Delhi District Court
State vs (1)Sonu @ Jahid on 27 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) : KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.03/2012
Unique Case ID No.02402R0374812011
FIR No.331/2010
Police Station Mayur Vihar
Under Section 395/397/34 IPC
State Versus (1)Sonu @ Jahid
S/o Sh. Khurshid Ali
R/o 20/368, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
(2)Shahid
S/o Sh. Khurshid Ali
R/o 20/368, Trilok Puri, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 30.01.2012
Date of judgment reserved : 12.09.2012
Date of judgment : 25.09.2012
JUDGMENT
Two accused, persons, namely, Sonu @ Jahid and Shahid have been sent to face trial by the police of Police Station Mayur Vihar in FIR No.331/2010 under Section 395/397/34 IPC. 2 Facts, in brief, are that on 05.08.2010, on receipt of SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 1 of 28 DD No.10B regarding robbery, IO ASI Kali Charan (PW9) along with Ct. Kiran Pal (PW1) reached at House No.20/31, Trilok Puri, Delhi where no eye witness was found and they got to know that the injured had been removed to LBS Hospital. IO (PW9) and Ct. Kiran Pal (PW1) reached LBS Hospital and injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) was found admitted in the hospital. IO recorded statement Ex.PW2/A of the injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2).
3 In his statement Ex.PW2/A, injured/complainant Mohd. Irfan (PW2) stated that he was engaged in wholesale business of eggs and bread sale. He has also stated that both the accused Jahid and Shahid were in the business of supplying eggs and they had been threatening him to stop supply of eggs for the last one month. When the complainant asked them not to do so, they used to stare him angrily. Complainant further stated that on 5.8.2010 at about 3.30 a.m., he left his shop with bread, eggs and butter to supply the same in the market. At about 6.45 p.m. when he reached 1920 block, Trilok Puri Market, both the accused Jahid and Shahid came in front of his rickshaw and stopped him. Both of them were armed with iron rods. Complainant was pulled down from the rickshaw by both the accused and they started beating him. In the meantime, three other associates SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 2 of 28 of the accused persons armed with dandas also came there and started beating him. Both the accused Jahid and Shahid also snatched away his bag having Rs.19,00020,000/. Complainant has also stated that both the accused and their associates made him unconscious. He was left at his shop by some unknown two boys. His family members rang up police at No.100 and he was removed to hospital by HC Mehar Singh (PW6), who was deployed on PCR van where injured was medically examined.
4 PW9 ASI Kali Charan made endorsement Ex.PW9/A on the statement Ex.PW2/A and handed over same to Ct. Kiran Pal (PW1) for getting registered the case. In the police station, W/ASI Veera Sharma (PW5) recorded FIR Ex.PW5/B and made endorsement Ex.PW5/A on the rukka. Dr. Rajni Lohia (PW4) had initially medically examined the complainant/injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) vide MLC Ex.PW4/A. IO prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B at the instance of the complainant. Search for the accused was made but he could not be traced.
5 On 14.08.2010, both the accused persons were apprehended from their house. Accused Sonu @ Jahid made disclosure statement Ex.PW3/A. He was arrested vide arrest memo SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 3 of 28 Ex.PW3/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/C. Likewise, accused Shahid made disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D. He was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/E and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW3/F. IO collected involvement record Ex.PW9/C of accused Shahid in several other cases. Search for the iron rods was also made but the same could not be recovered.
6 Result on the MLC of injured (PW2) was obtained by the IO. Dr. M.N. Singh (PW8), Radiologist, LBS Hospital examined the xray plates of injured and observed fracture of left patella and gave his report Ex.PW8/A in this regard. Dr. Bharat Bahre (PW7), Sr. Resident (Orthopedics), LBS Hospital opined the nature of injuries sustained by injured Mohd. Irfan has grievous on the basis of report of Radiologist. Search for other associates of accused persons was also made, but no clue could be found.
7 After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court of Ld. M.M. who after complying with provisions of section 207 Cr.P.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions which in turn assigned the case to this Court for trial in accordance with law.
SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 4 of 28 8 After hearing Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and Ld. Addl. PP for the State, charges under Section 392/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Separate charges under Section 397 IPC were also framed against both the accused. Accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed a trial.
9 In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. PW2 Mohd. Irfan is the complainant. PW4 Dr. Rajni Lohia initially medically examined the injured/complainant. PW8 Sh. M.N. Singh examined xray plates of injured/complainant whereas opinion with regard to nature of injuries sustained by injured was given by PW7 Dr. Bharat Bahre. PW6 HC Mehar Singh was on the PCR Van and had removed the injured to LBS Hospital. PW5 W/ASI Veera Sharma had recorded FIR. PW1 Ct. Kiran Pal Singh and PW3 Ct. Shyam Vir Singh joined the investigation conducted by PW9 ASI Kali Charan.
10 After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they have denied the case of the prosecution and have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They have claimed SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 5 of 28 that they are innocent. Both the accused persons opted to lead evidence in their defence. However, no evidence in defence was led by accused persons.
11 I have heard. Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused persons. I have meticulously gone through their submissions and material available on record.
Robbery 12 It is alleged against the accused persons that on the day of incident they committed robbery of cash of Rs.19,00020,000/ from the complainant/injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) when he was selling eggs, bread, butter etc. It has been argued by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the complainant (PW2) has duly supported the case of prosecution. He has further argued that complainant (PW2) in his testimony has stated that on the day of incident, both the accused persons pulled him from the rickshaw, gave beatings to him and snatched the bag containing Rs.19,00020,000/. 13 On the other hand, Ld. Defence counsel has argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case as complainant was having previous enmity with the accused persons for the reason that both the parties were engaged in the same SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 6 of 28 business of selling eggs, bread, butter etc. He has further argued that apart from oral testimony of the complainant, there is no independent corroboration to the same. The alleged incident had taken placed in the heavy crowded market but there is no witness to the fact that any robbery had taken place. He has further argued that even there is no evidence on record that the complainant was having any such amount of money with him at the relevant time which was allegedly robbed by accused persons.
14 To prove its case, prosecution has examined the complainant/injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) who is the sole star witness of the prosecution. In his testimony, he has stated that on 5.8.2010 in the morning at about 3.30 a.m., he loaded his thela and went to his shop No.11/120, Trilok Puri, Delhi where he was running business of eggs and breads. After loading the eggs and breads, he started from his shop to supply in the area and reached road of Block No.1920. At about 5.45 a.m., when he reached main road of Block No.1920, accused Shahid and Jahid stoped him; he was dragged from his rickshaw rehri and thereafter accused persons assaulted him with iron rods badly. Meanwhile, accused persons were joined by other three persons who were armed with dandas and they also started giving SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 7 of 28 danda blows to him. According to this witness, accused Jahid forcibly took his cash bag containing about Rs.19,00020,000/. Accused persons continued giving iron rod and danda blows to him and he became unconscious. Two persons lifted him and dropped him at his shop. Someone informed his family members who informed the police. Police of No.100 reached and he was taken to LBS Hospital where he was medically examined. Police of PS Mayur Vihar reached hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He has also stated that accused persons had assaulted and looted him so as to stop him from running his business. According to him, he had sustained multiple fracture injuries on his body and remained under treatment for 11 1/2 years.
15 In his cross examination, he has stated that before the incident, he had made supply to 1520 persons and he took about 10 minutes for dealing at one shop. He has also stated that he can not tell the quantity of the material supplied but it might be of the value of Rs. 18,000 to 19,000/. He used to sell the articles on cash payment and took the payment in cash from all the shops. He has stated that he can not recollect the name of the person from whom he collected minimum amount but he might have collected Rs.800900/. He has also stated SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 8 of 28 that he can not tell the name of any of the customers whom he used to supply eggs and breads. He has denied that he was objecting to the work of accused persons so he falsely implicated them. He has stated that accused persons were also selling the eggs. 16 From the testimony of the complainant (PW2), what emerges is that he had already sell eggs, breads etc. in the market when the alleged incident of robbery had taken place with him. If for the sake of arguments, testimony of complainant is believed, then it was not expected from him not to recollect the name of any customer to whom he had supplied the articles on the day of incident. As per his testimony, he was a wholesaler of the those items and used to supply breads, eggs etc. in the market daily. If this version is to be accepted, then it was not expected of him not to recollect the name of even a single customer to whom supply was made. He also could not recollect as to what material was supplied to which of the customer. He even did not recollect the name of the customer from whom the payment was received by him. It is alleged by him that he was robbed of Rs.19,00020,000/ on the day of incident by the accused persons. But he has not given any detail of the food articles possessed by him. He has not given the details as to what articles and in what quantity SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 9 of 28 were supplied by him. He could not even remember the name of any customer whom supply was made by him. In the absence of this evidence, it has not been convincingly established that the complainant was in possession of such amount of money which was allegedly robbed from him.
17 However, it has come on record that accused persons were also engaged in the similar business, which complainant (PW2) was also running i.e. supply of eggs, breads etc. in the market. It is hard to believe that a wholesaler business who used to work daily of supply of articles to customer, did not remember the name of any of his customer. It is also hard to believe that the said businessman even does not remember the articles supplied by him and the payment received by him from his customers. This version of the complainant creates doubt in the minds.
18 The testimony of investigating officer ASI Kali Charan (PW9) also creates doubt in the minds with regard to story of robbery alleged by the complainant. IO (PW9) during his cross examination has admitted that the evidence of cash amount robbed from the complainant was not found. He further admitted that complainant had not produced any theli or rickshaw during the SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 10 of 28 investigation of the case. He also admitted that the spot was surrounded with number of shops and residential houses. He also admitted that none of the shopkeeper and resident near the spot informed him that incident had taken place. He further admitted that complainant and accused persons were doing same business and reside in the same area. He also admitted that there was differences between complainant and accused persons with regard to their business. He further admitted that during investigation it was revealed that complainant had asked accused persons to stop their business but they did not stop the same.
19 From the testimony of investigating officer (PW), it is apparent that both complainant as well as accused persons were engaged in the similar business and were also the resident of same vicinity. He has stated that during investigation it revealed that there were differences between complainant and accused persons with regard to their business. It is also apparent that during investigation, it also revealed that earlier it was the complainant who had asked the accused persons to stop his business, but accused persons did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
20 As per the testimony of complainant (PW2) and IO SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 11 of 28 (PW9), it has been shown that both complainant as well as accused persons were engaged in the same business and were residents of same vicinity. As per the version of IO, during investigation it revealed that there were differences between them and even the complainant had asked accused persons to refrain themselves in the said business. Consequently, in my considered opinion, a doubt is cast upon the story put forth by the complainant that on the day of incident any robbery was committed with him by the accused persons.
21 As per testimony of complainant and IO, the place of incident was a crowded place, surrounded by shops and residential houses. Neither any customer of the complainant nor any public person from the vicinity was examined by the IO to support the allegations levelled by the complainant. IO has specifically stated that none of the person either from shops or from the residential houses came to him and supported the fact that any incident of robbery had taken place. No witness from the locality has been examined by the prosecution to rule out any false implication of accused persons in the present case.
22 There are several discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and the same does not inspire confidence of the Court SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 12 of 28 with regard to commission of alleged robbery. When it has come on record that there were earlier differences between the parties, the false implication of accused persons by the complainant with a view to settle his score, cannot be ruled out.
23 Nonrecovery of alleged robbed money also creates doubt about the case of prosecution. In the entire chargesheet, there is not even a whisper of word to the effect that any effort was made by the investigating officer to get recovered the alleged robbed money from the accused persons. In his statement before the court also, investigating officer (PW9) has also not stated anything to the effect that he made any effort to get the robbed money recovered from the accused persons.
24 I have gone through the judgment in case of Jahangir Vs. State of Haryana 1996 (2) RCR (Criminal) 433 in which it has been held that it is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and, therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts and it SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 13 of 28 always rests on the prosecution. Strongest of suspicion does not constitute the proof required. Similar observations have also been made by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Krishna Janardhan Bhat Vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde 2008 AIR (SC) 1325.
25 In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons committed robbery of cash of the complainant on the day of incident. No public person available near the spot has been examined by the prosecution nor any shopkeeper whom the complainant had allegedly supplied the materials have been examined. Even, no explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for such a lapse. Even otherwise, the testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence. In the present case, even the recovery of alleged robbed money has not been effected by the police to get it confronted with the complainant during his examination in the Court. So, there casts a reasonable doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution.
26 Consequently, in view of shaky and inconsistent testimony of the complainant (PW2), prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons committed the robbery of money of complainant (PW2) on the day of incident. SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 14 of 28 Therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC.
Nonjoining of independent witness 27 The nonjoining of any independent public witness in the investigation of the case, also casts doubt to the case of the prosecution. It is the case of the prosecution that the the place of incident was surrounded by shops and residential houses and public persons including shopkeepers were present there. 28 As per the testimony of complainant (PW2) himself, he supplied eggs, breads etc. to the shopkeepers in the morning of the day of incident, but none of them have been joined in the investigation of the present case. As per testimony of investigating officer ASI Kali Charan (PW9) also, the spot was surrounded with number of shops and residential houses. He stated that none of the shopkeeper or resident near the spot informed him that any incident had taken place. 29 From the testimony of the IO (PW9) also, it has been established that the spot was surrounded by shops and residential houses and even the public persons were present at the spot, but there is not even a whisper from the mouth of the IO to join any independent witness present at the spot, in the proceedings conducted by him. He SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 15 of 28 had not made any effort to join any public independent witness though present at the spot, including the shopkeepers to whom supply of material was done by the complainant.
30 I have gone through the ratio of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Hem Raj & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana 2005 AIR (SC) 2110 in which it was held that when the evidence of the alleged eyewitnesses raise serious doubt, the unexplained omission to examine the independent witness, would assume significance.
31 In the present case also, no independent public witness was examined or got joined in the investigation conducted by the IO, though available at the spot. No explanation has come forward from the IO as to what prevented him in joining any independent witness in the proceedings.
32 Consequently, in my considered opinion, nonjoining of any independent public witness in the proceedings, creates doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution.
Causing grievous hurt 33 It is alleged against the accused persons that at the time of committing robbery, they caused grievous hurt to the SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 16 of 28 complainant (PW2).
34 As discussed above, the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of robbery by accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In view of the fact that robbery has not been convincingly proved by the prosecution, accused persons cannot be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC. 35 However, the complainant/injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) has deposed that on 5.8.2010, he left his shop in the early hours for selling eggs and breads. After loading eggs and bread to supply it in the area, at about 6.45 a.m., when he reached Block No.1920 main road, accused Shahid and Jahid stopped him. He further deposed that he was dragged from his rickshaw rehri and thereafter both the accused assaulted him with iron rods badly. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, accused persons were also joined with other three persons armed with dandas who also started giving danda blows on his person. He specifically deposed that accused persons continued giving iron rod and danda blows on his person due to which he became unconscious. Some persons lifted him and dropped him at his shop. Both the accused persons have been identified by the complainant/ injured (PW2) in the Court as the culprits who gave him iron rod SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 17 of 28 blows on the day of incident. He also deposed that he had sustained multiple fracture injuries on his body and remained under treatment for 11½ years.
36 During crossexamination, complainant (PW2) stuck to his stand that he was assaulted by both the accused persons. He stated that accused persons assaulted him in the market of Block No.19 and 20, Trilokpuri, Delhi. He further stated that after suffering fracture in the incident from the hands of accused, he could not do his regular work for about 3/4 months.
37 The testimony of complainant that he received injury on the day of incident has been corroborated from the testimony of PW6 HC Mehar Singh. HC Mehar Singh (PW6) has stated that on the day of incident i.e. On 5.8.2010, he was posted in PCR, East Zone and on that he was working as Incharge, PCR on Romeo 45 and the base point was Chand Cinema. On that day at about 7.10 a.m., he received a call from Control Room about quarrel/robbery and he immediately rushed to the spot i.e. Block No.19/20, Trilok Puri where injured Mohd. Irfan met them and thereafter he took the injured to LBS Hospital and got him medically examined.
38 This witness (PW6) was not crossexamined by the ld. SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 18 of 28 Defence counsel. In the absence of any crossexamination, testimony of this witness unrebutted and uncontroverted. 39 So, from the testimony of PW6 HC Mehar Singh also, it has been established that on the day and time of incident, when he along with PCR Van reached at the spot, complainant/injured Mohd. Irfan (PW2) was found in injured condition and then he was admitted i hospital. Testimony of PW6 HC Mehar Singh duly corroborates the version of complainant (PW2) that he sustained injuries on the day of incident.
40 The testimony of complainant (PW2) has also been corroborated by IO ASI Kalicharan (PW9) who deposed that when he along with Ct. Kiran Pal (PW1) reached LBS Hospital, they found injured Mohd. Irfan admitted there. Injured was declared fit for statement and then his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. Similar statement has been made by PW1 Ct. Kiran Pal also. 41 So, PW9 ASI Kalicharan as well as PW1 Ct. Kiran Pal also corroborates the testimony of the complainant that on the day of incident he received injuries on his person.
42 It is also matter of record that the complainant/injured (PW2) was medically examined in LBS Hospital. Dr. Rajni Lohia SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 19 of 28 (PW4), Medical Officer of LBS Hospital had medically examined the injured Mohd. Irfan on 5.8.2010. She has proved the MLC of complainant (PW2) as Ex.PW4/A and referred the patient to SR Orthopedics for detailed examination, management and opinion. PW8 Dr. M.N. Singh, Radiologist, LBS Hospital has testified that he examined xray plates of patient Mohd. Irfan and observed fracture left Patella. He gave his report Ex.PW8/A in this regard. PW7 Dr. Bharat Bahre, Sr. Resident, Orthopedics on the basis of Xray plate and report of the Radiologist which showed fracture of Patella left side, opined the nature of injury as "grievous".
43 The doctors examined by the prosecution were not crossexamined by the accused persons, despite availing the opportunity to crossexamine them. Doctors have not been questioned by the accused persons so as to rule out the possibility of sustaining of injuries by complainant by fall on road or by any other means or manner.
44 From the testimony of complainant coupled with medical evidence, it has been established that he sustained injuries at the hands of the accused persons. But as discussed in the former part of judgment, the incident of robbery has not been convincingly SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 20 of 28 established by the prosecution, therefore, no case is made out against accused persons for their conviction under Section 397 IPC. However, as per testimony of complainant (PW2) coupled with medical evidence, a case under Section 325 IPC is made out against accused persons as they had caused grievous hurt to the complainant on the day of incident.
45 Subsection (2) of Section 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that when a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it. I have gone through the ratio of judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Tara Dutta AIR 2000 SC 297 in which it was held that if an accused is charged of a major offence but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed.
46 In the present case, accused persons were charged with the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC for causing grievous hurt to the complainant/injured while committing robbery, but both of them have not been found guilty thereunder, rather they SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 21 of 28 have found to have committed offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC as they caused grievous hurt to the complainant/injured. 47 Consequently, accused persons are entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 397 IPC, however they are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC.
Conclusion 48 The incident of robbery by accused persons has not been established by the prosecution. The statement of the complainant (PW2) and his conduct is full of doubts. His statement is shaky and inconsistent. The statement of the complainant does not inspire confidence of the Court. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the incident of robbery against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
49 The recovery of alleged robbed articles has not been established in the Court. It is the case of prosecution that accused persons robbed Rs.19,00020,000/ from the complainant on the day of incident. First of all, testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence and secondly, no effort has been shown to be made by the investigating officer to get recovered robbed money from the SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 22 of 28 complainants.
50 The nonjoining of independent public witnesses in the proceedings conducted at the spot creates doubt in the story put forth by the prosecution. It has come in evidence that the place of incident was surrounded by shops and residential houses, but neither any shopkeeper nor any resident of the vicinity was examined by the investigating officer to corroborate the testimony of the complainant to the effect that any incident of robbery had taken place with him. 51 The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the incident of robbery, therefore, no case under Section 397 IPC is also made out against accused persons. However, it has been established that accused persons caused grievous hurt on the person of the complainant on the day of incident as they gave iron rod blows to him. The medical record of the complainant also establishes the case of the prosecution that complainant/injured received grievous injury on his person. Therefore, accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC. 52 In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the present case, both the accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 392/34 SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 23 of 28 IPC as well as under Section 397 IPC. However, both the accused, namely, Sonu @ Jahid and Shahid are hereby held guilty for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC and are convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 25.09.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 24 of 28
IN THE COURT OF SHRI P.S. TEJI : DISTRICT JUDGE &
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, I/C (EAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
SC No.03/2012 Unique Case ID No.02402R0374812011 FIR No.331/2010 Police Station Mayur Vihar Under Section 395/397/34 IPC State Versus Sonu @ Jahid etc. ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide my judgment dated 25.09.2012, convicts Sonu @ Jahid and Shahid have been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC.
2 I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. counsel for the convicts on the point of sentence. 3 The learned Addl. PP has argued that convicts have been convicted for causing grievous hurt on the person of the complainant/injured. He has further argued that the convicts gave iron rods blow on the head of the complainant which resulted into grievous injury on his person. It is further argued that since convicts have SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 25 of 28 caused grievous hurt to innocent complainant/injured, they do not deserve any leniency, therefore, maximum punishment provided under the law may be awarded to the convicts.
4 On the other hand, learned counsel for convicts has submitted that convict Sonu @ Jahid is aged about 30 years whereas convict Shahid is aged about 32 years. He has further submitted that convicts are the sole bread earners of their respective families and the entire family of the convicts is dependent upon them. It is further submitted that convicts have not been convicted in any other criminal case. It is submitted that convicts be released on probation. It is prayed that keeping in view age and familial circumstances of the convicts, a lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to them.
5 Ld. Counsel for the convicts has relied upon judgments in case of Ravinder @ Ravi and another Vs. The State 2001 (1) JCC (Delhi) 14 wherein the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act was extended to the appellant since the offence was not punishable with life imprisonment and that other co accused have also been given the benefit under the similar provision. He has also relied upon another judgment in case of Commandant 20 SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 26 of 28 Bn. ITB Police Vs. Sanjay Banjola 2001 (2) JCC (SC) 21 in which also the respondent was released on probation as the case proved against him was that he being a Constable ITB Police entered the house of the Commandant under the influence of liquor. 6 In the present case, the offence committed by the convicts is causing of grievous injury to the complainant/injured. It has come on record that innocent complainant was given iron rod blows on his head by the convicts, which resulted into serious head injury. Even otherwise, prosecution has placed on record the previous involvement of accused Shahid vide Ex.PW9/C. Perusal of Ex.PW9/C shows that convict Shahid was also involved in 12 different criminal cases for which FIRs were registered against him for the offences of attempting to commit culpable homicide, under Arms Act etc. 7 In view of aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find it a fit case to release the convicts on probation, therefore, the authorities relied upon by the ld. Counsel for the convicts are of no help to them as the same are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Accordingly, convict Sonu @ Jahid is hereby awarded sentence of SI for 46 days i.e. period already undergone and fine of Rs.25,000/ for the offence punishable under SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 27 of 28 Section 325/34 IPC. Convict Shahid is awarded sentence of SI for 47 days i.e. period already undergone and fine of Rs.25,000/ for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts shall further undergo SI for one year. The amount of fine shall be paid to the complainant/ injured Mohd. Irfan on its realization.
8 Copies of the judgment and order on sentence be given free of cost to the convicts.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court ( P.S. TEJI )
Dated: 27.09.2012 District Judge and
Addl. Sessions Judge, I/C (East)
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi
SC No.03/2012 State Vs. Sonu @ Jahid etc. Page 28 of 28