Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Monu S/O Ashok Kumar, R/O A on 4 May, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, LD. ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0824992008
Sessions Case No. 75/2009
Assigned to Sessions. 03.11.2009
Arguments heard on 20.04.2011
Date of order. 02.05.2011
FIR No. 400/2007
State Vs 1. Monu s/o Ashok Kumar, r/o A
2/422, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
2. Shankar s/o Sheetal Prasad, r/o D
1/377, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
3. Raj Kumar @ Babbu s/o Ashok
Kumar r/o A2/422, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagri
Under Section 323/325/308/341/506/34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagri had filed a challan vide FIR no. 400/2007 dated 10.05.2007 u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Monu, Shankar and Raj Kumar in SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 1/23 the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Trial Court after compliance of section 207 Cr. PC committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that on 10.05.2007 a DD No.29A Ex.PW8/A was recorded at PS Nand Nagri regarding stabbing incident in a quarrel at Loni Gole Chakkar, main bus stand and same was assigned to ASI Rambir Singh. On receipt of DD ASI Rambir Singh along with Ct. Rajender reached at the spot where they came to know that injured has been shifted to GTB Hospital by PCR. ASI Rambir Singh along with Ct. Rajender reached at the hospital and collected MLC of injured Kamal Ex.PW6/A and recorded his statement vide Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW8/B and deputed Ct. Rajender for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No. Ex.PW4/A u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered and during the course of investigation, all the accused persons namely Monu, Shankar and Babbu were arrested and booked for offences u/s 323/325/308/341/506/34 IPC. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 2/23
3. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 24.11.2009 framed a charge against accused persons namely Monu, Shankar and Babbu for the offences punishable u/s 325/308/506/34 IPC to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 09 witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Rajender Singh, PW2 Kamal - injured/complainant, PW3 HC Chhote Lal, PW4 SI Rajvir Singh, PW5 Ct. Devender, PW6 Ravinder Singh, PW7 Dr. Raj Kumar, PW8 ASI Rambir Singh - I.O. and PW9 Dr. Ashish Rustagi.
5. PW1 Ct. Rajender Singh. This witness was declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State. This witness has deposed that he did not recollect date, month and year of the incident, however, on that day he was on emergency duty in the PS. This witness has further deposed that one DD entry number he did not recollect was marked to ASI Rambir for investigation. In the cross SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 3/23 examination by Ld. APP for the state, this witness had deposed all the facts.
6. PW2 Kamal is the material witness being the complainant/injured. This witness has deposed that on 09.05.2007 he was going out from his house and accused Shankar met him on the street and they had some quarrel on the street. This witness has further deposed that on next date i.e. On 10.05.2007 he was going to make telephone call then accused Shankar came along with Monu and Baboo and Monu caught hold him and Shankar instiage Monu and Baboo to beat him and they all hit him with killi (baseball stick) on his head and legs. He fell down and all the three accused persons had beaten him badly. This witness has further deposed that thereafter, some public gathered there and accused persons fled away from spot. This witness has further deposed that his father, Ram Sharan and Shanu came at the spot and they had taken him to hospital where police had recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. This witness had correctly identified all the accused persons namely Monu, Shankar and Raj Kumar @ Baboo in the court. This witness SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 4/23 has correctly identified the stick which is Ex.P1. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that all accused persons had beaten him for about 5 to 10 minutes. Accused Shankar and Monu hit him on his head and Baboo hit him on his neck and Monu caught hold him from behind after causing injury. This witness has admitted that there are three four persons by the name of Shankar in his colony and he had told to the I.O. in his statement that on 09.05.2007 one boy namely Shankar resident of B3, Nand Nagri, Delhi had quarreled with him. This witness has denied that PW Shahnawaj was wanted in so many criminal cases in Delhi but it admits that PW Shahnawaj was killed by some one and his dead body was recovered in U.P. At some place.
7. PW3 HC Chhote Lal. This is the witness of arrest of accused Shankar. Accused Shankar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/A and disclosure statement of accused Shankar Ex.PW3/B was recorded in his presence. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 5/23 Accused Shankar had got recovered one cricket stump from third floor of his house and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C in his presence. In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that accused Shankar was arrested about half kilometer from the police station.
8. PW4 SI Rajvir Singh is a formal witness being the Duty Officer. This witness has recorded FIR Ex.PW4/A of present case for offences u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC and investigation of this case was assigned to ASI Rambir Singh.
9. PW5 Ct. Devender. This witness has joined the investigation of the present case along with ASI Rambir Singh and Monu was arrested from bus stand 212 at the instance of Shahnawaj by IO in his presence. In cross examination by Ld. APP for the state this witness has deposed that accused Monu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and his personal search was SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 6/23 conducted vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW5/B and disclosure statement of accused Monu was recorded vide Ex.PW5/C and one danda was got recovered by accused Monu which was seized vide seziure memo Ex.PW5/D. This witness has identified one cricket wicket which was recovered at the instance of accused Monu which is Ex.P2.
10.PW6 Dr. Ravinder Singh, CMO, GTB Hospital. This witness was deputed by M.S., GTB Hospital on behalf of Dr. Ranjan. This witness has proved the MLC of injured Kamal Ex.PW6/A on behalf of Dr. Ranjan Kumar Singh. This witness has deposed in his deposition that injured was conscious and oriented at the time of examination and injuries were caused by blunt object as mentioned in MLC. In his cross examination, this witness admits that such injuries may be caused in a road accident and the alleged injury may be caused in one minute by one person. This witness further admits that injured was fit to make statement at the time of preparation of MLC. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 7/23
11.PW7 Dr. Raj Kumar, Senior Radiographer, GTB Hospital. This witness has proved the non contrast C.T. Scan report Ex.PW7/A and XRay report Ex.PW7/B of patient Kamal on behalf of Dr. Ali. This witness has deposed that as per noncontrast C.T. Scan report impression was opined as normal study and as per the XRay report No.3915 dated 10.05.2007 fracture on left lower fibula was opined. In his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that as per C.T. Scan report patient was found to be normal and in case of injury in fibula generally they advise rest for one month for recovery of injury. This witness admits that both the aforesaid reports were not prepared in his presence by the doctor nor patient was examined by him.
12.PW8 ASI Rambir Singh is the material witness being IO of this case. This witness has deposed on 10.05.2007 DD No.29A Ex.PW8/a was assigned to him to take action in the matter and on receipt of DD this witness along with Ct. Rajender reached at the spot i.e. A2/99, Nand Nagri, Delhi where they SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 8/23 came to know that injured has already been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, this witness along with Ct. Rajender reached at the GTB Hospital where he collected MLC of injured Ex.PW6/A and this witness had recorded the statement of Kamal Ex.PW1/A and made endorsement Ex.PW8/B and got recorded FIR u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC from PS.
13.This witness had prepared site plan Ex.PW8/C at the instance of PW Shahnawaj. This witness had arrested accused Monu vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A on 11.05.2007 at the instance of eyewitness Shahnawaj Alam @ Shanu and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW5/B and this witness had recorded disclosure statement of accused Monu Ex.PW5/C and accused Monu got recovered weapon of offence i.e. Cricket stump (one wicket) from the place near main gate of his House No.A2/422, Nagri, Delhi and this witness had seized the weapon vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 9/23
14.This witness had arrested accused Shankar Lal vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B on 17.07.2007 on the pointing out of complainant Kamal and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW3/A and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW3/B and accused Shankar got recovered weapon of offence i.e. One danda, length about 3 feet from the roof of 3rd floor of his house No.D1/377, Nand Nagri and this witness had seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C.
15.On 31.08.2007 this witness had formally arrested accused Raj Kumar @ Bablu vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/D when he had produced anticipatory bail order and his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW8/E. This witness had recorded disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar Ex.PW8/F but no recovery could be effected.
16.This witness had recorded statements of PWs from time to time. This witness had collected nature of injury on the MLC of injured Kamal from the doctor and collected XReport Ex.PW7/B, report of C.T. Scan of injured SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 10/23 Ex.PW7/A and brief clinical notes of injured mark XX from the hospital and placed the same on file with XRay plates. This witness had added section 308 IPC in this case on obtaining nature of injury on the MLC of injured from the GTB Hospital.
17.PW9 Dr. Ashish Rustagi. This witness has seen the MLC of patient Kamal Ex.PW6/A on which Dr. R.P. Singh had opined nature of injury as grievous on 08.06.2007 and has proved the encircled portion Ex.PW9/A.
18.After prosecution witness statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein all the accused persons denied all circumstances and evidence were put to them and claimed to be innocent and have been implicated falsely and all accused persons denied to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, matter was fixed for arguments. ARGUMENTS:
19.Ld. APP for state has argued that on the complaint of complainant SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 11/23 Ex.PW2/A FIR No.400/2007 was registered u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC against the accused persons. Ld. APP for the state further argued that all the three accused persons were charged us/ 308/323/341/506/34 IPC. Ld. APP for the State further argued that as per PW2 Kamal, injured, all the three accused persons had beaten him with killi (baseball) on his leg and head, hence all these accused persons are jointly liable. PW2 had correctly identified the accused persons and this is the witness of recovery of stick from accused Shankar. Ld. APP for the State further argued that nature of injury is simple. Ld. APP for the State has further argued that accused Shankar and Monu had hit the injured on his head as vital part of the body and accused Raj Kumar @ Baboo had hit the injured on his neck. PW3 is the witness of recovery from accused Shankar and his arrest. PW5 is the witness of arrest of accused Monu and recovery of weapon i.e. Baseball from accused Monu. Ld. APP for State has further argued that no recovery has been made from accused Raj Kumar @ Baboo and he was arrested on anticipatory bail. PW7 Dr. Raj Kumar has deposed on behalf of Dr. Ali that CT Scan report impression are normal. PW9 Dr. Ashish Rustagi had opined SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 12/23 the nature of injury as grievous. Hence, Ld. APP for the State has prayed to convict the accused persons under the section for which they have been charged.
20.On other hand Ld. defence counsel for accused persons argued that baseball stick and killi are not similar as claimed by the complainant by which he had been allegedly beaten. ld. Counsel for accused persons further submits that complainant in his statement admitted that there are 3 to 4 persons in the name of Shankar in his locality. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that PW2 Kamal, complainant, in his examination in the court states that he was going to make a telephone call wherein statement to police he states that he was standing outside of his house. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that in his examination he states that accused Monu caught hold him whereas in statement to police this witness states that accused Baboo had caught hold him from his waist and this witness further states that he had gone to spot with the police and had identified the accused Shankar in P.S. Whereas Shankar was brought by police where he identified him there. Ld. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 13/23 Defence counsel has further submitted that PW2 states that he had seen accused Shankar in P.S. after the incident and he does not know from where police arrested the accused Shankar. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that complainant admits that it is correct that he had told the Investigating Officer that accused Shankar resides in 3B, Nand Nagri who had quarreled with him on 09.05.2007. Ld. Defence counsel has further argued that further in cross examination u/s 311 Cr.P.C. complainant/PW2 states that he was running his business from the pavement of DBlock near Mandoli Chungi and incident took place in Gali of block No.A2 near Tikona Park, Nand Nagri whereas site plan does not disclose Tikona Park or BBlock, only A Block has been shown. Ld. Counsel for accused persons further argued that PW Shahnawaj in his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. states that he had gone to PS for his some urgent work where he had identified accused Raj Kumar @ Baboo s/o Ashok Kumar. Again this witness u/s 161 Cr.P.C. states that he had identified accused Monu who has been arrested from 212 Bus Stand whereas PW3 HC Chhote Lal states in his cross examination that accused Shankar was arrested from place at half kilometers from P.S. Ld. Defence SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 14/23 counsel has further argued that in his cross examination PW5 Ct. Devender states the complainant is Shahnawaj whereas the complainant in the present case is Kamal and in MLC no depth of injury has been mentioned.
21.Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Ramesh and others Vs. State, 2010 (1) LRC 270 (Del)," where it has been held that :
"Merely because an injury found on head, it cannot be said that such an injury caused with intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder Nature of injury coupled with circumstances in which the same had been caused shows that there was no intention or knowledge on part of accused to cause such injuries which would have resulted in death of injured - ingredients of S. 308/34 IPC not attracted - Conviction altered from S. 308/34 to one under S. 323/34 IPC and appellants directed to be released on probation."
22.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further argued that IO ASI Rambir Singh states that he reached at house of Monu at 5:30 p.m. And again he states that he reached at the house of accused Monu at 9:30 p.m. And again SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 15/23 said that he left the house of Monu at 7:30 p.m.
23.Ld. counsel for accused persons has further argued that PW6 Dr. Ravinder singh never states that injury to PW Kamal was grievous or endanger to life.
24.Ld. counsel for accused persons has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as "Pokhar Singh & Another Vs. State, 2010 (3) JCC 1600," where it has held that :
" Also the injury on the right hand of the complainant cannot be said the injury endangers to life Thus charge of grievous hurt not made out."
25. Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that no case is pending against any of the accused persons except the present case. On this ground, Ld. Counsel for accused persons prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons from the charges.
SC No.75/2009
State Vs. Monu and others 16/23
26.Argument heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that DD No.29A Ex.PW8/A was recorded regarding causing of stabbing in a quarrel and on further perusal of record it is revealed that accused persons have caused injuries to the victim by killi/baseball stick as per seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW5/D. It is further revealed that MLC of injured Kamal shows the nature of injury is simple. MLC or medical treatment documents does not reflect that injured was disfigured or advised for twenty days rest due to pain in terms of section 320 IPC which refers to grievous injury. A mere blunt as per MLC it cannot be presumed that injury was grievous.
27.On perusal of record, it is revealed that on the statement of PW2 Kamal Ex.PW1/A, FIR No. 400/2007 Ex.PW4/A u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was registered and all the accused persons namely Monu, Shankar and Babbu were arrested and booked for offences u/s 323/325/308/341/506/34 IPC. SC No.75/2009
State Vs. Monu and others 17/23
28.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW2 Complainant Kamal who had sustained injuries and had correctly identified all the accused persons as culprits. However, it is clear that there was a quarrel between complainant and accused persons and in that quarrel complainant had sustained injuries. PW6 Dr. Ravinder Singh has proved the MLC of injured as Ex.PW6/A and PW9 Dr. Ashish Rustagi has proved the endorsement Ex.PW9/A upon the MLC Ex.PW6/A on behalf of Dr. R.P. Singh and nature of injury has been opined as grievous. Since MLC of injured PW2 Kamal does not suggest that nature of injury was grievous. Mere saying by the doctor that nature of injury was grievous cannot be counted without its corroboration.
29.It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that in case of conviction of accused persons the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point has observed in a case titled as 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP AIR 1990 SC SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 18/23 1459' that:
"'Reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man The 'reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words 'proof', disproved' and 'not proved' lays down the standard of proof, namely about the existence or nonexistence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, 'believe it to exist' and secondly in which, though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the court believes that it does not exist or considers its non existence so probable in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved, i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'."
Now the sole question arises as to whether the injuries suffered by the accused persons were caused with the intention to cause attempt the culpable homicide with such intention or knowledge and in this regard section 308 IPC is reproduced as under :
Section 308 IPC "308 Attempt to commit culpable homicide - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 19/23 may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." Ingredients of offence under this sections are
1. Accused commited an act;
2. The act was committed with the intention or knowledge of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder;
3. The act was committed in such circumstances that if the accused by that had caused the death of the victim he would be held guilty for culpable homicide.
30.Theme of section 308 IPC is that injury must have been caused with such intention and knowledge which may cause death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and circumstances in which accused had caused the death of victim he would be guilty of culpable homicide.
31.Since the present case has been registered on DD No.29A dated 10.5.2007 regarding stabbing in a quarrel and further the facts of the present case disclosed that injuries caused by cricket stumps (killi) and baseball stick upon the head and leg of the complainant and on neck and MLC suggest that nature of injury is simple however, it reflects only simple injury which has been sustained in the quarrel. It is a human nature that in a quarrel one tried to save himself from injury and in the present case complainant has been SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 20/23 disputed at one place, PW5 described Shahnawaj as a complainant whereas the complainant is PW2 Kamal in the present. For bring the case under section 308 IPC it is necessary that injury must have been caused with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstance that if death is caused he would be held guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
32.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgement "Desh Raj Vs. Kewal Krishan and others, CRL. Rev. P.544/2001," has held that :
"Court had gathered the intention and knowledge on the part of the accused person from this oral and ocular versions of PW1 and Pw2 as also the manner in which the assault had taken place ; the part of the body on which the injury had been caused. The fact that the only one injury had been suffered by the victim; the fact that all the three accused persons were armed with three separate weapons i.e. a danda, an iron rod and a thapi yet the injury was a single blunt blow on the scalp of Desh Raj; had the accused persons the criminal intention to cause death they could have caused the death and injuries would have been in the plural and would have been on other vital parts of the body as well. The single simple blow injury suffered by Desh Raj had led the Court to conclude that the offence made out against the accused persons is one under Section 323 of the IPC".SC No.75/2009
State Vs. Monu and others 21/23
33.This court is also of the view that since the complainant Kamal had sustained one simple blunt on his head and sustained no injury on the vital part of his body. It is clear from the acts of accused persons that they acted without knowledge and intention to cause death of complainant. If they had any such intention they would have caused multiple injury on his vital part of body. It is not necessary that nature of the injury suffered by a victim may always be true test to determine the offence committed by accused persons.
34.Since injuries caused to complainant Kamal is simple in nature and recovery of weapon of offences i.e. Killi and baseball stick has been made from the possession of accused persons namely Shankar and Monu. Since quarrel had taken place all of sudden hence it cannot be said that there was any knowledge or intention on part of accused persons to commit culpable homicide.SC No.75/2009
State Vs. Monu and others 22/23
35.Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court of the view that prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt for the offence u/s 308/34 IPC as ingredients of these sections do not meet out.
36.However, fact of quarrel and injury have been proved by the prosecution which is simple in nature. Accordingly, this court hereby alter the charges u/s 308 /34 IPC to 323/34 IPC and hold all the accused persons guilty under section 323/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 02.05.2011 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ North - East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 23/23 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, LD. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 0I : North East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS:
DELHI.FIR No. 400/2007
State Vs 4. Monu s/o Ashok Kumar, r/o A2/422, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
5. Shankar s/o Sheetal Prasad, r/o D 1/377, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
6. Raj Kumar @ Babbu s/o Ashok Kumar r/o A2/422, Nand Nagri, Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagri Convicted under 323/34 IPC Section ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE 04.05.2011 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Convict persons are on bail. Sh. A.A. Khan, Ld. Counsel for convicts.
During the course of argument ld. Counsel for convict persons submits that they are very poor persons and there is no previous criminal antecedents against any of them. They submits that they are facing trial since 2007 and they have learnt a lesson that how to live in a civilized society. They undertake that they would not repeat such type of offence in future and they will live peacefully in the society. Ld. Counsel for convicts further submits that convict SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 24/23 Shankar and Monu have been remained in JC for about 10 days and convict Raj Kumar @ Baboo who had been formally arrested on anticipatory bail. Ld. Counsel for convict further stated that convict belongs to a poor family and he is having responsibility of their families. Ld. Counsel for convicts has requested for lenient view and requested to release the convicts for the sentence already undergone against the convicts.
Contrary to the submissions of ld. counsel for the convict, Ld. APP submits that since the offence has been proved against the accused persons under section 323 IPC. They must be sentenced according to provisions of law to teach a lesson to such uncivilized persons.
Keeping in view the present scenario and the fact that the convicts are of young age and have remained in JC for about 10 days and convicts are having responsibility their families. The ends of justice will meet if convicts are sentenced to a period of undergone and fine of Rs.1,000/ each for offence u/s 323/34 IPC in default convicts will undergone S.I for one month. Fine of Rs.1,000/ from each of convict paid. Accordingly, convicts are released on undergone by giving them benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C.
In terms of section 437 A Cr.P.C. and directions of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi convicts namely Monu, Shankar and Raj Kumar @ Baboo are directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of six months. Orders accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
SC No.75/2009
State Vs. Monu and others 25/23 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 04.05.2011 (Ramesh Kumar - II) ASJ01/N.E. KKD Courts/Delhi. SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 26/23 SC No.75/2009 State Vs. Monu and others 27/23