Delhi District Court
Sant Ram vs State on 8 December, 2017
In the Court of Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam:
Additional Sessions Judge -(03) (East)
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
Criminal Appeal No.: 328/2016
Sant Ram
S/o Late Banu Lal
R/o C-13, Chander Vihar,
Mandawali, Delhi 110 092
...... Appellant
Vs.
State
...... Respondent.
Date of Institution : 19.11.2016
Judgment Reserved on : 06.12.2017
Date of Judgment : 08.12.2017
FIR No. : 508/2010
Police Station : Mandawali
Under Section : 324 IPC
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant has preferred the present criminal appeal against the judgment dated 15.09.2016 and order of sentence dated 27.09.2016 passed by Ld. MM whereby convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him for simple imprison for three months for the said offence with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of ten days. It is also ordered that benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be granted to the appellant.
Crl. Appeal No. 328/2016 Sant Ram Vs. State page 1of 5
2. Notice of the present criminal appeal was issued to the respondent. Trial Court Record was requisitioned.
3. I have heard both parties and scrutinised the record.
4. In order to dispose of the present matter, factual matrix of the case are that Raju lodged a report with the police inter alia alleging therein that on 04.10.2010 at about 10 p.m. while he was taking dinner with his friend Jyoti, accused was also present there and consuming liquor with dinner and then suddenly attacked him on his neck and cheek and fled away from the spot. Police was informed and he was rushed to LBS Hospital. After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed. Ld. trial court framed charge under Sec. 324 IPC against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution, in order to support the prosecution case, examined eight witnesses. Statement of accused was recorded and accused examined two witnesses in his defence. After going through the record, while appreciating the material and evidence, ld. trial court convicted the accused for offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC and sentenced, as mentioned above.
5. By aggrieving the judgment and order on sentence, appellant preferred the present criminal appeal.
6. It is submitted by ld. counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment is against the law. Ld. trial court erred in passing the judgment contending that no independent public witness was there. It is also contended that blood stained clothes were not sent to CFSL and there was no TIP. As such, ld. counsel for the appellant prayed for acquittal of the appellant by setting aside the judgment and order on sentence.
7. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that judgment and order on sentence passed by ld. trial court are well justified and there is no illegality as prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubts. Ld. Addl. PP for the State prayed for upholding the impugned Crl. Appeal No. 328/2016 Sant Ram Vs. State page 2of 5 judgment and order on sentence to administer the criminal justice.
8. Rival submissions have been considered carefully and record has been perused.
9. Regarding the contention of ld. counsel for the appellant that no independent public witness was joined by the prosecution, perusal of the record shows that one Jyoti was there. But, admittedly, he has not supported the prosecution case. Ld. trial court viewed his testimony in the judgment and made observations therein. As such, this contention of the ld. counsel for the appellant has no value in the eyes of law.
10. Ld. counsel for the appellant also argued that TIP proceedings of the accused are not there and this is also fatal to the prosecution. For this, it is clear from the record that parties knew each other before the incident. FIR is by name and as such, there was no need to get the accused identified through TIP proceedings. With this view, court was of the view that there was no force in this contention of the ld. counsel and same to be dismissed outrightly.
11. Qua contention of the ld. counsel that blood stained clothes have not been sent to CFSL, it is to be seen that victim/injured/complainant has clearly deposed about the commission of crime by the accused. Case is merely under Sec. 324 IPC. Admittedly, injuries are there and even accused admitted the injuries on the person of the complainant with liquor bottle. As such, there was no need to send the clothes to CFSL and such, I do not concur with the arguments advanced by ld. counsel.
12. Besides the above, though need not to be mentioned, but affects the case to some extent as is clear from the ordersheret dated 09.08.2011 that accused (appellant herein) was ready to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- to the injured. Injured submitted that amount of Rs. 70,000/- has been incurred by him for his treatment and on this count settlement could not Crl. Appeal No. 328/2016 Sant Ram Vs. State page 3of 5 be materalised.
13. Ld. trial in the the impugned judgment clearly hold his view and discussed the matter elaborately. I do not find any illegality, perversity or error in the impugned judgment and same deserves to be upheld.
14. Accordingly, judgment dated 15.09.2016 passed by ld. trial court in the present matter is hereby upheld.
15. Qua order on sentence, perusal of the record shows that the incident has been taken place on 04.10.2010. Chargesheet was filed on 06.12.2010. Accused is facing trial for the last seven years. Ld. counsel for the appellant prayed for probation in case judgment is upheld submitted that he is first offender.
16. Court is of the view that release on probation does not obliterate the stigma of conviction. An order of release on probation comes into existence only after the accused is found guilty and is convicted of the offence. Thus, the conviction of the accused or the finding of the Court that he is guilty cannot be washed out at all because that is the sine qua non for the order of release on probation of the offender. The order of release on probation is merely in substitution of the sentence to be imposed by the Court.This has been made permissible by the statute with a humanist point of view in order to reform youthful offenders and to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals. The provisions of Sec. 9(3) of the Act extracted above would clearly show that the control of the bond have been broken by the offender who has been released on probation, the Court can sentence the offender for the original offence. This clearly shows that the factum of guilty on the criminal charge is not swept away merely by passing the order releasing the offender on probation. Under Secs. 3, 4 or 6 of the Act, the stigma continues and the finding of the misconduct resulting in conviction must be treated to be a conclus9ive proof. In these circumstances, therefore, Crl. Appeal No. 328/2016 Sant Ram Vs. State page 4of 5 the argument that the order of the Magistrate releasing the offender on probation obliterates the stigma of conviction cannot be accepted.
17. Considered the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant, having regard to the circumstances of the case including the nature of the offence, character of the offender and year of the incident, it is expedient to release the appellant on probation of good conduct.
18. Hence, with the above discussion, order of sentence dated 27.09.2016 is hereby modified to the extent that appellant namely Sant Ram be released on probation for a period of one year on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the ld. trial court concerned within a week time from today. Besides, the above, it is also ordered that, as required under Sec. 357 CrPC, appellant shall pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be paid to the victim and in default of payment of said amount appellant shall undergo SI for fifteen days. The appellant is directed to comply with the directions of this Court within seven days from today. Ld. trial court is at liberty to take necessary action thereafter.
19. Accordingly, in view of the above, present criminal appeal stands disposed of being partly allowed.
20. A copy of this judgment be placed in the TCR and same be sent to court concerned immediately.
21. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open court Dated : 08th day of December, 2017 (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) Addl. Sessions Judge-03 (East):
KKD Courts, Delhi.
Crl. Appeal No. 328/2016 Sant Ram Vs. State page 5of 5