Delhi District Court
State vs . on 10 November, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI
State
Vs.
1. Mohd Salim
S/o Mohd. Sadiq
R/o H.No.265, Gular Wali Gali No.-7
Uncha Sadiq Nagar, Meerut.
2. Nammo @ Naeem
S/o Mohd. Sadiq
R/o H.No.262, Gali No.-7
Uncha Sadiq Nagar, Meerut.(U.P)
3. Sagir Ahmed
S/o Mohd. Sadiq
R/o H.No.262, Abrar Wali Gali
Taraprui, Meerut. (U.P)
FIR NO: 951/2006
PS: Gokalpuri
U.Sec: 307/34 IPC
Sessions Case No. : 79/09
Date of Institution of case : 15.03.2007
Date on which reserved for Judgment : 12.10.2010
Date of Judgment : 26.10.2010
Sessions Case No.79/09 Page1/25
2
JUDGMENT:
The present case stands registered on the statement of one Naeem Ahmed Saifi. He stated in his statement before the police that he is residing at H.No.1029, Gali No.12, New Mustafabad Delhi along with his family. He further stated that he is running a clinic since last one year in the shop of Kacheru Khan. He further stated that on 7.1.2000 he had given Rs.1,12,000/- to accused Nammo @ Naim for installation of a saw machine in partnership. He further stated that Naeem neither purchased saw machine nor returned his money to him. He further stated that there is a civil litigation pending between him and accused Naeem and Mohd. Sagir who are real brothers. He further accused were pressurizing him to withdraw the case and they had come to his clinic and asked him to withdraw the case for which he refused and the accused persons had threatened him.
Naeem Ahmed Safi further stated that on 14.12.2006 at about 9.45 p.m Naeem, Mohd. Salim, Sagir Ahmad and one more person, whose name he did not know, came at his clinic. They all threatened him to take his case back otherwise they would kill him. He further stated that he told them that he (Naeem Ahmed) would not withdraw his case. He further stated that on this they all started abusing him and started beating him. He further stated that the Sessions Case No.79/09 Page2/25 3 person whose name he did not know caught hold of him along with Mohd. Salim. Accused Sagir Ahmed started beating him with leg and fist blows and accused Naeem gave him knife blows on his should and chest. He further stated that he raised noise on which all the accused ran away. Somebody telephoned on number 100 and CATS ambulance took him to GTB Hospital.
On this statement of the complainant FIR in this case was registered under section 307/34 IPC. Accused Mohd. Salim was arrested. Accused Naeem @ Nadeem and Sagir Ahmed could not be arrested and NBW's were issued against them. Challan was filed only against accused Mohd. Salim for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
On 21.2.2007 accused Nadeem and Mohd. Sadiq surrendered before the court and they were arrested. Supplementary Challan was filed against them for offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC.
Ld. M.M after supply of copies etc, committed the case to the court of Sessions.
Vide orders dated 10.07.2007, charge for the offence punishable under section 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Sessions Case No.79/09 Page3/25 4In support of its case, the prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses.
PW-1 Dr Gopesh is the doctor who examined X-ray report Ex.PW-1/A. PW-2 Dr.Rohit Jain stated that on 14.12.2006 while working in GTB Hospital, he had examined X-ray plates of patient Naeem Ahmed Saifi and found fracture in 6th rib of his right side chest. He further stated that there was no bony injury on the left hand of the patient. He proved the report prepared by him as Ex.PW 1/A. PW-3 HC Har Khayal is the Duty Officer. He stated that on 15.12.2006 on receipt of rukka sent by ASI Duli Chand through Ct.Desh Raj, he recorded FIR in this case and proved the copy thereof as Ex.PW 3/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW 3/B. PW-4 Naeem Ahmed is the complainant in this case on whose statement FIR in this case was registered. He stated that he was running a clinic in a rented shop in H.No-1029, Gali No. 12, New Mustafabad Delhi under landlordship of Khachedu Khan. He further stated that on 07.01.2000, he had given Rs.1,12,000/- to Nammo @ Naeim S/o Mohd. Saddiq for installing saw machine in partnership with Nammo @ Naeem, Mohd Saleem and Sagir Sessions Case No.79/09 Page4/25 5 Ahmad. He further stated that all the three accused had approached him for running partnership and installing saw machine. He further stated that the accused persons had assured him that 40/% of the profit will be given to him for his investment while the 60 % of the profit shall be kept by them for their work. He further stated that the accused persons did not install any saw machine. Thereafter he (PW-4) demanded his money from the accused persons. He further stated that all the three accused are real brother and he (PW-4) had told them that either they should re-pay his money otherwise he would take necessary action. He further stated that he had had filed a civil suit for recovery of money. He further stated that sister of accused persons was married to him and he had divorced her. Meanwhile he withdrew his above mentioned civil suit as he had divorced his wife and the accused person promised to re-pay his money. He further stated that thereafter he again demanded his above money from the accused persons but they did not re-pay the money to him and started threatening him.
PW-4 Naeem Ahmed further stated that on 10.12.06 all the three accused along with their one other associate came to his clinic and threatened him that he should not demand his (Naeem Ahmad) money back otherwise they would kill him. On 14.12.06 accused Naeem, Mohd. Salim, Sagir Ahmad and one other whom he Sessions Case No.79/09 Page5/25 6 could recognize by face, came to his clinic at about 9.30/10.00 pm and threatened him to withdraw his case otherwise they would kill him(PW-4). He further stated that he told the accused persons to re- pay his money and send his wife and children to his (Naeem Ahmed) house. He further stated that the accused persons started quarreling and stated beating him with kick and fist blows. He further stated that accused Salim and one other person caught hold him, accused Sagir Ahmad gave kick and fist blows and accused Naeem @ Nammo took out chura and gave chura blows on his right side chest and shoulder. He further stated that he cried due to injury and raised alarm on which accused persons ran away from there. Some one informed the police, CAT Ambulance reached there and he was taken to GTB Hospital. He further stated that all the accused persons have assaulted him with knife with an intention to kill him. He further stated that police reached in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW-4/A and his blood stained vest and shirt were seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW4/B. He further stated that on 16.12.2006 he again joined investigation of the case with the police for arresting the accused persons and they reached Uchha Sadiq Nagar Meerut, UP at the house of accused Mohd. Saleem. There accused Mohd. Saleem was found present and he was arrested on his (PW-4) identification vide Sessions Case No.79/09 Page6/25 7 arrest memo Ex. PW-4/C and personal search memo Ex.PW-4/D. He further stated that accused accused Saleem made disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/E and thereafter the accused Mohd.Saleem was brought to Delhi. He further stated that accused Mohd. Saleem had disclosed that the chura used in the crime had been concealed by accused Nammo @ Naeem.
He further stated that he had divorced his wife after the incident of the present case.
He further stated that thereafter also he had joined the investigation and accused Nammo @ Naeem surrendered in the court and he got recovered chura used in the incident. from underneath the stones near Kabristan at New Mustafabad. The police prepared sketch Ex.PW-4/E of the chura and seized the same vide memo memo Ex. PW-4/G. This witness identified his blood stained shirt and one vest Ex.P-1 which he was wearing at the time of the incident. He identified the knife/chura as Ex. P-2.
PW-5 ASI Om Prakash is the Duty Officer who stated that on 14.12.2010 at 10.30 p.m he recorded DD No.38-A on the basis of information received from wireless operator that one doctor had been stabbed with knife in his clinic. He proved the copy of the said DD entry as Ex. PW 5/A. Sessions Case No.79/09 Page7/25 8 PW-6 HC Devender Kumar stated that on 14.12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m Duty Officer handed over to him a call vide DD No.38-A regarding stabbing of Mohd Akram by someone and that call was handed over to ASI Duli Chand for action in the matter.
He further stated that on 16.12.2006 he joined investigation of the present case with the IO, Ct. Jeevan and complainant Naeem Ahmed. They went to Meerut from where accused Mohd. Salim was arrested on the identification of complainant vide memo Ex.PW-4/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW-4/D. His disclosure statement Ex. PW 4/E was recorded. He further stated that thereafter the accused Mohd. Salim was brought to Delhi.
PW-8 Constable Jeevan Singh stated that on 16.12.2006 he had joined investigation of this case with the IO and they had gone to Meerut along with complainant Naeem. In Meerut they went to Sadiq Nagar. There on the identification of complainant, accused Mohd. Salim was arrested vide memo Ex.PW-4/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 4/D. He further stated that accused Mohd. Salim also made disclosure statement Ex.PW-4/E. PW-9 ASI Duli Chand is the IO of the case. He stated that on 14.12.2006 at about 10.30 p.m he was handed over DD No.38-A regarding stabbing with knife and he along with Ct Desh Sessions Case No.79/09 Page8/25 9 Raj reached at the spot i.e Gali No.12, Bharat Clinic, New Mustafabad, Delhi. There they came to know that injured had been shifted to GTB Hospital by PCR. He along with Ct.Desh Raj went to GTB Hospital and obtained MLC Ex.PW-8/A of injured Naeem Ahmed Saifi on which doctor had declared him fit for statement. He further stated that he recorded statement Ex.PW 4/A of injured and made his endorsement Ex.PW-8/B and handed over the same to Ct.Desh Raj for the registration of the FIR who returned back to the spot after registration of the FIR. He handed over to him original rukka and copy of FIR (Ex.PW 3/A). He further stated that he seized the blood stained clothes having cut marks vide memo Ex. PW 4/B after sealing the same with seal of DCK.
He further stated that he came to the spot with injured and Ct.Desh Raj and prepared site plan Ex.PW 8/C at the instance of injured. He made search for the accused persons but none could be found.
IO further stated that he took outstation permission from the ACP for investigation of the case. On 16.12.2006 he went to Meerut along with HC Devender, Ct. Jeevan and complainant. They reached at police post of the area, lodged information about their arrival and reached at house of Mohd. Salim. He further stated that Mohd. Salim was arrested on the identification of Naeem vide Sessions Case No.79/09 Page9/25 10 memo Ex.4/C and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW 4/D. He further stated that he recorded disclosure statement Ex.PW 4/E of accused Mohd. Salim. He further stated that they made search for the other accused persons but they could not be traced and then they returned to Delhi.
IO further stated that on 21.02.2007 accused Naeem Ahmed and Sagir Ahmed surrendered in the court and they both were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-8/D-1 and PW-8/D-2. Their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW8/D-3 and PW 8/D-4. He further stated that he recorded their disclosure statement Ex. PW 8/E-1 and PW 8/E-2. IO further stated that he took one day police remand of the accused persons. Accused Naeem got recovered one churri from cremation ground. He further stated that he prepared sketch Ex.PW-4/F of the churri and the churri was sealed with seal of DCK and seized vide memo Ex.PW-4/D. He further stated that thereafter the accused were brought to the police station and put in lock up. After completion of investigation he prepared supplementary challan and filed the same in the court. IO identified the seized clothes of the injured collectively as Ex.P-1 and the churri Ex.P-2 which was got recovered by accused Naeem.
PW-7 Ct. Desh Raj had joined the investigation of this case with IO ASI Duli Chand on 14.12.2006 after receipt if DD Sessions Case No.79/09 Page10/25 11 No.38-A. He corroborated the testimony of ASI Duli Chand on all material points and stated that he along with ASI Duli Chand had gone to the spot, that statement of injured Wasim was recorded in his presence, IO made endorsement on the statement of Wasim and he (PW-7) took the rukka to the PS for the registration of the FIR and got the case registered. He further stated that IO had seized the shirt and vest of the injured Saifi from the hospital vide memo Ex. PW 4/B. PW-10 Dr.Devinder Kumar stated that on 14.12.2006 injured Naeem Saifi was examined by Dr.Prashat Nigam under his supervision and MLC of injured was prepared. Then the patient was referred to surgery emergency. Dr.Devinder proved the MLC of injured Naeem Saifi as Ex.PW-8/A. He identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr.Prashant Nigam as he had seen him writing and signing as Dr.Prashant had working under his supervision. He further stated that Dr.Prashant had left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known.
PW-11 Dr.Akash Dua stated that opinion on the MLC NO.B-5785/06 of patient Naeem was given by Dr.Padmawati. Dr.Akash identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr.Padmawati on the said MLC regarding opinion on the person of injured and stated that Dr.Padmawati had since left the hospital and Sessions Case No.79/09 Page11/25 12 her present whereabouts were not known.
Statements of accused persons were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. All the accused denied allegations against them and stated that their real sister was the wife of complainant. They further stated that their sister has registered a case under section 498-A/406 IPC against the complainant and also filed a case under section 125 Cr.P.C against the complainant (PW-4) and both the cases are pending trial. They all stated that it was for this reason that they have been falsely implicated in this false case.
Accused persons preferred to lead DE and examined DW-1 Ms. Nasreen in their defence who is their sister. She stated that she was married to Moinuddin @ Naeem in 1997 according to Muslim Customs and Rites. They lived together for three years. She further stated that out of the said said wedlock, two children were born namely Master Bilal aged 12 years and Baby Rehnuma aged 11 years. She further stated that her husband, who is complainant in this case started torturing and making demands which she refused to fulfill. She further stated that thereafter, she filed three cases i.e. one U/s 125 Cr.P.C, 2nd U/s 498-A IPC and 3rd U/s 406 IPC in the courts at Meerut. She proved the certified copies of the orders/proceedings of the court as Ex.DW-1/A to Ex. DW-1/F. She further stated that whenever her husband Naeem Sessions Case No.79/09 Page12/25 13 used to come to the the court at Meerut, he used to threat that he would implicate her brothers in false cases. Thereafter, her husband has filed a case for restoration of conjugal rights at Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and proved the certified copy of the same as Ex. DW- 1/G. She further stated that after that her Counsel has filed W.S. in the above said case. The accused i.e complainant herein, withdrew his case on the ground that he had divorced his wife i.e DW-1 Smt. Nasreen. She further stated that she sent a letter to her husband through registered post, which was received back with the report that complainant/her husband Naeem was not residing at the given address and proved that envelope as Ex.DW-1/H. She further stated that she had three brothers i.e. accused Saleem, Sagir and Naeem @ Nammo.
I have heard Sh.Mukul Kumar Addl.PP for the State, Sh.W.A.Khan Advocate for the complainant, Sh.Shakeel Ahmed Ld.Counsel for the accused persons. I have also gone through the case file.
It was contended by Ld.Addl.PP for the State that statement of PW-4 Naeem Ahmad Saifi proves on record that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries on the person of injured Naeem Ahmed Saifi. As per Ld.Addl.PP statement of PW-4 is consistent and reliable and thus Sessions Case No.79/09 Page13/25 14 the prosecution case stands proved beyond reasonable doubt and the accused were liable to be convicted.
On the other hand it was submitted by Ld.Counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons. The foremost contention of the Ld.Counsel was that this case is nothing but a counter blast to the cases filed by the sister of the accused persons against the complainant as the sister of the accused persons was married to complainant.
The next contention of the Ld.Counsel was that the PW-4 is the sole witness to the incident and as it was not safe rely on the uncorroborated testimony of PW-4. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that police came into action on receipt of DD No.38-A which did not name any of the assailant; that there were public witnesses present at the spot but none of them were joined in the proceedings. It is further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that the injuries mentioned on the MLC did not correspond with the cut mark on the clothes of the injured which were produced in the court and proved as Ex. P-1. As per Ld.Counsel, the accused persons were liable to be acquitted.
I have considered the rival contention and have gone through the case file.
Sessions Case No.79/09 Page14/25 15The first and foremost contention of the Ld.Counsel for the accused persons was that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. As per Ld.Counsel the sister of the accused persons was married to the complainant (PW-4). The complainant used to torture her and demand dowry. The sister of the accused persons filed case under sections 498-A/406 IPC against the complainant and also a case under section 125 Cr.P.C. It was further the contention of the Ld.Counsel that recovery of Rs.46,000/- was pending in case under section 125 Cr.P.C, towards the complainant and it was for this reason that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case to pressurize the accused persons to withdraw the case under section 498-A/406 IPC lodged against complainant.
Perusal of the statement of PW-4 Naeem Ahmad Safi shows that he had admitted that the case under section 498-A/406 IPC and under section 125 Cr.P.C were pending against him. Even if it is so, then this plea taken by the accused persons can be treated both ways.
If it can be presumed that complainant had lodged a false case against the accused persons then it can also be presumed that the accused persons also had a motive to cause injuries to the complainant as the complainant had divorced the sister of the Sessions Case No.79/09 Page15/25 16 accused persons. It is admitted fact that all the accused are brothers- in-law of the complainant and that Ms.Nasreen who is sister of the accused persons had filed a case under section 498-A/406 IPC against the complainant.
Even, if it is believed for the sake of arguments that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case, why did they not approach any higher authority regarding their false implication. They could have filed complaint against complainant before higher police authorities regarding their false implication. Why the accused persons did not approach any authority regarding their false implication, has not been explained by the accused persons. Thus, this contention of the Ld.Counsel for the accused persons cannot be considered to discard the prosecution case.
The next contention of Ld.Counsel for the accused persons was that there were public persons available at the spot but the they were not joined in any of the proceedings by the IO. As per Ld.Counsel testimony of PW-4 Naeem Ahmed Saifi is the sole testimony and it does not find any corroboration from any independent or public witness.
It is well settled law that all the persons who have witnessed the incident are not required to be examined as witnesses. In this regard I am supported by the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Sessions Case No.79/09 Page16/25 17 Court which is reported as M.A. Abdulla Kunhi Vs. State of Kerala 1991 SC-452 wherein it was held that it is not necessary that all the persons who were witnessing the occurrence should be examined. Moreover, it is well settled position of law that it is not the number of witnesses which matters rather it is quality of evidence which matters as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case reported as Lallu Manjhi and another Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2003 1 AD (SC)-597 wherein it has been held that conviction of accused can be based even on the testimony of a solitary witness when his evidence is found to be wholly reliable.
Even otherwise this was negligence on the part of the IO that he did not join the public witnesses. This cannot be made basis to discard the testimony of otherwise reliable witnesses.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a case, reported as State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore 1996 Cr.L.J.2003 (SC) observed that the mere fact that the investigating officer committed irregularity or illegality during the course of investigation, would not and does not cast doubt on the prosecution case nor trustworthy and reliable evidence can be cast aside to record acquittal on that account.
The testimony of PW-4 Naeem Ahmed Safi is consistent and reliable. He was cross-examined at length by the Sessions Case No.79/09 Page17/25 18 Ld.Counsel for the accused persons but he could not be shaken from his stand.
So, this contention of the Ld.Counsel does not have any merit and is to be ignored.
The next contention of the Ld.Counsel was that the injured was removed to GTB Hospital by PCR van. But the IO did not record statement of any of the officials of PCR Van. In this regard, it is to be seen that officials of PCR Van were not witnesses to the incident, hence their statement even otherwise, would not have made any effect on the prosecution case. Hence, this contention of the Ld.Counsel does not have any merit and is to be ignored.
The next contention of the Ld.Counsel was police came into action on receipt of DD No.38-A dated 14.12.2006. It was contended by Ld.Counsel for the accused persons that said did not does find mention of any name of the assailants. In this regard, it is to be seen that information to police was given by some unknown persons. So, this contention of the Ld.Counsel also does not hold any merit and it to be ignored.
The next contention of the Ld.Counsel that the x-ray report has not been proved. The perusal of the file shows that PW-2 Dr.Rohit Jain had proved the X-ray report Ex. PW-1/A. He has also Sessions Case No.79/09 Page18/25 19 stated that he found fracture in the sixth rib of the injured Naeem Ahmad Saifi. He also stated that that he had prepared the report after seeking the x-ray plates. Nothing could come out in the cross- examination of this witness which could shake his credibility. Hence, in my opinion report has been proved in accordance with law.
The other contention of the Ld.Counsel that the injuries on the person of injured Naeem Ahmed Safi do not correspond with the cut marks on the clothes of the injured produced in the court. During the course of evidence, nothing had come which could suggest that the injuries on the person of complainant do not correspond with the cuts on the clothes of the injured. It is also important to note that during the examination of the witnesses also nothing could come out which could suggest that the injuries on the person of complainant do not correspond with the cut on the clothes of the injured.
Now to come to the defence taken by the accused persons. The plea of the accused persons is that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant as their sister was married to the complainant but some matrimonial are going on between their sister and the complainant. It was the plea of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case in order to Sessions Case No.79/09 Page19/25 20 pressurize them to withdraw the cases against the complainant.
It has been discussed above that the accused persons nor their sister i.e DW-1 Smt. Nasreen has filed any complaint in any forum regarding the false implication of the accused persons. The motive of false implication has also been discussed above. Hence, in my view the defence by the accused persons cannot be believed.
The statement of complainant is consistent, corroborative and nothing could come out in his statement which could shake his credibility. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve his statement. From the statement of the doctors it is proved that the complainant has sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury with sharp object.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it is proved that on the day of the incident i.e 14.12.2006 at about 10.15 p.m all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous and simple injuries on the person of complainant Naeem Ahmed Saifi.
In my opinion the ingredient of Section 307 IPC are not proved. As discussed above, complainant had sustained fracture of his rib and also sustained incised wound on his chest and shoulder. In my view, in the present case the intention to kill the complainant Sessions Case No.79/09 Page20/25 21 by the accused persons is not proved, because had the accused persons any intention to kill the complainant, they could have inflicted more injuries on the person of the complainant.
Hence, in my view ingredient of section 307 IPC are not proved and the case falls u/s 324 and 325 IPC.
Now the question is that whether the accused persons can be convicted under section 325/324/34 IPC as no charge has been framed under these sections. In my considered opinion, the accused persons can be convicted for the offences punishable under section 325/324/34 IPC as no prejudice would be caused to the accused persons in their defence. In this regard I am supported by a recent judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court passed on 30.09.2010 in Crl. Appeal No. 95/2010 in the case of Shahid Riza @ Raju Vs. State wherein the reliance was placed upon Willie ( William) Slaney Versus State of M.P. AIR 1956 SC-116.
In view of the above discussion, it is proved on record that on the day of the incident i.e 14.12.2006 at about 10.15 p.m all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, caused grievous (blunt) and simple injuries on the person of complainant Naeem Ahmed Saifi.
Hence, all the accused persons are held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324/325 read with section 34 IPC and they Sessions Case No.79/09 Page21/25 22 are convicted thereunder.
The accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in open court On this 26th October' 2010 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) ASJ/North East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Sessions Case No.79/09 Page22/25 23 IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - NORTH EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS:DELHI State Vs.
1. Mohd Salim S/o Mohd. Sadiq R/o H.No.265, Gular Wali Gali No.-7 Uncha Sadiq Nagar, Meerut.
2. Nammo @ Naeem S/o Mohd. Sadiq R/o H.No.262, Gali No.-7 Uncha Sadiq Nagar, Meerut.(U.P)
3. Sagir Ahmed S/o Mohd. Sadiq R/o H.No.262, Abrar Wali Gali Taraprui, Meerut. (U.P) FIR NO: 951/2006 PS: Gokalpuri U.Sec: 307/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 10.11.2010 Present: Sh.Mukul Kumar Addl.PP for the State.
All the three convict with Sh.Shakeel Ahmed Advocate.
Sessions Case No.79/09 Page23/25 24Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
It is submitted by Ld.Addl.PP for the State that the convicts do not deserve any leniency and they be awarded maximum punishment.
On the other hand, it was submitted by Ld.Counsel for the convicts that they are not previous convicts and a lenient view be taken against them on the point of sentence.
It was further submitted by Ld.Counsel for the convict that convict Naeem is 44 years of age he his and two minor daughters. It was further submitted that convict Salim is aged 59 years and he has to maintain his wife and seven minor children. It was further submitted that convict Sagir is aged 58 years having 10 children and one wife to maintain. It was further submitted by Ld.Counsel for the convicts that the convicts are the sole bread earners in the family.
In totality of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, all the convicts are sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of two (2) years and with a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offense punishable under section 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for period of two (2) month each.
The convicts are further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Sessions Case No.79/09 Page24/25 25 Imprisonment for period of two years with a fine of Rs.1000/- each for the offense punishable under section 324/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, the defaulter shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for period of two (2) month each.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The convicts shall be given benefit under section 428 Cr.P.C Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost today itself.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court on this 10.11.2010 (Surinder Kumar Sharma) ASJ/North East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Sessions Case No.79/09 Page25/25