Delhi District Court
Surender Kumar vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SURINDER KUMAR SHARMA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE05, EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
Crl. Appeal No. 198/2019
1. Surender Kumar
S/o Sh. Jawahar Lal
2. Smt. Rajni w/o Sh. Surender Kumar
3. Smt. Guddi w/o Sh. Surender Kumar
All R/o H.No.228, Gali No. 5
West Kanti Nagar, Delhi110051. ........Appellants
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi .........Respondent
Date of Assignment : 05.12.2019
Date of Arguments : 11.12.2019
Date of Judgment : 19.12.2019
JUDGMENT
1. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the impugned Judgment of Conviction dated 26.07.2017 passed by Sh. Dheeraj Mittal, Ld. M.M.(East), Karkardooma, Delhi and order on Sentence dated 18.09.2017 passed by Ms. Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 1 of 9 Mahima Rai, Ld. MM (East) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, in FIR No. 51/08, P.S. Krishna Nagar, under Section 323/324/34 IPC. Vide the impugned judgment dated 26.07.2017, the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and vide the impugned order on Sentence dated 18.09.2017 the appellants were sentenced.
2. The appeal is accompanied with the application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
3. The appellants being aggrieved with the said Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence have challenged the same on various grounds.
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal, as revealed from the record, are as under: Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 2 of 9
4. The appellants herein are the accused persons/convicts before the Ld. Trial Court. The allegations against the appellants are that on 17.02.2008 at about 3.15 p.m. the complainant was washing clothes at her room. The accused Surender (Appellant No. 1) along with his wives (Appellant Nos. 2 and 3) entered her room and started beating her with sticks/ dandas. Accused Surender caused injury with a blade on her head. On completion of the investigation, Charge sheet was filed against the appellants (accused persons before the Ld. Trial Court) under Section 324/34 IPC. Charge was framed against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323/324/34 IPC. After conducting trial, vide orders dated 26.07.2017 and 18.09.2017, appellants were convicted and sentenced.
5. I have heard Sh. S.K.Jha, Ld. Counsel for the appellants and Sh. Gaurav Pandey, Ld. Addl. PP for the State on the Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 3 of 9 application for condonation of delay. I have also perused the file and the Trial Court Record.
6. It was contended by the Ld. Counsel for appellants that the appellants could not file the present appeal within the limitation period as the counsel engaged by the appellants previously assured them that he had filed the appeal against the impugned orders. The appellants were under the impression that the appeal has been filed by their Advocate. Thus, they had gone to their native place and did not appear in the Ld. Trial Court. Later on, they were declared Proclaimed Offender by the Ld. Trial Court. It was contended that the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned, in the interest of justice.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the appeal is time barred and no sufficient and cogent reason has been assigned for condonation of delay. It Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 4 of 9 was contended that for seeking condonation of delay, the delay of each and every day has to be satisfactorily explained. It was also submitted that the appeal is without any merit and the same deserves dismissal. It was submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order on Sentence is appropriate and do not require any interference by this Court.
8. The perusal of the Trial Court record shows that the appellants were convicted and sentenced, vide the impugned orders dated 26.07.2017 and 18.09.2017 respectively. On 18.09.2017, the case was fixed for 23.10.2017 for apprising the Trial Court about the status of the appeal, if any, but none had appeared for the appellants/convicts on that date. Thus, NBWs were issued against them. On 03.11.2017, the appellants appeared before the Ld. Trial Court and apprised the Court that they had filed appeal against the Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence and same was listed Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 5 of 9 before Sh. Pulatysaya Pramachala, Ld. ASJ for 10.11.2017, but no documents were filed by the appellants in support of their submission. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 06.11.2017. On 06.11.2017, appellants/convicts did not appear before the Ld. Trial Court. So the NBWs were issued against the appellants. The perusal of the file shows that NBWs were issued against the appellants several times, but could not be executed. Ultimately, on 21.10.2019, the appellants were declared Proclaimed Offenders by the Ld. Trial Court. On 03.12.2019, the appellants were produced before the Ld. Trial Court, vide Kalandra under Section 41.1
(c) Cr.P.C. Sh. S.K.Jha, Advocate also appeared on that date along with appellants. The appellants were sent to Judicial Custody as they could not produce any supporting documents qua the appeal.
9. The perusal of the record shows that after their conviction and order on Sentence, the appellants stopped appearing in Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 6 of 9 the Trial Court. Once they appeared in the Trial Court on 03.11.2017 and they made false statement in the Court that their appeal was pending for 10.11.2017 before Sh. Pulatysaya Pramachala, Ld. ASJ. Thereafter, they did not appear in the Trial Court for two years nor they filed appeal. This conduct is not desirable.
10. The appellants are seeking condonation of delay that their previous counsel misrepresented them that the appeal had been filed. In the present appeal, Sh. S.K.Jha Advocate is appearing for the appellants and perusal of the record shows that on 03.11.2017 when the convicts appeared before the Trial Court and stated that their appeal was pending in the Court of Sh. Pulatysaya Pramachala, Ld. ASJ for 10.11.2017, the same counsel Sh. S.K.Jha Advocate was present with the convicts on 03.11.2017 in the Trial Court. Despite knowing about the fact that NBWs have been against them, the convicts did not prefer any appeal against the judgment of Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 7 of 9 conviction and order on sentence. Rather, they stopped coming to the Court and ultimately they were declared Proclaimed Offender. The accused persons did not appear in the Court for almost two years. As discussed above, their conduct is not desirable. There is no ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The application filed by the appellants for condonation of delay is without any merit and the same is dismissed.
11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal being highly time barred is not maintainable and the same is dismissed accordingly. Therefore, impugned Judgment of conviction and order on Sentence are upheld.
12.The copy of this Judgment be sent to the Ld. Trial Court along with Trial Court Record.
Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 8 of 9 13.The Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Digitally signed by SURINDER SURINDER KUMAR KUMAR SHARMA Date: 2019.12.19 SHARMA (This judgment has been typed directly by the PA on my dictation) 16:37:07 +0530 Announced in the Open Court (Surinder Kumar Sharma) on 19.12.2019 ASJ05, East District KKD Court, Delhi Crl. Appeal No.198/19 Surender & Ors. Vs. State 9 of 9