Delhi District Court
Fir No. 137/09; State vs . Ravinder Page 1 Of 22 on 24 September, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE No. 58/13
FIR No. 137/09
P.S. Vijay Vihar
U/S: 308 IPC
STATE
Versus
RAVINDER
s/o Chhokhe Lal
r/o D56, Harsh Dev Park,
Budh Vihar, PhII, Delhi
Date of Institution: 14072009
Date of arguments: 31082013
Date of judgement: 31082013
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts, as stated in the chargesheet, are that on 03052009 on receipt of DD no. 23A, HC Ramesh along with Ct. Pawan reached at the spot i.e. PhII, ration office gali, Budh Vihar, Delhi where no eyewitness was found and they came to know that injured had been shifted to BSA hospital. Thereafter, HC Ramesh and Ct. Pawan reached BSA hospital and obtained MLC no. 2229/09 of Mohd. Anzar but the injured was not fit for statement. FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 1 of 22 HC Ramesh after making his endorsement on DD no. 23A, got registered the FIR u/s 308 IPC. On 05052009, injured Mohd. Anzar was declared fit for statement and thereafter he gave his statement to the police. In his statement, complainant/ injured stated that he used to do work of kabadi and one Ravinder was residing in his neighbourhood whom Mohd. Anzar (since injured) knew very well and he used to come at the house of Mohd. Anzar. On 03052009 at about 3 pm, Ravinder came at the house of complainant with a liquor bottle and asked for some water. Mohd. Anzar gave water to Ravinder and he started taking liquor in his room. Mohd. Anzar also took some liquor with Ravinder and when Mohd. Anzar tried to leave him there, Ravinder told him to leave the work and bring some more liquor. When Mohd. Anzar refused to bring liquor for Ravinder on the pretext of paucity of money, Ravinder became furious and started abusing him. At that time Ravinder was sitting on the cot and Mohd. Anzar was sitting on the floor. Ravinder picked up axe lying in the same room and hit the axe on the head of Mohd. Anzar while saying "aaj tera kaam tamam kar deta hu". Blood started oozing out from the head of Mohd. Anzar and he became unconscious. When Mohd. Anzar regained consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. The clothes of FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 2 of 22 Mohd. Anzar were taken into possession by the police. Accused Ravinder was arrested and the weapon of offence i.e. axe was recovered from his possession. Exhibits were sent to FSL Rohini. After completion of investigation, chargesheet u/s 308 IPC against the accused was filed in the court.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge u/s 308 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses. PW1 Dr. Vimal Kumar Dixit, SR, Deptt. of Neuro Surgery, RML hospital proved the discharge slip of injured Mohd. Anzar as Ex. PW1/A. PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Singh, SR Surgery, BSA Hospital examined the injured Mohd. Anzar at BSA hospital vide MLC Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Mohd. Anzar is the complainant/ injured and he proved the seizure memo of his clothes i.e. blood stained shirt and one blood stained vest vide memo Ex. PW3/A and seizure memo of his blood sample as Ex.PW3/B. PW3 also identified shirt Ex. P1; vest Ex. P2 and axe/kulhadi Ex. P3. PW4 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Garg, CMO, DDU Hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi on the MLC Ex. PW2/A from portion A to A1. PW5 Retd. SI Sahab Singh, Duty Officer proved the FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 3 of 22 endorsement on the tehrir as Ex. PW5/A and FIR as Ex. PW5/B. PW6 Dr. Amit Kumar Singh, SR, Neurosurgeon, RML hospital proved the discharge report of Mohd. Anzar brought in the hospital vide CR no. 17273 as Ex. PW1/A. PW7 Dr. Dheeraj Gupta proved the Xray skull of AP view and lateral view of injured Mohd. Anzar examined by Dr. Vikas Jain vide Mark PW7/A. PW8 Master Gautam s/o Sh. Radhey Shyam is an eyewitness and was present in the said room where accused Ravinder hit an axe on the head of injured Mohd. Anzar. He narrated the incident occurred on 03052009.
4. PW9 Smt. Rajni proved the seizure memo Ex. PW3/A regarding the blood stained cloths of Mohd. Anzar bearing her thumb impression at point A and seizure memo of blood sample of Mohd. Anzar vide Ex.PW3/B. PW9 also identified the shirt Ex. P1 and vest Ex. P2. PW10 HC Ram Singh proved the arrest memo and personal search memo Ex. PW10/A and PW10/B; seizure memo of axe as Ex.PW10/C; disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW10/D. PW10 also identified the axe Ex. PW3, one shirt Ex. PW1 and one vest Ex. PW2. PW11 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL Rohini examined the exhibits i.e. one shirt Ex1a having brown stains; one baniyan Ex. 1b and axe with wooden handle Ex.2 and also test tube dark brown foul smelling liquid FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 4 of 22 described as blood sample as Ex.3 and he proved his report Ex.PW11/A. PW12 Dr. Kuldeep Singh, CMO, BSA hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi on MLC Ex.PW2/A. PW13 W/HC Madhu Sharma, Duty Officer proved the DD no. 23A vide Ex. PW13/A. PW15 HC Rajesh Kumar, MHC(M) proved entries 195/09 of register no. 19 vide Ex. PW15/A and PW15/B and sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini vide RC no. 28/21/09. PW17 ASI Ramesh Kumar is the first IO of the case and he proved the rukka Ex. PW17/A. PW18 SI Madan, second IO prepared the site plan Ex. PW18/A at the instance of HC Ramesh. PW18 also identified the shirt Ex. P1, vest Ex. P2, axe Ex. P3 and blood sample vial as Ex. P4.
5. Statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the allegations made against him. Accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
6. I have heard the Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused and the Ld. APP for the State and have perused the entire records.
7. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused argued that the accused received injury by falling after consuming liquor, therefore, the accused did not cause any injury to Mohd. Anzar with the Kulhadi/axe. No blood was found on the axe. No axe was FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 5 of 22 recovered at the instance of the accused. Rajni / PW9 was introduced latter on. Doctors i.e. PW4, PW6, PW7 and PW12 have no personal knowledge about this case. No rukka was received by PW5 and the FIR is the ante time and ante date. The accused had not made any disclosure statement. All the proceedings were conducted by the police while sitting in the PS and the statements of all the witnesses were recorded while sitting in the PS. The investigation of this case was not conducted fairly and the same is defective investigation.
8. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the accused came to the house of the victim along with three persons and started consuming liquor which was objected by the victim and even when they offered him the liquor, the victim refused to it. Thereafter, the accused and one of his associates started abusing him and also Rajni with her, the victim was having common work of Kabari but she was not present at that time. The victim was sitting on the floor and the accused and his associates were sitting on the cot. The accused meanwhile came behind the victim and struck on his head with the kulhadi/axe lying there in the room stating that "aaj tera kisa hi khatam kar deta hoon". The victim became unconscious and regained consciousness at the hospital after two days i.e. on FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 6 of 22 05.05.2009. PW3 also identified the accused and also his shirt, vest and axe/kulhadi in the Court. Master Gautam was also there who is also the eyewitness to the incident. Smt. Rajni, mother of master Gautam also supported the testimony of her son Gautam. The Doctors also proved on record the MLC of the injured. There was a fracture in left parietal bone of Mohd. Anzar. FSL reports have also been proved on record by the FSL experts. The IO and the other police officials have also proved on record all the documents i.e. the rukka, FIR, personal search memo, arrest memo and disclosure statement of the accused, site plan and seizure memos. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that if there are some contradictions in the testimony of PWs, they are the minor contradictions which do not go to the merits of the case. Public persons generally do not join investigation in criminal cases. The Ld. Addl. PP for the State, in support of his arguments, relied upon the judgments reported in the case of Bhagwan Dass Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi 2011 III AD (CRI.) (SC) 157; Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 200; Dhanaj Singh alias Shera & others Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2004 SC 1920; Khujji alias Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP, 1991 CRI.L.J. 2653 (1) and State of UP Vs. Krishna Master and ors. 2010 CRI. L.J 3889.
FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 7 of 22
9. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as the judgments relied upon, let us discuss and examine whether the accused committed the offence or not as charged. The injured namely Mohd. Anzar examined as PW3 and stated that he used to work as Kabari and the accused was known to him and he used to visit his house. PW3 correctly identified the accused present at the time of his examination as PW3 in the Court. PW3 stated in his examination inchief that on 03.05.2009 at about 03.00 pm, the accused came at his house along with three other persons and asked him to give some water to him. PW3 supplied him water. Thereafter, he took out a bottle of liquor and they all started consuming liquor there to which PW3 objected. They also offered PW3 drinks but he refused by saying that he had to finish his pending work. Thereafter, accused and his one associate namely Satish started abusing him and also started abusing Rajni with whom he was having common work of Kabari though she was not there at that time. PW3 further stated in his examinationinchief that he was sitting on the floor and the accused & his associates were sitting at the cot . Meanwhile, accused Ravinder came behind him and said, "Aaj tera kisa hi khatam kar deta hoon". PW3 thought that the accused was going FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 8 of 22 outside but he struck on his head with an axe / Kulhadi which was lying there. Gautam was also there and he raised an alarm and thereafter, the accused and his associates ran away after leaving the said axe/Kulhadi there. Thereafter, PW3 became unconscious and regained consciousness at Hospital.
10. PW3 further stated in his examinationinchief that on 05.05.2009, when he was fit to make statement at RML Hospital there, he handed over his blood stained shirt and one blood stained vest to the IO which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/A. The statement of the injured PW3 was also recorded at RML hospital. On 21.05.2009, blood sample of PW3 was taken at BSA hospital which was taken into possession vide seizure memo ExPW3/B. Parcel No. 1 and 2 sealed with the seal of "NK FSL Delhi" produced by MHC(M) Vijay Vihar which were opened in the Court. Parcel No. 1 was found containing one grey black check shirt and one white vest and parcel No. 2 was found containing one axe/Kulhadi which were shown to PW3 and he identified shirt as ExP1, vest as Ex.P2 and axe/kulhadi as Ex.P3. During cross examination by Ld. Amicus Curiae, PW3 stated that accused Ravinder was known to him for about 2 years prior to the incident. On the day of incident, he also consumed liquor with the accused FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 9 of 22 and other persons. PW3 denied the suggestion that he received injury by falling after consuming liquor. PW3 further denied the suggestion that accused did not cause any injury on his person with axe/kulhadi.
11. Master Gautam examined as PW8 and stated in his examinationinchief that he was residing with his mother and his mother was working as partner with Mohd. Anzar/injured. The accused was residing in his neighbourhood and identified him. PW8 called Mohd. Anzar as uncle. The accused used to come in the godown of Mohd. Anzar and his mother used to drink liquor with Mohd. Anzar in the evening. PW8 further stated in his examination inchief that on 03.05.2009 at about 03.00 pm, the accused Ravinder came in their godown with a liquor bottle in his hand and at that time, he was present in the room of the godown and watching TV. The accused Ravinder came in the said room and asked for a glass of water from Mohd. Anzar who offered the same to him. Thereafter, they both consumed liquor and in between Mohd. Anzar got up to do his work in the godown on which the accused Ravinder got furious and threatened him to bring more liquor bottle which Mohd. Anzar refused the same and the accused started abusing him. It was also pointed out by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State at the FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 10 of 22 time of examinationinchief of PW8 that the said abusive words were not only obscene but it would not be in the interest of the child witness / PW8 to get the said words repeated from his mouth. The Ld. Predecessor Court had also gone through the abusive words at that time and observed that the witness shall not be asked to repeat the abusive words. PW8 further stated in his examinationinchief that at that time, the accused was sitting on the cot and Mohd. Anzar was sitting on the floor and he protested on the said abuses given by the accused to him due to which the accused Ravinder picked an axe lying in the room and hit on the head of Mohd. Anzar due to which Mohd. Anzar became unconscious. PW8 also stated that he got scared and ran away from there and went to the house of his brother.
12. Smt. Rajni examined herself as PW9 and stated in her examinationinchief that she knows Mohd. Anzar as she is running a partnership business of rubber scrape with him in a godown at Budh Vihar, PhaseII, Delhi. The accused was identified by PW9 in the Court and stated that he was living in the neighbourhood where the said godown was situated at Budh Vihar. The accused used to visit godown to meet Mohd. Anzar. PW9 further stated that she was informed by her son Gautam about the incident and she FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 11 of 22 reached the godown and found that Mohd. Anzar was smeared with blood. He was taken to the hospital by the police initially at BSA hospital and from there, he was referred to RML Hospital. PW9 also stated that police recorded the statement of Mohd. Anzar in her presence who told to police that the accused Ravinder had caused injuries to him by an axe. PW9 identified one grey black check shirt as Ex.P1 and white vest as Ex.P2 produced in the Court.
13. Let us examine whether the above testimony of PW8 and PW9 who are the son and mother can be considered as trustworthy. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgements reported in the case of Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2003 SC 3617 (1), it has been held that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a witness. In the present case, in my view, testimonies of PW8 and PW9 cannot be discarded merely because they are the son and mother.
14. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him truthful witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that one credible witness outweighs the testimony of number of other witnesses of indifferent character. The FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 12 of 22 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that evidence had to be weighed and not counted. Thus, in the present case, accused can be convicted on the basis of testimony of PW3/ Mohd. Anzar and PW8 Master Gautam since PW3 is the injured person and PW8 is the eyewitness to the incident, therefore they are the most primary witness of the occurrence, therefore, I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW3 and PW8.
15. PW5 proved his endorsement made on the tehrir as Ex.PW5/A and the FIR No. 137/09 as Ex.PW5/B. PW10 in his crossexamination stated that they had remained in the RML Hospital for about one hour and he had signed the seizure memo in the hospital itself. IO had made the departure entry in the rojnamcha at the time of leaving the PS. PW10 denied the suggestion that the accused has not made any disclosure statement or the axe Ex.P3 was not recovered in his presence. PW14 also stated in his cross examination that he along with SI Madan Lal reached BSA hospital on 03.05.2009 at 06.30 pm and remained there for 15 - 20 minutes and at that time Mohd. Anzar was unfit for statement. PW14 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation or no rukka was taken by him to the PS. PW17 stated in his crossexamination that he gave rukka to PW14 at about 05.10 pm and after about one hour FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 13 of 22 of sending rukka, PW14 and SI Madan Lal had reached at the hospital and at about 06.30 pm, they had reached the spot from the hospital. PW17 denied the suggestion that no rukka was sent by him in the manner as deposed by him or that the same was prepared by him at the PS itself. PW18 stated in his cross examination that he prepared site plan at the instance of HC Ramesh at the spot. PW18 further stated that he himself had prepared all the documents in his own handwriting. All the writing work was done while sitting outside the house of the accused under the street light. PW18 recorded the statement of Master Gautam at the place of incident. PW18 denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were conducted while sitting in the PS or that no axe was recovered at the instance of the accused. PW18 also denied the suggestion that no disclosure statement was made by the accused or he did not conduct the fair investigation of the case.
16. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused argued that the police has not conducted the investigation fairly and the investigation is defective. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused cannot get the benefit of it. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 14 of 22 account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused persons solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
17. Ld. Amicus Curiae further argued that no public person was joined in the investigation, therefore, in the absence of public witnesses during investigation, the investigation conducted by the police cannot be believed as trustworthy. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State argued that generally public persons do not come forward to join investigation in such criminal cases. I am of the view that as far as public witnesses joining the investigation are concerned, the public persons are reluctant to become witnesses of criminal trial. Therefore, law is not that testimony of police officers apart from the eyewitness is absolutely untrustworthy or that it can never be acted upon. It has been held in a catena of judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that merely because public witnesses are not joined in the investigation, the Prosecution FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 15 of 22 case cannot be thrown out. In such circumstances, no benefit can be given to the accused for nonjoining of independent public witnesses during investigation. In this context, a reliance can be had upon the judgements reported as State of UP Vs. Anil Singh AIR 1988 SC 1998; Ambika Prasad & Anr. Vs. State 2002 (2) Crimes 63 (SC); Dr. Krishna Pal & Anr. Vs. State of UP 1996 (7) SCC 194.
18. So far as the contradictions in the testimony of PWs as argued by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused are concerned, the same are only minor contradictions and are not going to affect the merits of the case. Thus, the Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on account of the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of PWs. In State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
19. The wording of section 308 IPC is the same as that of section 307 IPC except that section 308 IPC deals with an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Therefore, offence punishable u/s 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, then FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 16 of 22 he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable u/s 308 IPC. In Sunil Kumar Vs. NCT of Delhi (1998) 8 SCC 557 it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that offence punishable u/s 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, PW1 Dr. Vimal Kumar proved the discharge report bearing No. 17273 dt. 03.05.2009 of Mohd. Anzar issued by RML Hospital as Ex.PW1/A and stated that the opinion regarding nature of injuries as grievous on the same which is in his handwriting and bears his signature at point A. PW2 Dr. Ashutosh Singh proved MLC of Mohd. Anzar as Ex.PW2/A and stated that on 03.05.2009, on local examination, one CLW 5 cms x 1 cm over left parietal region extending towards occipital region, fracture of skull bone were observed. After initial management, the patient was referred to higher centre for further management. PW4 Dr. Neeraj Kumar Garg stated in his examinationinchief that he knows handwriting and signature of Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi who worked with him in the BSA Hospital, Rohini in the year 2009. PW4 also stated that as per FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 17 of 22 the MLC Ex.PW2/A, one patient Mohd. Anzar was admitted in the hospital on 03.05.2009 at about 04.00 pm with the alleged history of physical assault examined by Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi and on local examination, he advised for Xray skull and referred the patient to SR Surgery. PW6 Dr. Amit Kumar Singh also stated that he has verified the record from the hospital and seen discharge report in respect of Mohd. Anzar who was brought in the hospital on 03.05.2008 (03.05.2008 mentioned due to clerical mistake instead of 03.05.2009) vide CR No. 17273 and the patient was referred from BSA Hospital already Ex.PW1/A. PW7 Dr. Dheeraj Gupta stated that Dr. Vikas Jain was previously working in BSA Hospital as SR, Radiologist. PW7 verified the records from the BSA hospital and also seen an attested photocopy of XRay skul of AP View and lateral view in respect of Mohd. Anzar who was brought in the Hospital on 03.05.2008 (03.05.2008 mentioned due to clerical mistake instead of 03.05.2009) and was radiologically examined by Dr. Vikas Jain which was marked as Mark PW7/A and as per the Mark PW7/A, there was a fracture in left parietal bone of the patient.
20. PW11 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi proved his report as Ex.PW11/A. As per Ex.PW11/A, result of analysis reveals that blood was detected on FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 18 of 22 Ex.1a i.e. one shirt having brown stains, Ex.1b i.e. one Baniyan having brown stains and Ex.3 i.e. dark brown foul smelling liquid described as blood sample and as per the biology revision report in Ex.PW11/A, the results obtained had been analysed as Ex.1a shirt and Ex.1b Baniyan revealed species of origin as human. PW12 Dr. Kuldeep Singh stated that Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi had worked with him and he was acquainted and familiar with his signatures and handwriting. PW12 also stated that he had seen the MLC Ex.PW2/A and as per MLC, injured Mohd. Anzar was brought in the BSA hospital on 03.05.2009 at about 04.00 pm by PCR official HC Lal Chand for medical examination with the alleged history of physical assault. On local examination, CLW on mid parietal region of skull 8 cm x 1 cm was found and after initial examination, he was referred to Department of Surgery for further treatment and management. PW12 further stated that patient was not fit for statement and he was finally fit for statement on 05.09.2009 at about 05.30 pm as per record mentioned in the MLC. PW12 also stated that portion C of encircled portion A was in handwriting of Dr. Raj Mohan Trivedi and whose signatures bears at point X. Therefore, it has come in evidence that the injury was caused on the vital part of the body of Mohd. Anzar. The accused has neither examined any witness nor FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 19 of 22 proved on record that Mohd. Anzar received injury by falling after consuming liquor. Thus, the accused could be attributed the knowledge that by inflicting the said injury, he was likely to cause death and therefore, his act fall within the purview of section 308 IPC.
21. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold accused Ravinder guilty and convict him u/s 308 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 31.08.2013.
FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 20 of 22
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI SESSIONS CASE No. 58/13 FIR No. 137/09 P.S. Vijay Vihar U/S: 308 IPC STATE Versus RAVINDER s/o Chhokhe Lal r/o D56, Harsh Dev Park, Budh Vihar, PhII, Delhi Order on Sentence
1. Arguments have been heard from Ld. Amicus Curiae as also from Ld. APP for State. Ld. Amicus Curiae has argued that convict Ravinder is aged 32 years and he is a first offender and there is no criminal case pending against him. The convict is having responsibility of looking after his wife, five years son and his mother. A prayer has been made for taking lenient view against the convict. Whereas, the Ld. APP for the State has argued that convict should be given appropriate sentence as per law.
2. In my considered view, too much leniency should not be FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 21 of 22 given in the interest of administration of justice otherwise, public would lose faith in the justice delivery system. However, considering the totality of facts and circumstances, interest of justice would be sufficiently met if the convict is sentenced with four years Rigorous Imprisonment u/s 308 IPC. Convict shall get benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. for the period during which he remained in custody during investigation/ trial. Copy of judgement and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost. File be consigned to Record Room.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ASJ/NW03/ROHINI/DELHI ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT on 24.09.2013.
FIR No. 137/09; State Vs. Ravinder Page 22 of 22