Delhi District Court
Satish Kumar Etc vs State on 20 August, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04
NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
CNR No. DLNT01-001757-2023
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 40/2023
PS Shahbad Dairy
1. SATISH KUMAR
S/o Sh. Sultan Singh,
R/o H. No.202, Near Jat Choupal,
Naya Bansa, Delhi-110082.
2. RAKESH
S/o Late Sh. Nafe Singh,
R/o H. No.242, Near SDM Office,
Naya Bansa, Delhi-110082.
3. POONAM
W/o Sh. Satish Kumar,
R/o H. No.202, Near Jat Choupal,
Naya Bansa, Delhi-110082.
.....Appellants
VS.
THE STATE
(N.C.T. OF DELHI)
.....Respondent
Date of institution of appeal : 22.02.2022
Date on which judgment pronounced : 20.08.2024
Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20
CA No. 40/2023 16:18:20 Page No. 1 of 11
+0530
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, this Court shall dispose of the present appeal filed by appellants namely Satish Kumar, Rakesh and Poonam under section 374 (3) Cr.P.C. against judgment of conviction dated 01.04.2021 (hereinafter referred to as impugned judgment ) and Order on sentence dated 31.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as impugned order on sentence) passed by the Court of Ld. MM-5, North-District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Ld. Trial Court ) in Case bearing No. 5294157/16, FIR No.812/2015, PS Shahbad Dairy, U/s. 323/341/34 IPC in case titled as 'State Vs. Satish Kumar & Ors.' wherein prayer for setting-aside the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 and impugned Order on Sentence dated 31.01.2023 has been made.
2. Being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Order on Sentence, the appellant has moved the present appeal on the following grounds :-
(i) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the appellants was falsely implicated in the case and that the prosecution has failed to prove its present case against the appellant beyond doubts.
(ii) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the judgment of the conviction recorded by the Ld. Digitally Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State signed by CA No. 40/2023 SUSHIL Page No. 2 of 11 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 16:18:28 +0530 Trial Court is contrary to law and the facts framed on record and weight of evidence.
(iii) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the police officials willingly, knowingly intentionally and deliberately flouted the provisions of the code of criminal procedure simply to rope the innocent appellants.
(iv) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses.
(v) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because all the witness are the police witness and the interested witnesses which creates a great suspicion on the prosecution story.
(vi) That the Ld. Trial Court did not appreciate the fact that there was a cross, as the Poonam is the accused in the present appeal in FIR No.812/15 on dated 10.07.2015 PS Shahbad Dairy and according to FIR question was happened on dated 09.07.2015 time about 06:30 PM in this, FIR the complainant in Santra Devi. Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 CA No. 40/2023 16:18:37 Page No. 3 of 11 +0530
(vii) That the complainant is Poonam of the FIR No.811/15 PS Shahbad Dairy on dated 10.07.2015 at the time of about 06:45 PM against the son of Santra Devi namely Deepak and Tirath Ram S/o Rajpal Singh R/o: H. No.205, Near Jat Chaupal, Naya Bans Delhi in U/s 323/341/354/34 IPC.
(viii) The FIR No.812/15 is planted upon the appellants namely Satish S/o Sh. Sultan Singh, Poonam W/o Sh. Satish and Rakesh S/o Late Nafe Singh lodged by Santra Devi to save her son Deepak and Tirath Ram.
(ix) That when the complainant Santra Devi in FIR No.812/15, the alleged incident was not happened, she is saying in her statement that her son is not present in the village, they were reading in Sadik Nagar and after incident, I called his sons and they come at Naya Bansa and taken the complainant before the Hospital. That alleged incident was not happened as the said Santra Devi has taken the benefit of her age as she is Senior Citizen and has lodged the false FIR against the innocent appellants.
(x) That the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellants are having clear and clear antecedents and have Digitally signed by SUSHIL SUSHIL KUMAR Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State CA No. 40/2023 KUMAR Date:2024.08.20 Page No. 4 of 11
16:18:43 +0530 never been convicted by any Court of law and are the bread winner of their family.
(xi) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the same is based on the presumptions and assumptions not relevant to the facts of the case. That the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside because admittedly the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and is not complete in the case. That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the judgment of the Ld. Trial Court is otherwise based on conjectures and surmises.
(xii) That the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside because the Ld. Trial Court erred in law in convicting the appellant under section 323/341/34 IPC
3. It has been prayed on behalf of appellants that impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court are contrary to the law and facts on record and therefore, the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 and order on sentence dated 31.01.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court may kindly be set-aside.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20
Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State
16:18:48
CA No. 40/2023 +0530 Page No. 5 of 11
4. On the other hand, Ld. Additional PP for State/ Respondent has opposed the contentions raised by Ld. Counsel for appellant and submits that the impugned judgment as well as order on sentence have been passed by Ld. Trial Court after considering the testimonies of Prosecution Witnesses including material witnesses and that the same has not been passed arbitrarily. He has opposed the present appeal vehemently and he has prayed that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed.
5. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced on behalf of ld. Counsel for the appellant/accused as well as Ld. APP for State/Respondent. This Court has also perused the record.
6. In the present case, Trial Court record has also been summoned. Perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that vide order dated 25.10.2016, charge was framed against appellants / accused persons namely Satish Kumar, Rakesh and Poonam for the offences punishable under section 323/341/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that in order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total five (05) witnesses. After closing of prosecution evidence, the appellants/accused persons were examined under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code, wherein they pleaded false implication and Digitally Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State signed by CA No. 40/2023 SUSHIL Page No. 6 of 11 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 16:18:53 +0530 innocence. Appellants / accused persons chose not to lead defence evidence.
7. Perusal of the Trial Court Record further shows that after hearing final arguments, Ld. Trial Court convicted appellants/accused persons namely Satish Kumar, Poonam and Rakesh Maan for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 IPC vide its impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 and vide impugned order on sentence dated 31.01.2023, Ld. Trial Court sentenced all three appellants/accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and fine of Rs.1,000/- each I.D.S.I for two days. Further, all three appellants/accused persons to were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under section 341 IPC, I.D.S.I for two days.
8. In the present case, perusal of the Trial Court Record shows that the star witness of the prosecution is PW-1 / Complainant Ms. Santara Devi on whose statement the present FIR has been registered. Perusal of her testimony made before Ld. Trial Court shows that she has categorically deposed that on 09.07.2015 at about 06:30 PM, when she reached near her house, all three appellants/accused persons namely Satish Kumar, Rakesh Maan @ Bholu and Poonam caught hold her and after wrongfully restraining her, they started beating her mercilessly. She has further deposed that they had hit her on her Digitally Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State signed by CA No. 40/2023 SUSHIL Page No. 7 of 11 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 16:19:08 +0530 abdomen also and thereafter, left her in an injured condition at the spot. PW-1 has been cross-examined at length, however, nothing damaging her veracity could be elicited from her. Thus, her testimony is reliable and free from any contradiction. The other witnesses have also testified on the lines of prosecution story and they have also corroborated the testimony of PW-1.
9. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of considered view that the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court is well reasoned and free from any kind of illegality, infirmity or perversity. Therefore, no interference is warranted and the impugned judgment dated 01.04.2021 is accordingly upheld.
10. Coming now to the impugned order on sentence dated 31.01.2023 whereby Ld. Trial Court has sentenced all the three appellants/accused persons to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen days and fine of Rs.1,000/- each I.D.S.I for two days. Further, all three appellants/accused persons were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each for the offence punishable under section 341 IPC, I.D.S.I for two days. Ld. Trial Court has also directed the appellants/accused persons to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- jointly to the victim, in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi given in case titled as 'Karan v State' Crl. A.352/2020 decided on 27.11.2020 and further, directed the appellants/accused Digitally Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State signed by SUSHIL CA No. 40/2023 Page No. 8 of 11 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 16:19:13 +0530 persons to pay expenses of Rs.9,110/- for the expenses incurred by state on prosecution of the present case.
11. It has been argued on behalf of all three appellants/accused persons that they have never been committed by any Court in past. It is further argued that all the three convicts have family including children and old aged parents and they are of young age, therefore, lenient view may kindly be taken in favour of them and they may kindly be released on Probation by giving benefit of Probation of Offender's Act, 1958. On the other hand, Ld. Addl PP for state has submitted that the punishment given vide impugned order on sentence is sufficient and present appeal is without any merit, therefore, same may kindly be dismissed with respect to the impugned order on sentence.
12. After considering the submissions made by Ld. Addl PP for state and Ld. Counsel for all three appellants / accused persons as well as keeping in view of the fact that all three convicts are first time offenders, they have a family to maintain and they are of young age, this Court is of view that no purpose would be served by sending the convicts behind the bars. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and over all facts and circumstances of the present case as discussed above and also economic, social and family background of the convicts, impugned order on sentence dated 31.01.2023 is modified to Digitally Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State signed by CA No. 40/2023 SUSHIL Page No. 9 of 11 SUSHIL KUMAR KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20 16:19:18 +0530 the extent that for the offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC, all three convicts are sentenced to be released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offender's Act on furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/ each for a period of one year and to observe good conduct and keep peace and not to indulge in any offence during the said period and if they commit any other offence during the said period, they shall be called upon to undergo sentence in this case. It is further made clear that this sentence will not be a disqualification for the convicts in any manner in view of Section 12 of the Probation of Offender's Act.
13. In addition to the above and in view of the guidelines of various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court of India as well as Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, the ends of justice would meet, if the impugned order on sentence is modified to the extent that all three convicts shall jointly pay compensation amounting to Rs.21,000/- which shall be borne all three convicts to the Complainant equally and jointly.
14. The present appeal stands disposed of with these observations and Trial Court Record be sent back alongwith a copy of this Judgment with the directions to Ld. Trial Court to ensure that the compensation as directed by this Court is duly paid by all three appellants / convicts. It is clarified that rest of the impugned order on sentence shall remain as it is.
Digitally signed by SUSHIL Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State SUSHIL KUMAR CA No. 40/2023 KUMAR Date: Page No. 10 of 11 2024.08.20 16:19:23 +0530
15. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
16. Copy of this order be given to both the parties at free of cost.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHIL
SUSHIL KUMAR
KUMAR Date:
2024.08.20
Pronounced in open Court 16:19:28
+0530
on this 20th day of August, 2024.
(SUSHIL KUMAR)
Additional Sessions Judge-04
North: Rohini Courts: Delhi.
20.08.2024
Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State
CA No. 40/2023 Page No. 11 of 11