at Jamaluddin. When Jamaluddin and his nephew opposed the same, the stone fell down, thereafter the accused persons started using fists and leg blows to assault the complainant Jamaluddin, his nephew Riajuddin and his wife Raisan. As a result of which the complainant Jamaluddin received injuries on the left side of lower abdomen and his nephew also received injuries on his skull and his wife also received injuries and all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention also had beaten up the wife of Jamalluddin with slaps and also gave fists and leg blows to Riajuddin and thereafter, the father of accused persons namely Sh. Kiran Pal came there, and took them back.
2. Thereafter, the nephew of the complainant made a call to 3 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri the police from his mobile phone. Police reached the spot. All the injured were removed to SGM Hospital. The statement of Jamaluddin was recorded by the police on 24.6.06 after discharge from SGM Hospital. Jamaluddin again developed complications and was admitted by his family members at Family Hospital, where the doctors told him that his ribs had been broken and his liver had been punctured causing collection of blood inside his stomach and he was operated upon by following emergency procedure and was only discharged from the hospital on 7.7.06.
3. On the complaint of Jamaluddin, FIR bearing No. 427/06 U/s 452/323/34 IPC was lodged at P.S. Mangol Puri. The accused persons were lateron arrested. During the investigation(s) Section 308 IPC was added.
4. After completion of investigation(s), a charge sheet U/s 308/452/323/34 IPC was filed in the court for trial.
5. Upon committal of the case to the court of sessions, a charge U/s 452/308/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri
6. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to prove its case, has examined 10 witnesses.
7. All the accused persons were thereafter examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. in which their defence was that PWs Jamaluddin, his wife Raisan and his nephew Riajuddin had falsely deposed against them because Jamaluddin did not want to repay the loan which he had taken from their father Kiran Pal and they were all interested witnesses. However, they chose not to lead any defence evidence.
8. PW-1 Jamaluddin is the complainant. He in his deposition while appearing as PW1 has reiterated the entire prosecution prosecution story while proving his statement Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which the present FIR was lodged and the investigation(s) of the case was set into motion.
PW2 is Sh. Riajuddin, the nephew of PW1, one of the injured who has corroborated the testimony of PW1 in material particulars.
PW6 is Smt. Raisan, who has also corroborated the testimony of PW1 and PW2 in material particulars. 5 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri PW3 is W/ASI Rani Jassal, who has proved the FIR Ex.PW3/A and the endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW3/B. PW4 is Const. Bijender who was working as DD writer at PP SGM Hospital Mangol Puri on the date of incident. He has proved the copy of DD entry recorded by him, which is Ex.PW4/A. PW5 is Dr. Tarun Dubey from Family Hospital, Avantika, Sector-1, Rohini, Delhi, who had conducted the emergency operation on the injured Jamaluddin on 24.6.06. He has proved his surgical notes prepared during the surgery as Ex.PW5/A. He has also proved his MLC prepared by him at Family Hospital which is Ex.PW5/B. PW7 is ASI Dinesh Chander who was the second IO of the present case to whom the investigation(s) of the present case was marked on 10.7.06 as offence U/s 308 IPC was added during the investigation(s). He had prepared the charge-sheet and presented the same before SHO.
PW8 is Dr. Lakhvinder Kaur, who has proved the MLCs of the injured Riajuddin and Jamaluddin, who were examined at SGM 6 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri Hospital on 23.6.06 by Dr. A.K.Singh as the said Dr. A.K.Singh had left the hospital and his present address was not known. The said MLC's have been proved as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively.
PW9 is Constable Dharamvir Singh, who alongwith the IO reached the spot at X-451 Mangol Puri on receipt of DD No. 24, informing the P.S. Mangol Puri regarding the quarrel which had taken place there and had taken active part in the investigation(s) of the present case.
PW10 is H.C. Virender Singh , the IO of the present case. In his deposition he has reiterated the investigation(s) as was carried out by him, while proving the siteplan Ex.PW10/A and the arrest memos and Jamatalashi memos of all the accused persons as Ex.PW9A to Ex.PW9/F respectively.
9. The accused persons were thereafter examined u/s 313 Cr.
P.C. in which their defence was that PWs Jamaluddin, his wife Raisan and his nephew Riajuddin had falsely deposed against them because Jamaluddin did not want to repay the loan which he had taken from their father Kiran Pal and they were all interested 7 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri witnesses. However, they chose not to lead any defence evidence.
10. I have heard Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons as well as Shri G.S. Guraya. Ld. Additional PP for the State and Sh. Mohd. Ali Ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
11. The arguments of the ld. Counsel for the accused persons is five folded. :
Firstly, he has argued that the place of occurrence was different as per the prosecution story itself, which is proved by the DD entry Ex.PW4/A recorded on 23.6.06, wherein the place of quarrel has been reported as X-751 near SGM Hospital and not X-451 as stated by the complainant and the PCR call was also received regarding the quarrel at X-751 and the IO had not recorded the statement of any informant when he went to X-751 on receiving the PCR call and thereafter, at the instance of the complainant party he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case to escape the payment of money which was to be paid by the complainant to the father of the accused persons Sh. Kiran Pal. He 8 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri has further argued that no name of the assailants has also been given in the DD entry 24 Ex.PW4/A. Secondly, he has argued that no independent witness has been examined by the IO in this case and all the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2 and PW6 are interested witnesses since they had an Axe to grind against the complainant by not returning the money/loan which was taken by the complainant from Kiran Pal and thirdly he has argued that the motive to falsely implicate the accused persons in this case on behalf of the complainant party was not to pay money which the complainant Jamaluddin owed to the father of the accused persons Sh. Kiran Pal. Fourthly, he has argued that neither the stone which was allegedly used by the accused persons to hit the injured party was seized by the IO nor the blood stained clothes of any of the injured were seized by the IO during the investigation(s) of the present case. Therefore, he has argued that all the prosecution witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2 and PW6 are interested witnesses. He has lastly argued that no reason has been given by the prosecution, why only the spleen had been damaged and why not other parts of 9 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri the injured Jamalluddin were not damaged namely Kidney, liver or any other vital organs and he has argued that spleen of the injured was already enlarged previously because of his eating and living habits and he has argued that enlargement of spleen is not a disease itself but will only reduce the immunity and he has argued that a false report has been given by PW5, Dr. Tarun Dubey.
12. On the other hand it has been vehemently argued by the ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Counsel for the complainant, that the motive in the present case to commit injuries upon the body of the complainant party was to ask for the money, which they did not pay as complainant told the mother of the accused persons Sneh Lata that he will pay the interest tomorrow and since this did not go well with the accused party therefore, accused party fully prepared with the intention to cause injuries on their body, which were likely to cause death or they were having knowledge that such injuries were likely to cause death caused injuries upon PW1, PW2 & PW6 and in the MLC, nature of injuries has been proved by the report of Dr. Tarun Dubey PW5, who has opined the nature of injuries to be 10 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri dangerous, which were found on the body of the injured Jamaluddin vide MLC Ex.PW5/B. Therefore, it is argued that the case U/s 308/452/34 IPC is clearly made out against the accused persons as the accused persons had trespassed into the house of the complainant party which is situated on the first floor for committing the above act.
13. Regarding the fact that no other public person was added in the present case, it has been argued that since the incident took place on the first floor, therefore, only family members could have been seen the occurrence and there was no possibility of any other public person or neighbours to have seen the occurrence, therefore, they were the natural witnesses and there was no possibility of any public witness having seen the occurrence and the nature of injuries sustained by Jamaluddin, as per the medical evidence proved on record clearly shows that he had been assaulted by the accused persons with full force, totally disregarding the age and manner in which the injuries were caused on his body and the consequences there of. It has been also 11 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri argued that if during the confusion wrong number or address has been given to the PCR, the same is not material to the outcome of the present case as the identity of the accused persons is not in doubt and regarding the argument of ld. Counsel for the accused that complainant was having previously enlarged spleen and enlarged lever. It has been argued that no independent evidence has been produced on the part of accused party that complainant was alcoholic or was having bad eating habits. Therefore, he was having enlarged spleen and enlarged liver.
14. I have heard ld. Counsel for the accused persons and ld. Counsel for the complainant and perused the record.
15. To make out a case U/s 452 IPC, the prosecution must prove:
(i) that the accused committed house-trespass;
(ii) that the same was committed after making preparation for causing hurt to, or for assaulting, or for wrongfully restraining, some person; or for putting some person in fear of hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint.
16. Further, to make out a case U/s 308 IPC, the prosecution 12 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri must prove:
(i) that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii) that such act was of the accused; and
(iii) that the act was done with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances that if it had caused death, the act would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
17. In the present case, there is a direct evidence lead by the prosecution of PW1, PW2 and PW6 regarding the occurrence. PW1 has stated that on 25.1.02 he had handed over Rs. 30,000/- to one Kiran Pal to handover to Vinod as loan on the guarantee of Kiran Pal on interest and that on 24.5.02, he took Rs. 30,000/- from Kiran Pal on interest for which he used to pay interest from time to time and on 23.6.06 the wife of Kiran Pal namely Smt. Sneh Lata came to his house demanding interest. He requested her that he will pay the interest tomorrow and asked her to return the amount which was given by him to Vinod on the guarantee of Kiran Pal and at about 9p.m on the same day when he alongwith his nephew Riajuddin and his wife Raisan were taking dinner in their house, the 13 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri accused Praveen, Sunil and Anil all sons of Kiran Pal came to their house. Praveen was having stone in his hands. He raised the stone to throw at him, when he and his nephew opposed the same and pushed the stone, in the process the stone fell down on the ground. The fall of stone caused the floor to break. All the accused persons then indiscriminately started beating, using fist and leg blows to himself and his nephew and his wife and they all received injuries and he received injuries on the left side of lower abdomen and also on the rest of his body parts and his nephew received injuries on the skull as well, and his wife was pushed to the ground and thereafter Kiran Pal the father of the accused persons came there and took away all the accused persons with him.
18. PW2 and PW6 have also deposed on the same lines, as has been deposed by PW1, and PW2 and PW6 have also corroborated the prosecution story in material particulars regarding the causing of injuries to PW1, PW2 and PW6 and they have also corroborated the prosecution story, that the accused persons had come to the spot fully prepared, after making preparation for 14 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri causing hurt to them as one of the accused was having stones in his hand, with which they tried to hit PW1 and PW2.
19. The medical evidence also matches the ocular evidence, as PW5 Dr. Tarun Dubey, who has appeared in this case, has deposed that on 24.6.06 while he was posted at Family Hospital, as surgeon, on that day one patient Jamaluddin was brought by his nephew Riajuddin with the alleged history of assault on 23.6.06, he had gone to SGM Hospital, where his first MLC was prepared and he was discharged from emergency at 1.30a.m on 24.6.06. He went back to SGM hospital at 7.30a.m with the complaint of severe pain in the abdomen and chest and was discharged at 12.30p.m with advice for some medicine. He was presented at their hospital at 2.45p.m with complaint of severe pain in abdomen and chest, ghabrahat, profuse sweating, distension of abdomen. On examination, the patient was found to be drowsy, pulse was not Palpable, BP was not recordable. In the chest, there was expiratory wheeze. Abdomen was distended, signs of presence of fluid and peritonism was present. Presence of blood was noticed in the cavity 15 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri of abdomen. On the same day, after ultrasonic examination, it was noticed that there was rupture of spleen with haemotoma and presence of blood in abdominal cavity. Patient was operated upon immediately. His spleen was removed and blood and clots were drained. He has proved his surgical notes prepared at the time of operation, as Ex.PW5/A. He has also stated that the patient was fit for statement on 7.7.06 and he gave his opinion regarding the nature of injuries sustained by Jamaluddin on MLC Ex.PW5/B as dangerous.
20. In his cross-examination Dr. Tarun Dubey, has denied, that the patient Jamaluddin was a chronic patient of enlarged spleen and he has submitted that the spleen might have been enlarged because of haemotomo. He has stated that there was no sufficient time to enquire about the previous history of ailment, as it was emergent case and it was a life saving procedure.
21. Though, the version of PW1, that he had lent money to one Vinod Kumar is not proved by any evidence on the record by prosecution as PW1 himself admitted in his cross-examination, that 16 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri he was not having any documentary proof of having extended loan to Vinod Kumar and PW6 Smt. Raisan has also stated that with Vinod Kumar there was no money dealing of her husband.
22. Even then the defence version that since the complainant Jamaluddin did not want to return Rs. 30,000/-, therefore, he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case is not proved by any evidence on the record, as it is next to impossible, that a person will self inflict a near fatal injury on his body, in this case injuries have been found to be dangerous vide MLC Ex.PW5/B on himself, in order to wriggle out to make the payment of Rs. 30,000/- and interest, and on the other hand he would incur a medical bill of Rs. 53,000/- which bill has been proved by PW1 in his cross-examination as Ex.PW1/DA. Rather, it afforded a motive to the accused persons to attack PW1, PW2 and PW6, since, the complainant Jamaluddin had asked their mother Sneh Lata to come tomorrow for taking the interest on the money lent by their father Kiran Pal and which money he did not return on the same day. It is the admitted case of the accused party and complainant party that 17 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri Jamaluddin had taken Rs. 30,000/- from the father of the accused persons, therefore, the accused persons had a clear cut motive to attack the complainant as he was not returning the money lent to him by their father.
23. Regarding the non seizure of stones and clothes by the IO, the same is not fatal to the prosecution case, as in the present case, the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW6 is otherwise found to be consistent and truthful which is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Therefore, non-production of the clothes and stones is not material to the outcome of the present case as it is settled law that for the fault of the IO, prosecution case can not be made to suffer, if it is otherwise truthful.
24. Regarding the argument of ld. Counsel for the accused persons that the incident had never taken place at X-451 and the place of occurrence as per the DD entry No.24, Ex.PW4/A was X- 751, which is proved by said DD and at which address the PCR call was also received and he has also argued that even the name of the assailants has not been mentioned in the DD entry Ex.PW4/A 18 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri and he has further argued that location of X-751 was near SGM Hospital and the IO had also not recorded the statement of any informant who later informed him after he visited X-751, that the incident had taken place at X-451 Mangol Puri.
25. I have considered the said contention of ld. Counsel for the accused persons, to my mind, the same is not material to the outcome of the present case as if under some confusion wrong address had been conveyed to the PCR it does not in any way goes to the root of the prosecution case, as the said mistake could be due to phonetic similarity between the words X-451 and X-751, which could have been taken place, due to the confusion and gravity of the situation and trauma when the call was made. Even otherwise, the identity of the accused persons is not in doubt here, as all the accused persons were well known to PW1, PW2 and PW6 before hand. Further PW10 has proved the siteplan Ex.PW10/A in which the house of the complainant has been clearly shown, to which no cross-examination has been carried out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused by giving any suggestion, that the said 19 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri siteplan was incorrect.
26. Regarding the next contention of the ld. Counsel for the accused persons that, PW9 had stated that IO had not recorded the statement of the injured at the spot, no fault can be found in the same as at that time the priority of the IO was to give best possible medical aid to the injured persons and not to record their statement.
27. Regarding the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons, that no independent witness has been examined in the present case. It is evident from the record that the incident had taken place at the first floor of the house of complainant Jamaluddin, therefore, only he and his family members could have been the natural witness, to the occurrence and no other public person could have seen the occurrence, therefore, there was no possibility of any other public witness being cited as a witness in the present case.
28. Since, PW1, PW2 and PW6 were the natural witnesses to the incident to depose in favour of the prosecution, it can not be said by any stretch of imagination that they were interested 20 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri witnesses. It is settled law that, even if the witnesses are related to each other even then, it can not be said that they were interested witnesses, as the court has to see on the close scrutiny of the evidence of the said witnesses, whether their evidence is truthful or not which in the present case has been found to be truthful, therefore, PW1, PW2 and PW6 can not be said to be interested witnesses. Further, it is settled law, as has been held in judgment:
Harbans Kaur Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2005 Supreme Court 2989 that:
There is no preposition in law that relatives are to be treated as truthful witnesses. On the contrary, reasons has to be shown when an appeal of partiality is raised that the witnesses had reasons that to shield actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused.
The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
29. Regarding the next argument of ld. Counsel for the accused persons, that the liver and spleen of the injured Jamaluddin, was 21 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri already enlarged, before hand, PW5 Dr. Tarun Dubey who had appeared as prosecution witness, has categorically denied the said suggestion in his cross-examination, when he stated that it is incorrect to suggest that patient Jamaluddin was chronic patient of enlarged spleen. Regarding the drinking habits of accused, Dr. Tarun Dubey stated that there was no sufficient time, to enquire about the previous history of the said ailment, as it was an emergency case and no evidence has been led by the accused persons independently to prove the said assertion that the complainant was alcoholic and therefore, was suffering from enlarged liver and spleen in the absence of said evidence, it only remains a bald plea.
30. From the aforesaid analysis of evidence i.e. from the direct occular version of PW1, PW2 and PW6 and from the evidence of PW5 Dr. Tarun Dubey, it is clearly evident that all the accused persons had gone to the house of complainant Jamaluddin fully armed with stone and with the intention of causing such injury upon his body, as was likely to cause death or they can be attributed with 22 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri the knowledge that by such act they were likely to cause his death, as by indiscriminating assaulting the complainant Jamaluddin by fists and leg blows, accused persons can be fastened with the knowledge, that the old aged man to whom such injuries were being caused might die as a result of such injuries or the old aged man to whom such injuries were being caused, might survive or might not survive from such injuries and in the present case, the injuries have been found to be dangerous, as per opinion of Dr. Tarun Dubey, who stated he had performed a life saving procedure and it was a emergency case, and as per his medical notes Ex.PW5/A and MLC Ex.PW5/B, it appears that at the time when the injured Jamaluddin was brought to the Family hospital, his pulse was not Palpable, BP was not recordable, which shows the grave condition of the patient, at the time of his admission into said hospital and he was given emergency resuscitation measures to revive him and he was immediately shifted to the emergency for exploratory lapratomy on his advise and his emergency surgery resulted, in him remaining in the hospital till 7.7.06 and as per Dr. 23 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri Tarun Dubey, PW5, it was a life saving procedure. Therefore, in these circumstances the intention of causing such bodily injuries, as was likely to cause death of the complainant Jamaluddin or the knowledge that by such act death can be caused, can be clearly attributed to the accused persons. The common intention of the accused persons is also clearly discernible, from the aforesaid act
(s) as the accused persons had come to the spot with a clear cut motive and intention i.e to cause injuries on the body of PW1, PW2 and PW6, in order to teach them a lesson as complainant was not returning the money lent by their father Kiran Pal. Further it is settled law as has been held in Judgment, Babu Lal Bhagwan Khandare Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005, Supreme Court 1460. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Punjab AIR 1977 Supreme Court 109 that:
If two or more persons intentionally do an act jointly, the position of law just the same as if each of them done individually by himself. It is not necessary that the acts of several persons charged with 24 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri commission of an offence jointly must be the same or identical similar. The acts may be different in character but must have been actuated by one or the same common intention Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by particular accused himself for applying the section 34 it is not necessary to show some over act on the part of the accused.
The aforesaid judgment is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
31. Regarding the offence U/s 452 IPC, in the present case, from the testimonies of PW1, PW2 and PW6, it is clear that the accused persons had committed house trespass into the first floor house of the complainant Jamaluddin, which was being used by him as a dwelling house, and the accused persons were armed with large stone, after having made preparations to cause hurt to the complainant, his nephew and his wife. Since, accused persons were armed with large stone therefore, it is clear that they had 25 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri intentionally committed house trespass into the house of complainant Jamaluddin, after having made preparations for causing him hurt or they had come to his house after making preparations for assaulting PW1, PW2 and PW6 in order to teach them a lesson, as they were not returning the money lent by their father Kiran Pal.
32. The net result of the afore discussion, is that the prosecution has been able to prove its case, beyond all reasonable doubt(s) against all the accused persons U/s 308/452/34 IPC. Accused persons stands convicted accordingly. Now, to come up for hearing on the quantum of sentence on 28.5.09.
Announced in the open court Sanjeev Aggarwal
on dt. 23.5.09 Addl. Sessions Judge:
Rohini Courts: Delhi.
26 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SANJEEV AGGARWAL: ASJ-V: OUTER:
ROHINI: DELHI SC NO. 97/08 FIR No. 427/06 P.S. Mangol Puri U/s 452/308/34 IPC State Vs. 1. Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Kiran Pal
2.Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Kiran Pal
3. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Kiran Pal All resident of X-246, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
Order on sentence:
Present: Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Ld. Substitute Addl. PP for the State.
Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi, Ld. Counsel for all the convicts. Sh. R.P.S. Sirohi, Ld. Counsel for all the convicts submits that all the convict persons were very young at the time of incident. He submits that convict Sunil was 27 years of age, convict Anil Kumar was 25 years of age and convict Praveen Kumar was 22 years of age at the time of incident and all the convicts have clean antecedents and they are not involved in any criminal case. He further submits that convicts Sunil and Anil are married and are sole earning 27 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri member of their family and he further submits that convict Praveen has been engaged recently and is to be married on 3.6.09. He further submits that all the three convicts have already spent a period of 2 months 14 days in judicial custody during the trial. He also submits that convicts and the complainant are next door neighbours and they now want to live peacefully. Therefore, he prays that a lenient view may be taken against them.
On the other hand it is submitted by Ld. Substitue Addl. PP Sh. R.K. Tanwar, that strict punishment should be awarded to the convicts as due to the act of the convicts , the complainant Jamaluddin had suffered dangerous injury, which could had resulted into his death if not treated properly on time.
In these facts and circumstances I sentence all the convicts U/s 308/34 IPC to RI for two years six months each and also sentence the convicts to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/- each which fine be paid to the complainant Jamaluddin by way of compensation . I further sentence all the convicts U/s 452/34 IPC to undergo RI for two years six months each and also sentence them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each to be given to the complainant Jamaluddin by way of compensation. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently to each other. The benefit of the period already under gone by the convict during the trial shall be extended to the convict by giving him benefit under section 428 Cr. P.C. An application U/s 389(3) Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of 28 FIR No. 427/06 PS Mangol Puri all the aforesaid convicts for suspension of sentence awarded to them U/s 308/452/34 IPC in order to enable the convicts to prefer an appeal in the interest of justice the aforesaid sentence of imprisonment is suspended till 10.7.09. on their executing personal bond of Rs. 15,000/- each with one one surety of the like amount each. Matter be now put up for further proceedings on 11.7.09 for which a separate miscellaneous file be prepared by the Ahlmad. Court notice be also issued to the complainant Jamaluddin for 11.7.09. Bail bond accepted and attested till 10.7.09. Fine has been paid by all the convicts. Receipt be issued accordingly.
Copy of the judgment and that of sentence be given to the convict free of cost. It is ordered accordingly. This file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) on dt.28.5.2009. ASJ/Rohini/Delhi