Delhi District Court
28 vs Shameen S/O Fida Hussain on 20 May, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS
(NORTH) DELHI
SC NO. 34/07
STATE
versus
1. Aziz Khan s/o Nasir Khan,
R/o BW 608, Kalander Mohalla,
Kathputli Colony, Delhi.
2. Sameen S/o Fida Hussain
R/o B624, Kalander Mohalla,
Kathputli Colony, Delhi
3. Azad @ Lalu s/o Sh Mizaz Khan,
R/o J618, Kalander Mohalla,
Kathputli Colony, Delhi,
4. Haseen s/o Hasanddin,
R/o K298,
Kathputli Colony, Delhi
FIR No. : 374/07
Offence U/S : 302/308/323/325/506/34 IPC
Police Station : Patel Nagar
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 11.10.2007
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: 28.4.2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16.5.2011.
JUDGMENT
1. Accused persons Aziz Khan, Shameen, Azad @ Lalu and Haseen have been facing trial for the offences punishable u/s S.C.No. 34/07 Page 1 of 38 pages 2 302/325/323 IPC read with section 34 IPC on the allegations that on 24.6.07 at about 4 pm near park, at the office of Prabhu Pardhan, Patel Nagar New Delhi, all the accused sharing common intention caused death of Jahoor Khan by assaulting him and voluntarily caused grievous injuries to Rahisan and simple injuries to Sonu, Zarina, Gulhasan, Bashrin, Zakir Hussain and Rukhsar. The FIR u/s 308/323/34 IPC was lodged by complainant Zakir Hussain detailing the manner of incident whereby he and his father were assaulted and injured by the accused persons. The injured were removed to the hospital and on 27.6.07 Jahoor Khan (father of the complainant) expired and one complaint EXPW15/H was preferred by Zarina (daughter of the deceased) and accordingly section 302 IPC was added. The accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation chargesheeted. Other two accused Bande Hussain and Mizaz Khan salso named in the complaint of Zarina EXPW15/H were included in the chargesheet but they could not be arrested and were declared proclaimed offenders.
2. On 3.4.2008, accused Aziz Khan, Shameen, Azad and Haseen were charged for having committed offences punishable u/s 302/325/323/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 45 witnesses in all to bring home the guilt of the accused. The substance of the prosecution evidence is as follows:
4. PW1 constable Pawan, joined the investigation of the S.C.No. 34/07 Page 2 of 38 pages 3 present case and he photographed the spot of occurrence.
5. PW2 Raj Bahadur Singh, has been the witness of arrest of accused Azad @ Lalu and accused Haseen on their surrender in the court and proved their arrest memos EXPW2/A&B.
6. PW3 Dr V.K Soni medically examined injured Gulhasan and Zarina and proved their MLCs EXPW2/A & EXPW3/B. He also proved MLC of Bashrin vide EXPW3/C.
7. PW4 HC Ramesh Chand joined the investigation of the present case and proved disclosure statements of accused Azad @ Lalu and Haseen vide EXPW4/A&B and also deposed about recovery of weapons/dandas at their instance vide seizure memos EXPW4/C&D.
8. PW5 HC Yogesh Kumar has deposed about deposition of case property in the malkhana at PS Patel Nagar on 24.6.07, 25.6.07, 27.6.07 and 16.7.07 vide relevant entries EXPW5/A ( colly).
9. PW6 Dr. Dhiraj medically examined Zarina vide MLC EXPW6/A and complainant Zakir vide EXPW6//B. During crossexamination he stated that injured suffered simple injuries by blunt object.
10. PW7 HC Jaibhagwn obtained MLC of Rahisan on 10.7.07 from RML hospital.
11. PW8 Ct. Mahasheel, joined the investigation of the present case by shifting dead body of the deceased from RML hospital to DDU Hospital. He was handed over sealed parcels by the doctor which was seized by IO vide EXPW8/A.
12. PW9 SI Mahesh Kumar prepared scaled site plan of the S.C.No. 34/07 Page 3 of 38 pages 4 spot of occurrence vide EXPW9/A. He prepared the same at the instance of complainant Zakir Hussain.
13. PW10 HC Sunil Kumar recorded DD no. 5A on 27.6.07 about death of the deceased vide EXPW10/A.
14. PW11 Dr. Bibhubi Shukla recorded her opinion about the nature of injuries of Rukhsar vide EXPW11/A.
15. PW12 Amit Chawla took photographs of the spot of occurrence and proved the same vide EXPW12/16.
16. PW13 constable Major Singh carried the case property from Patel Nagar to FSL Rohini and deposed that case property remained intact.
17. PW14 Dr. Nitesh examined Xray plates of complainant and gave his report vide EXPW14/A.
18. PW15 SI Jitender Tiwari was assigned the investigation of the present case on 27.6.07. He proved inquest papers EXPW15/AD, identification statements EXPW15/E&F, complaint preferred by Zarina EXPW15/H on the basis of which section 302 IPC was added.
19. PW16 Ct. Dulichand, has also been a witness to the arrest of accused Azad and Haseen.
20. PW17 Haseena deposed that on 24.6.07 at about 4 pm she was present near office of Prabhu Pardhan in gali no. 6. On hearing noise of quarrel, she reached there and found that accused Haseen had caught hold of Zakir by his waist and accused Shameen assaulted on his head with iron pipe. Meanwhile Gulhasan, Chenu , Sonu and Jahoor Khan came to the spot to save Zakir and accused Shameen assaulted Jahoor S.C.No. 34/07 Page 4 of 38 pages 5 Khan with iron rod on his head and accused Lalu assaulted Jahoor Khan with danda on his head due to which he started bleeding and fell down on the ground. Zarina also came there and accused Aziz assaulted her with sharp pointed object on her leg and she also started bleeding. She further stated that many public persons gathered at the spot and Hasandeen, Anardeen, Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain having sarias and dandas and accused persons started pelting stones glass bottles etc. She took the deceased to the hospital where doctor declared him brought dead. During cross examination, on behalf of Aziz Khan, she stated that she was standing at the corner of the gali. Distance between office of Prabhu Pardhan and shop of complainant could be covered by walking for one minute. Many public persons gathered at the spot. She did not receive any injury nor she noticed that her brother Chenu received any injury or not. Injuries to the deceased were inflicted in her presence. She could not see who was injured with bricks, stones and bottles. All the accused persons were beating Jahoor Khan and Zakir Hussain. Complainant had not accompanied his father to the hospital. She denied that Zakir Hussain was having iron rod or that he hit the same on the head of the accused Shameen. According to her, Sonu was carrying only small danda. She had not noticed injuries on the person of Anardeen and Hasandeen and denied that such injuries were caused by Sonu and Chenu. During crossexamination, on behalf of accused Shameen, she was confronted with her S.C.No. 34/07 Page 5 of 38 pages 6 statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC EXPW17/DA on the point that Aziz Khan assaulted Zarina on her leg. She stated that in fact accused Lalu had assaulted Zarina. When she reached the spot, she found accused persons throwing stones. Jahoor khan reached the spot alongwith her. She had not seen as to who had beaten Rukhsar. She denied the suggestion to be deposing falsely. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Lalu @ Azad, she denied that he has been falsely implicated being witness against her in other criminal case. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Haseen, she denied the suggestions that Zakir Hussain had beaten Hasandeen or that she is deposing falsely. Again on behalf of accused Azad @ Lalu she was crossexamined during which she stated that deceased Jahoor went to save Zakir when he was hit with danda on his head. When Jahoor Khan fell down, he was further hit by danda and saria by Shameen, Aziz, Lalu and Haseen. Bande Khan and Mizaz were also there hitting Jahoor Khan. The accused persons took away danda and saria with them. She had seen Zarina at the spot. She denied the suggestion that Azad was not present at the spot or that injuries on the person of deceased were on account of exchange of bricks between two groups.
21. PW18 constable Vinod Kumar recorded DD no 14 B on 24.6.07 about the quarrel EXPW18/A.
22. PW19 constable Mohan Kumar joined the investigation of the case and carried rukka to PS for registration of the FIR, he again came to the spot with SI Shri Krishna and site plan was S.C.No. 34/07 Page 6 of 38 pages 7 prepared. Accused Aziz Khan and Shameen were arrested vide arrest memos EXPW19/A&B and personal search memos EXPW19/C&D and their disclosure statements EXPW19/E&F were recorded. The iron pipe was recovered at the instance of accused Shameen vide seizure memo EXPW19/J. Aziz Khan got recovered danda from his house vide EXPW19/H. The bricks, stones and broken bottle pieces were lifted from the spot and seized vide EXPW19/J and blood stained clothes of Zakir Hussain and Gulhasan were seized vide EXPW19/K&L.
23. PW20 Gulhasan has been a witness of the occurrence and deposed that accused Haseen and Shameen are responsible for assaulting Zakir Hussain with iron pipe and accused Shameen and Lalu are responsible for assaulting Jahoor Khan by means of iron saria and danda. He tried to rescue the deceased but accused persons started pelting stones. He received injuries by glass bottle and was removed to the hospital. During crossexamination he deposed that on reaching the spot, he found Zakir Hussain held by Haseen and when Jahoor Khan tried to save him, he was hit on his head. Accused persons started pelting stones, bottles and ran towards their houses. He received only one injury. Accused persons were at the corner of the gali, standing at point A shown in the site plan. He got stitches. He has no knowledge about the injuries of accused Aziz although he was having head injury. PW20 was hit by pepsi bottle. He denied the suggestion that accused Azad was not present at the spot. He had not seen Zarina in the crowd. He saw accused Shameen, S.C.No. 34/07 Page 7 of 38 pages 8 Haseen, Lalu. They started pelting stones and the other accused persons also joined but he admitted that cross case u/s 307 IPC is registered against him and others with respect to the same incident. He denied that Jahoor was injured by him and his co accused or that accused Shameen had not hit Zakir or Jahoor with iron pipe. He had seen accused Azad giving danda blow to Jahur Khan and immediately upon the same, Jahoor Khan fell down. PW20 was hit by bottle when he was approaching Jahoor. He could not see as to who was throwing brickbats and bottles. He found blood of Jahoor at the place where he was lying. He denied that accused Azad was not present at the spot.
24. PW21 Raj Mal, has been the witness of the occurrence and named accused Haseen, Shameen and Azad for assaulting the complainant Zakir and his father Jahoor Khan. He further stated that accused Lalu hit Zarina on her foot due to which she started bleeding. Accused Haseen also gave danda blow on the mouth of Sonu. All the accused started throwing bottles and ricks and stones due to which Gulhasan and Ruksar got injuries. During crossexamination he deposed that he sustained injuries on his foot. He could not tell what had hit him. He saw accused Aziz Khan when he was throwing stones and bottles. He did not see anything like glass bottle or stone in the hands of accused Aziz Khan. Jahoor Khan was removed to the hospital by Haseena. PW21 himself also remained in jail for about one month alongwith Sonu, Gulhasan as they were arrested in this incident. He admitted S.C.No. 34/07 Page 8 of 38 pages 9 that Zakir Hussain and accused persons are magicians and to his knowledge, there has been no enmity. He denied the suggestion that he had iron rod with him and hit on the head of Anardeen. Anardeen was throwing bricks and stones from the roof of house and he fell down and sustained injuries. He denied that Gulhasan was throwing bricks and stones. He denied the suggestion that he had not witnessed the incident or that accused Shameen had not inflicted injuries to any of the injured persons. He admitted the pendency of cross case. He only suffered minor injuries in the incident. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely in order to protect himself in cross case.
25. PW22 HC Jaichand recorded the FIR of the present case vide EXPW22/A.
26. PW23 HC Satish Kumar deposed about sending of exhibits/pulanda of this case on 17.8.07 to FSL Rohini vide EXPW13/A&B.
27. PW24 Dr. Deepak Kumar Bora, examined Xray report of Ruksar vide EXPW24/A.
28. PW25 HC Amarchand, had taken Bashrin d/o Meen Khan to DDU Hospital hospital on 24.6.07 in the afternoon in PCR van. He brought the record of PCR EXPW25/A.
29. PW26 Inspector Malkiyat Singh, incharge of Crime Team inspected the spot of occurrence and gave his report EXPW26/A.
30. PW27 Sonu Khan ( son of deceased) has also given details of the occurrence and confirmed injuries to complainant and S.C.No. 34/07 Page 9 of 38 pages 10 his father at the hands of the accused Shameen, Haseen and Azad. He rushed to save his father and also her sister Zarina, but she was injured on her foot by accused Azad. He himself was hit by Haseen on his mouth. While running accused Aziz, Shameen, Lalu and Haseen started pelting empty bottles, bricks and stones due to which Gulhasan and Ruksar suffered injuries. He himself suffered injuries on his mouth, forehead due to danda blow. During crossexamination he deposed that he had gone to DDU Hospital hospital alone in auto. Police visited his house and recorded his statement. He remained in custody for 22 days in cross case. He received two injuries by danda. He did not try to apprehend the accused persons while they were running. He denied the suggestion to be deposing falsely. Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain were also present and pelting stones at the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated due to cross case.
31. PW28 Zakir Hussain is the complainant. He deposed about the incident that occurred in the noon time of 24.6.07 and stated that Shameen had hit Bashrin d/o Meen Khan while she was cooking food on the stove. The matter was however settled at that time. At about 4 pm, accused Shameen and Aziz came in front of office of Prabhu Pradhan and asked him as to where was Meen Khan and they started abusing Meen Khan. On the objection of the complainant, accused Haseen caught hold of him from his back and accused Shameen gave blow on his head by means of saria. His father S.C.No. 34/07 Page 10 of 38 pages 11 Jahoor Khan alongwith sonu, Chenu, Gulhasan came there to save him at which accused Shameen gave saria blow and accused Azad @ Lalu gave danda blow on the head of his father. His father fell down and meanwhile Hasandeen and Anardeen came there and tried to save them. Accused Aziz Khan gave danda blow on his head and also pelted bricks and stones. His sister Zarina was also assaulted by Azad @ Lalu on her foot by pointed object and Haseen gave danda blow on the face of Sonu. Complainant proved his report lodged with the police EXPW28/A. He further deposed that accused Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain also assaulted his father with danda and iron saria. He had not named them in the complaint due to the injuries but later on gave their names to the police. They have been absconding and have not been arrested. Complainant further deposed about site plan prepared at his instance and about seizure memo EXPW19/J. His blood stained shirt was seized vide EXPW19/K. The witness was crossexamined by Ld APP during which he admitted that accused Shameen and Aziz Khan were arrested by the police in his presence. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Azad @ Lalu he stated that he had shown the blood lying near the electricity pole and same was lifted by the IO. The blood was lying at the place his father fell down and blood was lifted from there. The objects broken bricks, stones etc. were lying at or around the place where his father was injured. Danda landed on the left side of head of his father. There was no time gap between saris blow and the danda blow. Accused S.C.No. 34/07 Page 11 of 38 pages 12 Azad gave blow to his sister Zarina by means of danda having pointed object. He cannot tell whether it was the same danda with which the father was assaulted. He did not notice that accused Azad was throwing stones etc or not. He did not take his father to the hospital and does not know how his father was taken to the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he had thrown bricks and stones upon the accused or that he used danda or saria to assault the accused persons. He admitted that FIR no. 375/07 PS Patel Nagar was registered against him and his relatives. During cross examination, on behalf of accused Shameen, he stated that his father was a healthy person, although he was aged about 70 years. He denied that his father used to remain sick. Accused Bande Hussain and Mizaz Khan came immediately after Anardeen and Hasandeen from the side of the park and accused Mizaz Khan hit his sister first. They gave saria and danda blow to his father who was already lying on the ground. He could not tell how many persons came at the spot. PCR van came at the spot at about 5 pm and local police reached thereafter. Accused Aziz Khan and Shameen were taken to hospital by PCR van prior to him. He has no knowledge how accused persons sustained injuries at the spot. His father was taken to hospital prior to the arrival of PCR van. He saw accused Shameen, Aziz Khan sitting in injured condition at PS. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Aziz , he deposed that he received danda and saria blow on his head. He tried to save his father. Accused persons are belonging to S.C.No. 34/07 Page 12 of 38 pages 13 the same community as the complainant and his relatives and they know each other. Earlier also the accused persons had beaten his father and brother Salim and FIR no. 584/06 was registered at PS Patel Nagar. Accused Aziz Khan and Azad were also involved in the said FIR due to which relations were strained. He further stated that aquarrel took place as accused Aziz Khan and Shameen were abusing his relative Meen Khan. Hasandeen and Anardeen came to the spot and tried to pacify and separate the fighting parties. There were no danda or sarias lying at the spot. Aziz Khan had inflicted danda blow on his head after arrival of Hasandeen and Anardeen at the spot. He and his father were already injured. He denied the suggestion that he received only one injury on his head and voluntarily stated that he received two injuries. He denied the suggestions that he inflicted danda blow on accused Aziz Khan or that he and his family members inflicted injuries upon Anardeen and Hasandeen. He denied the suggestion that accused Aziz Khan did not take part in causing injury to him. He had no enmity with the accused persons prior to the incident. He denied the suggestions that accused Hasandeen was not present at the spot or he is deposing falsely.
32. PW29 Dr Bharti Uppal medically examined Rukhsar and found swelling around her right eye and abrasion below right eye.
33. PW30 Zarina, also supported the prosecution case and confirmed that his brother complainant Zakir Hussain was S.C.No. 34/07 Page 13 of 38 pages 14 assaulted by accused Haseen and Shameen and his father Jahoor Khan was assaulted by accused Shameen and Lalu @ Azad. She herself was assaulted by accused Lalu on her foot and accused Haseen gave danda blow on the face of Sonu. Accused persons ran away from the spot while throwing bricks, stones and glass bottles. She also stated that accused Aziz gave danda blow on the head of his brother. She had given written complaint on 29.6.07 against Bande Hussain and Mizaz Khan vide EXPW15/H. They had assaulted her father by means of danda and saria. During cross examination on behalf of accused Shameen, she stated that Anardeen and Hasandeen were also throwing stones. she has no knowledge who shifted her father and brother to the hospital. She remained admitted in hospital for one night. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at the spot. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Aziz Khan, she stated that she had not been Rahison at the spot. She told the doctor about two injuries one on her foot and other on her chest. The accused persons were present at the spot and Anardeen and Hasandeen were pelting stones from the side of the park. She could not tell from where Hasandeen and Anardeen brought the stones. Her father was drenched in blood and blood had fallen on the ground. She had not counted the blows on the person of her father and brother. She had seen accused Lalu hitting her father. The danda with which her father was hit was wooden and pipe was hollow. Haseen had caught hold her brother from behind.
S.C.No. 34/07 Page 14 of 38 pages 15 On receipt of injury from Lalu she fell down and accused Lalu ran away. She denied the suggestion that both parties threw brick and stones upon each other. She has no knowledge about cross FIR registered against her brother. During cross examination on behalf of accused Haseen, she denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely.
PW31 Salim identified the dead body of deceased vide EXPW15/F.
34. PW 32 Meen Khan deposed about the incident of noon time of 24.6.07 to the effect that Shameen gave slap to his daughter, pushed her and threw the flour by kicking the same. Her daughter came crying to him and she took her daughter to DDU Hospital hospital. During cross examination he deposed that complainant is his brother in law. He has no knowledge if the police had registered case on the statemen of her daughter Bashrin. He denied the suggestion to be deposing falsely.
35. PW33 Bashrin stated that on 24.6.07, at about 12 noon Shameen objected to her cooking in the courtyard and slapped her. Shameen also pushed her and hit her with burning wood on her left cheek. She raised alarm and her father came out. She was taken to DDU hospital and police was called. She has been crossexamined on behalf of accused persons.
36. PW34 Rukhsar stated that she has no knowledge about this case. However, when she was returning home about one S.C.No. 34/07 Page 15 of 38 pages 16 and half year ago, there was crowd outside shop of Prabhu Pardhan and she was hit on the forehead due to which she lost consciousness. She was not knowing any of the accused. She was crossexamined by Ld APP during which she denied to be deposing falsely having been won over by the accused persons.
37. PW35 Rahisan deposed about the incident of 24.6.07 afternoon when Bashrin was hit by Shameen with burning wood. In the evening, she went to the spot on hearing screams. She was hit with iron rod by accused Shameen on her hips. Her brotherinlaw Jahoor was killed in the incident. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Azad, she stated that Jahoor khan was lying on the ground when she reached and Zakir was pleading for mercy. She denied that she had fallen somewhere subsequent to the incident and suffered injuries. She denied that on 10.7.07, she got herself medically examined. During crossexamination on behalf of accused Aziz, she stated that she lost consciousness. In her presence, accused Shameen hit Zakir with saria. She denied to be deposing falsely.
38. PW36 Dr. Vineet Soni proved MLC of Sonu vide MLC EXPW36/A.
39. PW37 ASI Ranbir Singh visited the spot on receipt of DD no 28/29 B on 24.6.07 at about 12 noon. He found that Bashrin was removed to the hospital by PCR van. He obtained MLC of Bashrin from hospital. At about 4.30 pm he received DD no. 40 B and reached the spot of occurrence. He went to S.C.No. 34/07 Page 16 of 38 pages 17 DDU hospital and found Zakir Hussain, Fida Hussain, Shameen, Sonu, Gulhasan, Anardeen etc admitted there. He recorded statement of complainant EXPW28/A and made endorsement EXPW37/A on the same and got the FIR registered . Thereafter, he got involved in the investigation of cross FIR no. 375/07 He has been crossexamined on behalf of accused persons. He found members of both the parties injured in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that site plan EXPW9/A does not depict complete particulars of the spot. Stones and bottles were lying on the ground. He denied that no blood was found outside office of Prabhu Pardhan. He admitted that regarding the first incident of Bashrin, no complaint was lodged. He denied the suggestion that two groups were fighting against each other by throwing stones, bricks and bottles. He did not trace out as to whose blood was lying at point C & D as per site plan.
40. PW38 Dr. Rishikesh proved report of radiologist on the injury of Rahisan vide EXPW38/A. The patient had suffered fracture in the neck of femur .
41. PW39 Dr Rahul Kakran proved MLC dt. 10.7.07 of Rahisan vide EXPW39/A by identifying the signatures of Dr. C.P. Paul.
42. PW40 Dr. Padma proved the MLC of deceased Jahoor Khan vide EXPW40/A.
43. PW41 Dr. Komal Singh conducted postmortem on the body of deceased on 27.6.07 and proved her report EXPW41/A. During crossexamination, she stated that there were three head injuries sustained by deceased and described as injuries S.C.No. 34/07 Page 17 of 38 pages 18 no. 1,2 and 10. All the injuries were of same duration. She could not tell if these injuries could individually cause death. However injuries other than 1,2 and 10 were not sufficient to cause death individually but collectively they were sufficient to cause death. Rail line pattern means the imprint of rod on the surface. It could be either wooden or iron rod. Other injuries could have been caused by kicks, bricks, danda and iron rod.
44. PW42 Dr. Pawan Kumar proved MLC of Rahisan EXPW39/A. During crossexamination, he admitted that person who suffers fracture of right hip cannot walk till recovery.
45. PW43 Dr. Vikas, Sr. Resident DDU Hospital deposed about opinion on MLC of complainant vide EXPW43/A& EXPW43/B. During crossexamination, he admitted that complainant received only one head injury as per MLC which is possible by means of danda or by means of fall or any other blunt object.
46. PW44 SI Shrikishan, was entrusted with the investigation on 26.5.07 and proved site plan EXPW20/DA, seizure memo of stones and bricks EXPW9/J and deposed about recording of statements of witnesses. He also lifted blood stained earth and earth control vide EXPW44/A. He deposed about recovery of danda from Aziz Khan vide EXPW19/H. He gave details of further investigation conducted by him and has also been crossexamined. He stated that crime team prepared report EXPW26/A in his presence. He could not find any evidence that Jahoor Khan S.C.No. 34/07 Page 18 of 38 pages 19 was found lying at point B as per site plan EXPW20/DA In the crime team report, it has been falsely recorded that there were iron rods at the spot. He got accused Shameen and Aziz Khan medically examined after their arrest. Injuries suffered by them were negligible. The blood stained danda and pipe were seized by him and sent for forensic examination by the second IO. He has been subjected to lengthy cross examination on behalf of other accused namely Lalu. Haseen, Shameen and on behalf of accused Aziz Khan.
47. PW45 Inspector M.S Shekhawat was SHO Patel Nagar on the day of occurrence. He took over investigation of the case on 2.7.07. On getting information about admission of Rahisan on 10.7.07, he recorded her statement. On 16.7.07 accused Azad and Haseen surrendered in the court. He recorded their disclosure statements and arrested both of them. He deposed about recovery of danda at the instance of Haseen vide EXPW4/D and recovery of danda at the instance of accused Azad vide EXPW4/C. He has also been crossexamined. During crossexamination, he admitted that prior to the incident there was no complaint or counter complaint between both the parties. Total 78 persons were involved in the incident from both the sides. He has been further cross examined at length.
Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
48. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein the entire incriminating evidence has been put forth and explained to them. Accused Azad @ Lalu pleaded S.C.No. 34/07 Page 19 of 38 pages 20 absence from the spot and recorded his innocence and false implication. He further stated that prosecution witnesses are false witnesses and they were jealous on account of the fact that he and his father were having sufficient good work to conduct magic shows.
It is pleaded on behalf of accused Aziz that he was not present at the spot and he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
Accused Hasandeen also pleaded absence from the spot as well as false implication on account of previous case of 2006 wherein he had a fight with complainant Zakir Husain.
According to accused Shameen, he was assaulted by Chenu Gulhasan, Sonu and Zakir Hussain and he fell unconscious. He did not see anyone assaulting the complainant or the deceased. According to him the witnesses are false and he has been falsely implicated.
49. In defence, Anardeen s/o Nasir Khan has been examined as DW1. He deposed that in the year 2007 he was staying with Hasandeen in the park. There was quarrel going on between Sonu, Zakir, Gulhasan, Chenu on one side and Shameen on other side. Earlier also there was a quarrel between them as Shameen had hit Bashrin. DW1 further stated that accused Aziz also came there. Complainant Zakir Hussain assaulted Aziz by means of saria on his head and on intervention, DW1 was assaulted by means of saria on arm and Chenu assaulted by saria on his head and he received serious injuries and fell unconscious. According to him, accused Lalu and Haseen S.C.No. 34/07 Page 20 of 38 pages 21 were not there. During crossexamination, he stated that quarrel in the evening was taking place in continuation of the morning incident. He had not seen the incident of the morning. He did not see how deceased Jahoor Khan sustained injuries. He denied suggestions that accused persons were aggressive or that they initiated the assault and denied to be deposing falsely. Thereafter defence evidence was closed.
50. I have heard Ld APP for State, Ld defence counsel Sh. Madan Lal for accused Aziz, Sh Satbir Singh, Ld counsel for accused Haseen and Shameen and Sh R.P. Tyagi, Ld counsel for accused Lalu and given due consideration to the facts, circumstances and evidence appearing on record.
51. The APP argued that case of the prosecution stands proved with the consistent and cogent testimony of eye witnesses and corroborated with medical reports and documents of investigation. This is a case of direct evidence and it stands proved on record that all the accused persons shared common intention in causing death of deceased Jahoor Khan and inflicted grievous injuries on the person of Rahisan and simple injuries to the complainant and his relatives. The conviction of the accused persons be recorded forthwith.
52. On behalf of accused Aziz Khan, it is argued by Ld defence counsel that there is no evidence to prove his involvement on the record. There is no consistent deposition of witnesses that accused Aziz Khan inflicted any kind of injuries either on the person of deceased or the complainant and his relatives. The complainant Zakir Hussain and his sister Zarina have S.C.No. 34/07 Page 21 of 38 pages 22 although deposed about inflicting of danda blow by Aziz Khan but there is no supportive medical evidence on this aspect. Mere presence at the spot of occurrence does not constitute any offence. The only role attributed to accused Aziz Khan by the prosecution witnesses has been that he was involved in pelting of stones and bricks etc. The prosecution has also failed to explain the injuries sustained by accused Aziz Khan. It is stressed that common intention as described u/s 34 IPC cannot be extended to accused Aziz Khan in view of facts and circumstances of the case and testimony of the prosecution witnesses and hence, accused Aziz be acquitted of all the charges.
53. It is argued by defence counsel Sh Satbir Singh for accused Shamen and Haseen that there are contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and it is evident that both the groups had quarreled and assaulted each other. There is no logic to impose section 302 IPC in the facts circumstances of the present case. It was a sudden fight and members of both the sides assaulted each other. There is no specific evidence pointing out that accused Shameen and Haseen assaulted the deceased or the complainant with the intention or knowledge to kill the deceased or to cause any harm to the complainant. There was no motive with the accused persons to commit such serious offences. The prosecution story suffers from various doubts and therefore giving benefit of doubt accused be acquitted.
54. It has been argued on behalf of accused Azad by counsel S.C.No. 34/07 Page 22 of 38 pages 23 Sh R.P Tyagi that case of the prosecution is not established beyond reasonable doubt as two groups had assaulted each other and accused Azad @ Lalu has been falsely implicated. Accused had no motive to kill the deceased or to assault the complainant. It is evident from the circumstances that it was free fight and therefore no specific role can be attributed to the accused for committing such serious offences. Ld counsel vehemently argued that no independent witness has been examined and all the prosecution witnesses are related to the complainant and the deceased. They are interested witnesses, therefore not worthy of trust. It is stated that prosecution story suffers from various doubts and therefore giving benefit of doubt accused Azad @ Lalu be acquitted.
55. I have given due consideration to the rival contentions and perused the record.
56. The incident in the present case took place at about 4 pm on 24.6.07 as a sequel to the incident that happened in the afternoon of 24.6.07 itself. Firstly accused Shameen slapped Bashrin d/o Meen Khan as Shameen objected to her cooking in the courtyard. The said incident had ended and no FIR was lodged with respect to the same. However, in the evening there was fight between the accused persons and the complainant and when his father and relatives intervened, they were assaulted and injured. The report was lodged by complainant Zakir Hussain and on the basis of the same, present FIR u/s 308/323 IPC was registered. Accused Aziz and Shameen were arrested on the day of occurrence itself S.C.No. 34/07 Page 23 of 38 pages 24 and recovery of danda and saria was effected from them. The injured persons alongwith accused were taken to the hospital for medical examination. Deceased Jahoor Khan expired in the hospital on 27.6.07 and thereafter Zarina moved an application on 29.6.07 against the accused persons and also named Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain therein. On the basis thereof, section 302 IPC was added. The accused Haseen and Azad surrendered in court on 16.7.07. Accused Haseen got recovered danda used by him in the incident. The medical report of the deceased as well as injured persons have been filed on the record.
57. The accused persons have been facing charges of murder u/s 302 IPC, causing grievous hurt u/s 325 IPC and causing simple hurt to the complainant and his relatives u/s 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
58. Firstly taking up the charge of section 302 IPC, prosecution has examined seven witnesses of the occurrence namely PW17 Haseena, PW20 Gulhasan, PW21 Rajmal, PW27 Sonu Khan, PW28 Zakir Hussain ( complainant), PW30 Zarina, PW35 Rahisan. All the witnesses have stated in a consistent and confident manner that accused Haseen had firstly caught hold of complainant Zakir and accused Shameen assaulted on his head with iron pipe and when deceased Jahoor Khan came to save the complainant, he was hit by means of iron rod on his head by accused Shameen and by means of danda by accused Azad @ Lalu. The deceased was an old man and both these injuries proved fatal to him. It is evident from S.C.No. 34/07 Page 24 of 38 pages 25 postmortem report EXPW41/A that besides receiving other injuries, three head injuries sustained by deceased and haemorragic shock were sufficient to cause death. It has also been confirmed therein that injuries were possible by means of wooden and iron rod. In this way, the ocular evidence has been corroborated by the medical evidence and it is established that assault caused by accused Shameen and Azad on the head of the deceased proved fatal. On evaluation of crossexamination of the witnesses of occurrence, I find that they have been consistent and cogent in their depositions and no discrepancies have emerged so as to discredit their testimony. Although the witnesses of the occurrence have been related to the deceased but their statements are truthful and consistent and it is established that accused Azad and shameen sharing common intention assaulted the deceased.
59. However, facts and circumstances as surfaced on the record reveal that accused Shameen and Azad were involved in sudden quarrel with the complainant and the deceased. It is in such cases that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC comes into play. It indicates that culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in instant fight in the heat of fashion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The explanation to this provision provides that it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or continues the first assault.
S.C.No. 34/07 Page 25 of 38 pages 26
60. In the present case, it is clearly evident that two groups had quarreled and assaulted the members of each other. Firstly, there was a quarrel in the afternoon with the result that in the evening exchange of abuses took place followed by the assault from both the sides. Accused persons do not appear to have preplanned and executed the attack. It is not disputed that members of both the groups sustained injuries in the incident. The events relate to the origin of the quarrel in the afternoon which further aggravated and resulted in the subsequent major incident. The supreme court in Shaikh Majid & anr. V. State of Maharashtra & Ors 2008(114)CRI. J 1062SC explained the true position on this aspect as follows: ''For bringing in operation of Exception 4 to S. 300 IPC it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
The Fourth Exception to S. 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first Exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The Exception is founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But while in the case of Exception I there is total deprivation of selfcontrol, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There is provocation in Exception 4 as in Exception I; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A '' sudden fight'' S.C.No. 34/07 Page 26 of 38 pages 27 implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. the homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception I. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. As fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is then mutual provocation and aggravation and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight ; (c)without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the ''fight'' occurring in Exception 4 to S. 300 IPC is not defined in IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and that there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The expression '' undue advantage'' as used in the provision means '' unfair advantage''.
In Mahesh V State of Madhya Pradesh 1996(102) CRLJ 4112SC, the Supreme Court explained the position as under:
''At the spot, there was an altercation between the parties and in the sudden fight after the deceased objected to the grazing of the cattle, when possibly hot words or even abuses S.C.No. 34/07 Page 27 of 38 pages 28 were exchanged between the parties, the appellant gave a single blow with the pharsa on the head of the deceased. The statement of the appellant and the suggestions given on his behalf to the prosecution witnesses that there was an attempt to assault the deceased with a Parena, which was with the deceased, does not appear to be improbable.
Thus, placed as the appellant and the deceased were at the time of occurrence, it appears to us that the appellant assaulted the deceased in that sudden fight and after giving him one blow took to his heals. He did not cause any other injury to the deceased and therefore it cannot be said that he acted in any cruel or unusual manner. Admittedly, he did not assault. PW2 or PW6 who were also present alongwith the deceased and who had also requested the appellant not to allow his cattle to graze in the field of PW1. This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation. In this fact situation, we are of the opinion that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is clearly attracted to the case of the appellant and the offence of which the appellant can be said to be guilty would squarely fall under section 304 ( Part1) IPC. The trial court, under the circumstances, was justified in convicting him for the said offence and the High court, in our opinion fell in error in interfering with it and that too without dispelling any of the reasons given by the trial court. the judgment of the High court convicting the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC cannot be sustained and we accordingly set it aside and instead convict the appellant for the offence under section 304 ( PartI) IPC. ''
61. On consideration of testimony of the ocular witnesses, crime team report and the testimony of police officials, I find that accused persons were not having the intention to kill the deceased, although knowledge can be attributed to them for causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Offence of section 302 IPC was added by the IO on the basis of the S.C.No. 34/07 Page 28 of 38 pages 29 report lodged by PW30 Zarina. On perusal of the said complaint, I find that it has been later on manipulated to bring the case within the ambit of section 302 IPC. The facts and circumstances mentioned in this report are not corroborated in material particulars in the first information report or in the testimony of the witnesses. I therefore conclude that the accused Shameen and Azad @ Lalu being responsible for assaulting the deceased and causing his death are liable for the offence punishable u/s 304II IPC.
62. So far as accused Haseen and Aziz Khan are concerned, it cannot be said that they shared common intention with accused Shameen and Azad for causing the death of deceased Jahoor Khan. The role attributed to accused Haseen has been that he firstly caught hold of complainant Zakir Hussain by his waist while accused Shameen gave blow with iron rod on his head. There is no allegation that Haseena caused any assault on the person of deceased. Similarly, there are no allegations against accused Aziz Khan for assaulting the deceased Jahoor Khan. Although, it is stated by PW 17 Haseena that accused Aziz & Haseen had hit Jahoor Khan when he fell down but no such fact is appearing either in the FIR or in the testimony of complainant. The imprisonment made by PW17 Haseena cannot be given any importance.
63. Section 34 IPC lays down the principle of joint liability in the doing of a criminal act. The essence of that liability is to be found in the existence of common intention leading to the criminal act which implies acting in concert, existing of S.C.No. 34/07 Page 29 of 38 pages 30 prearranged plan. The common intention can be formed prior to or during the course of occurrence. In the present case, accused Aziz and Haseen have done no overt act with regard to assaulting the deceased. Therefore, they could share no intention to cause such bodily injury to the deceased as is sufficient to cause his death. They have not participated in the commission of the offence at the hands of other two accused Shameen and Azad therefore the principle of joint liability cannot be extended to them.
64. The accused Shameen had the reason to assault complainant Zakir in view of incident of afternoon since Zakir was related to Meen Khan. Accused Shameen and Azad took active role in assaulting the deceased when he came forward to save Zakir and gave blows on his vital body parts. The prosecution witnesses have named accused Azad and Shameen for assaulting deceased and they have also named Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain (since proclaimed offenders), but nowhere the witnesses have named accused Aziz Khan and Haseen for assaulting the deceased at any point of time during the incident. The prosecution has failed to bring any evidence whether direct or circumstantial against accused Haseen & Azad to the effect that attack was prearranged or the common intention came to fore on the spur of moment during the incident. Therefore they cannot be held guilty for the offence of causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Although PW30 Zarina has deposed that all the accused persons had beaten her father but there is no S.C.No. 34/07 Page 30 of 38 pages 31 corroboration from other witnesses on this aspect. The deceased died due to head injuries and same has been specifically attributed to accused Shameen, Azad and also Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain. Therefore, in the absence of specific allegations, accused Aziz & Haseen cannot be said to have possessed common intention to commit culpable homicide.
65. The next charge against all the accused persons is for causing grievous injuries to Rahisan. According to medical report of Rahisan, she sustained fracture of femur. Her medical reports are dated 10.7.07 whereas the incident is of 24.6.07. Her statement u/s 161 CrPC was also recorded on 10.7.07 wherein she stated that she was hit by means of iron rod by accused Shameen on her hips. She is related to the deceased and the complainant. There is no explanation as to why she was not medically examined on the day of occurrence itself and why her statement was not recorded on the day of occurrence or shortly thereafter with respect to the incident if she was present there. The accused persons alongwith complainant and other injured were taken to the hospital by PCR and were medically examined on 24.6.07 itself. However, with respect to Rahisan, there is no record to show that she was taken to hospital from the spot. The prosecution witnesses have also failed to depose specifically about the presence of Rahisan at the spot and resultant injuries to her. PW30 Zarina even stated in her cross examination that she had not seen Rahisan at the spot. In the S.C.No. 34/07 Page 31 of 38 pages 32 circumstances, the presence of Rahisan as well as causing of injury to her by accused Shameen appears to be doubtful. In such circumstances, the offence u/s 325 IPC is not established as against any of the accused persons.
66. Dealing with the charge under Section 323 IPC, there are several injured persons who have sustained simple injuries namely complainant Zakir Hussain, Zarina (daughter of deceased) Sonu (son of deceased), Gulhasan and Rukhsar. The injuries on the person of the complainant Zakir Hussain have been described as caused by accused Haseen and Shameen together in the sense that accused Haseen caught hold of him and accused Shameen gave saria blow on his head. According to the complainant, accused Aziz also gave danda blow in his head. However, prosecution witnesses have not remained consistent on the role played by accused Aziz. Only complainant and his sister Zarina have deposed about giving of danda blow by accused Aziz but other witnesses have not come up with any such version. Moreover, complainant has alleged first assault by Shameen on his head by iron rod and after short interval, second assault by accused Aziz by means of danda whereas MLC of complainant shows only one injury on his head. Therefore, the allegations that Aziz inflicted injuries on the head of the complainant by means of danda does not find corroboration either by oral or documentary evidence. The recovery of danda from the possession of accused Aziz Khan is also doubtful since his signatures are not appearing on the recovery memo. The S.C.No. 34/07 Page 32 of 38 pages 33 complainant stated that Aziz Khan also sustained injuries on his head and was removed to the hospital by PCR Van prior to him. In such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that Aziz Khan had sufficient time to conceal danda at his home. Mere presence of accused Aziz at the spot is not enough to involve him for assaulting the complainant. The prosecution has also failed to explain injuries suffered by accused Aziz Khan. It is admitted by prosecution witnesses that accused got injured in the incident but none of the witnesses have explained how injuries were sustained by him.
67. The injury sustained by Sonu Khan in the incident is specifically explained to have been caused at the hands of accused Haseen. It is specifically stated by prosecution witnesses that accused Haseen gave danda blow on the mouth of Sonu when he came forward to save the deceased. Therefore, accused Haseen is responsible for causing simple injuries to Sonu Khan.
68. Injuries on the person of Bashrin has also been specifically explained as caused by accused Shameen in the morning of 24.6.07. The MLC has also supported the same and all the witnesses have remained consistent on this aspect including injured herself. Therefore, the charge against accused Shameen u/s 323 IPC is also established.
69. Simple injuries have also resulted to Gulhasan and Rukhsar in the incident. According to Gulhasan, he was injured by means of glass bottle and it is alleged that all the accused were throwing bricks, stones and bottles in the S.C.No. 34/07 Page 33 of 38 pages 34 incident. It is also the case of the prosecution that injured Rukhsar suffered injuries due to stone pelting in the incident. On the issue of pelting stones, glass bottles etc, I do not find specific evidence as against accused Aziz Khan so as to attribute to him the common intention to cause simple hurt. It is not specifically stated by the witnesses that accused Aziz Khan was throwing such articles. PW20 Gulhasan although hit by pepsi bottle could not see as to who had caused the same. PW21 Rajmal failed to come out with specific version and firstly stated that accused Aziz was throwing stones, bottles and thereafter stated that he did not see stones or glass bottles in hands of accused Aziz. It is also stated by prosecution witnesses that Anardeen and Hasandeen ( not arrested in this case) were also involved in throwing bricks, stones on the complainant and his relatives. Mizaz Khan and Bande Hussain ( proclaimed offenders) have also been attributed role of pelting stones at the spot. The injured Gulhasan and Rukhsar have failed to specifically name accused Aziz Khan being responsible for pelting stones, glass bottles or other articles on them. Aziz Khan himself sustained injuries in the incident and that has not been explained by the prosecution. The witnesses have failed to attribute specific role to Aziz Khan in the incident. Mere presence of accused Aziz Khan cannot make him liable for any of the offences. The principle of common intention also cannot be attributed to him in such circumstances. Therefore, it is doubtful that accused Aziz Khan played any role in causing simple injuries S.C.No. 34/07 Page 34 of 38 pages 35 to the injured persons. Therefore charge u/s 323 IPC has not been proved against him.
70. In the face of testimony of prosecution witnesses, documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to establish the case against accused Shameen and Azad. But they cannot be held guilty u/s 302 IPC. The incident of assault has taken place during the sudden fight and circumstances do not indicate any prior meeting of minds or premeditation to commit such offence. It is however proved that accused Shameen and Azad assaulted deceased Jahoor Khan with the knowledge to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
71. The charge u/s 325 IPC has not been established and sustaining injury by Rahisan in the incident is doubtful.
72. The charge u/s 323 IPC is proved as against accused Shameen, Azad and Haseen as all of them shared common intention and assaulted complainant Zakir Hussain, Zarina, Sonu Khan at the time they came forward to save the deceased. Therefore, they are guilty for the offence u/s 323/34 IPC. The charge u/s 323 IPC is also established against Shameen for causing simple injury to Bashrin in the noon time of 24.6.2007 itself.
73. In view of aforesaid discussions, I hold accused Shameen and Azad guilty u/s 304II IPC read with section 34 IPC and accused Shameen, Haseen and Azad for the offence u/s 323 IPC read with section 34 IPC.
74. Accused Aziz is acquitted of all the charges.
S.C.No. 34/07 Page 35 of 38 pages 36
75. On the point of sentence, accused Haseen has already been in custody for last three and half years. Maximum punishment provided for the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC has already been served by him in jail. He is sentenced to RI for one year U/s 323 IPC. Therefore, he is given benefit u/s 428 CrPC and is ordered to be released, if not required in any other case.
76. For hearing on the point of sentence, accused Azad and Shameen be produced on 20.5.2011.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURTON 16.5.2011.
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DELHI
S.C.No. 34/07 Page 36 of 38 pages
37
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS (NORTH) DELHI SC NO. 34/07 STATE versus
1. Shameen S/o Fida Hussain R/o B624, Kalander Mohalla, Kathputli Colony, Delhi
2. Azad @ Lalu s/o Sh Mizaz Khan, R/o J618, Kalander Mohalla, Kathputli Colony, Delhi, FIR No. : 374/07 Offence U/S : 304(II)/323/34 IPC Police Station : Patel Nagar ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convicts Shameen & Azad @ Lalu in Custody.
Sh. R.P. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for convict Azad @ Lalu. Sh. Satibir Singh, Ld. Counsel for convict Shameen.
I have heard on point of sentence. It is submitted on behalf of convict Shameen that he is 36 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting his wife, 7 minor children and aged mother. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other criminal case. Lenient view is prayed for.
It is submitted on behalf of convict Azad @ Lalu that he is 22 years of age and sole bread winner of his family consisting his S.C.No. 34/07 Page 37 of 38 pages 38 wife and one child. He is not a previous convict nor involved in any other criminal case. Lenient view is prayed for.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, antecedents of the convicts and their family circumstances, I sentence both convicts to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 ½ years (4 years and 6 months) and fine of Rs. 10,000/ each, in default of payment of fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment 4 months each u/s 304 PartII IPC.
I sentence the convicts to rigorous imprisonment for one year u/s 323 IPC.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be also given to both the convicts.
Copy of the Judgment and order on sentence be given to both the convicts.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.05.2011.
(ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
DELHI
S.C.No. 34/07 Page 38 of 38 pages