Delhi District Court
Shyam Lal vs State on 3 June, 2024
Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
IN THE COURT OF SH. ALOK SHUKLA, ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR NO. DLET01-011142-2023
Criminal Appeal No. 155/2023
In the matter of:-
Shyam Lal
S/o. Sh. Shantu Ram,
R/o. H.No. 13/409,
Kalyanpuri, Delhi ......Appellant
VERSUS
State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ......Respondent
Date of Institution : 29.08.2023
Date of reserve for Judgment : 31.05.2024
Date of decision : 03.06.2024
JUDGMENT
1. The present Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ convict under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2023 and order on sentence dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Ld. CMM, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in session case no. 4525/2016 arising out FIR no. 88/2014 under Section 324 IPC, PS Kalyan Puri, Delhi, whereby appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and also directed to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 324 IPC and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are that FIR No. 588/14 was registered at PS Kalyan Puri on the basis of the statement CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 1 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Ex.PW2/A of the complainant/injured Sh. Gopi to the effect that on 04.07.2014 at about 9.25 AM at Main Road, Khichripur, Delhi, accused Shyam Lal had caused injuries to him with a knife. The FIR was registered for the offence punishable u/s 324 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC).
3. Investigation was carried out and the final report was filed against the accused Shyam Lal for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC. Accused was summoned and after compliance of section 207 Cr.PC, formal charge for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined four witnesses. PW1 ASI Ram Kishore proved the DD No. 28A dated 04.07.2014, PS-Kalyanpuri Ex. PW1/D and the endorsement Ex.PW1/B on the rukka. He also proved the certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/C and the copy of the FIR No. 588/14, Ex.PW1/A.
5. PW2 Mr Gopi deposed that on 04.07.2014 at about 9:25 AM, when he reached Khichripur Main Road on his motorcycle on his way to Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, wife of the accused Shyam Lal namely Mrs. Deepa met him. He further deposed that while he was demanding the return of the sum of Rs.60,000/-, which he had given on loan to the accused, the accused arrived at the spot and questioned the reason of his conversation with his wife. He further deposed that while he was replying, the accused attacked him causing injuries to his right hand. PCR arrived on someone's call and took him to the LBS Hospital where he was questioned by the police. He went to the police station at about 4 PM where his CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 2 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded. The site plan was prepared at his instance. The bloodstained shirt was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/B. Thereafter the accused was arrested and personally searched vide memo is Ex.PW2/3 and Ex.PW2/D. Witness correctly identified the said shirt Ex. P1. He also correctly identified the knife Ex.P2, further stating that it was the same knife with which accused had caused injuries to his right hand.
6. PW3 HC Rupesh deposed that on 04.07.2014 while he was at beat duty in Khichripur, he received a call from the DO, PS Kalyanpuri regarding the incident of a knife attack at Muthoot Finance, Khichripur. He reached there and met HC Satbir Singh. They came to know that the injured has already been taken to the LBS Hospital. He and the IO reached the spot but no injured met them as he had since been discharged. The IO collected the MLC. At about 3 PM the injured visited the police station and gave his statement to the IO on the basis of which the instant FIR has been registered. The IO thereafter left to the spot with the injured. Witness thereafter reached the spot and gave the copy of the FIR and original rukka to the IO. He deposed that the accused Shyamlal was arrested from his house no. 13/409, Kalyanpuri vide memo Ex.PW2/C and was personally searched vide memo Ex.PW2/D. That at the instance of the accused, the aforesaid knife was recovered from the foot mat inside the room near the bed. He further deposed that the IO had sealed the knife and the bloodstained clothes in his presence. This witness has correctly identified the accused in the court. He also correctly identified the bloodstained clothes Ex. P1 and the knife Ex. P2.
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 3 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
7. PW4 Dr Manoj Teaotia proved the MLC Ex.PW4/A of the complainant Gopi by identifying his signatures at point A and the signatures of Dr Ankush Jain at point B on the same. He also proved the opinion given by Dr Ranver by identifying his signatures on the said MLC. All the witnesses of the prosecution except the PW1 have been cross examined by the Ld Defence counsel.
8. Upon completion of the prosecution evidence the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded and the evidence surfaced against him during the trial was put to him. The accused denied it's correctness and pleaded innocence. The accused opted to lead defence evidence.
9. In his defence, the accused examined his wife, Mrs. Deepa as the witness DW1. She deposed that the complainant Gopi was their neighbor. She further deposed that her husband used to iron clothes from a handcart in the area of Kalyanpuri, while she was working as a manual laborer in Khichripur market. She deposed that she and her husband were tenants in the house of the complainant and during this period, the complainant used to pass lewd comments against her. She deposed when the complainant did not mend his ways, despite several protests, She and her family ultimately vacated the house in the month of March, 2014. She deposed that on 04.07.2014, at about 9.15- 9.30 AM, while she was walking towards his work and reached the main Market, Khichripur, the complainant came on his motorcycle, stopped her and started manhandling her. On her cries, a crowd gathered at the spot and manhandled the complainant. When she left the spot, she saw the public taking the complainant with them. She stated that at CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 4 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) that time her husband was not present there. She further deposed that on the same evening, a few police officers took her husband from their home in addition to a knife from their kitchen alleging that her husband had stabbed Gopi. She deposed that one year thereafter the family members of the complainant gave beatings to her, her husband and children. She made the complaint Mark - DA to the police. She further deposed that the complainant had agreed to settle all the matters, including the present case. She further stated that her husband had also made a complaint Mark - DB against the complainant. She stated that the complainant has filed the instant case against her husband due to previous enmity. She was cross-examined by the Ld. APP for the state.
10. After conclusion trial, Ld. Trial Court found the accused Shyam Lal guilty of committing the offence punishable U/s. 324 IPC and convicted him. Ld. Trial Court opined that in the present case, the complainant has deposed unequivocally about the role of the accused in the injury sustained by him. The accused has been correctly identified by him. The injury has duly been proved by the medical evidence. The defence could not bring out anything from the cross examination of the complainant which could create a doubt about the veracity and authenticity of his testimony. Considering the respective evidence led the parties in a comprehensive manner, there remains no doubt about the guilt of the accused. Ld. Trial Court vide order on sentence dated 07.08.2023 sentenced the convict/appellant to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment and also directed him to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 5 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
11. Appellant was admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bonds each in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one Surety in the like amount as per Section 389 Cr.P.C. and the sentence and fine imposed was suspended. The appellant being aggrieved with the said judgment dated 01.02.2023 and the order of sentence dated 07.08.2023, has preferring the present appeal.
GROUNDS URGED ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
12. It is argued on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. Trial Court has over-looked the evidences of Prosecution's witnesses, in which the witnesses are creating material doubt as to veracity of the entire story of the prosecution. It is submitted that there is no recovery of the weapon from the convicted and the weapon shown to have been allegedly recovered by the police was planted as no sketch of knife has been filed with the charge sheet. It is submitted that there is no signature of Witness Rupesh (Head Constable) upon documents Fard Inksaaf, Fard Makbujgi of Knife, Fard Makbujgi of Gopi (complainant).
13. It is submitted on behalf of the complainant that the complainant used to stalk and harass and humiliate the appellant and his wife and on 2-3 times he stopped the wife of the appellant in public domain and humiliated and insulted her publicly in this regard and the appellant had already registered a complaint vide DD No.41-A against the complainant but the IO did not disclose the fact at any point of time.
14. It is further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that complainant deposed in his chief examination that someone has made call at 100 Number to the police, but the police had never brought the said person as CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 6 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) witness for proving the said fact. It is further submitted that there is no eye witness of the alleged incident. It is submitted that the appellant/convict is only bread earner in his family and his son is suffering from hearing impairment in both ears (71 to 100%). It is further submitted that the wife of the convict is unwell and continuously taking treatment from different hospital.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
15. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2023 and order on sentence dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Ld. CMM, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in session case no. 4525/2016 does not suffer any infirmity and in view of the categorical testimony of the PW2 which is also supported with the medical documents i.e. Ex.PW4/A, the prosecution successfully established its case that the accused Shyam Lal had caused hurt to the complainant by the knife Ex.P2 which is a dangerous weapon.
16. Ld. Counsel for the complainant/injured has argued that the case against the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt from the testimony of the complainant/injured, which is consistent, coherent and probable. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and sentence him to undergo one year imprisonment and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
17. In the present case, FIR was registered on the basis of statement Ex.PW2/A of the PW2 (complainant/injured) given in writing to the police. PW2 in his statement, Ex. PW2/A stated that on 04.07.2014, while he was riding his motorcycle towards Anand Vihar Bus Terminal. At about 9:25 AM, he reached Khichripur CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 7 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Main Road and found Mrs Deepa, wife of the Appellant and demanded the repayment of his loan, the accused arrived at the spot and questioned the reason of his conversation with his wife. He further stated that while he was replying, the accused Shyamlal attacked him causing injuries to his right hand. PCR arrived on someone's call and took him to the LBS Hospital where he was provided the treatment. Subsequently, he gave the said statement Ex.PW2/A to the police in the police station. Complainant/injured was examined as PW2, on 28.05.2019. The testimony of the complainant/injured is consistent with the statement Ex.PW2/A recorded on 04.07.2014. There is no material contradiction or discrepancies between the statement Ex.PW2/A and testimony of PW2, who is the injured witness and his testimony has remained unshaken during cross-examination. The Hon'ble High Court in Saleem Khan v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 15 held as under:
21. Needless to state, Mohd. Yunus was the star witness of the prosecution case, being the complainant who suffered injuries at the time of the incident. The law on appreciation of testimony of an injured witness has been enunciated by the Supreme Court in a catena of decisions, including State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh and Others reported as (2011) 4 SCC 324, where it was held as under:--
"27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 8 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719, Balraje v. State of Maharashtra (2010) 6 SCC 673 and Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259)"
18. Ld. Trial Court has rightly observed that testimony of PW2, which is consistent and reliable and has remained unshaken during cross-examination may be relied upon without corroboration.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164 observed as under:
7. In a given case, the conviction can be based on the testimony of only one eyewitness. The law has been laid down on this behalf by a Bench of three Hon'ble Judges of this Court in Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, 1957 SCC OnLine SC 13 : AIR 1957 SC 614] . In paras 10, 11 and 12 of the said decision, this Court held thus : (AIR pp. 618-19) "10. ... On a consideration of the relevant authorities and the provisions of the Evidence Act, the following propositions may be safely stated as firmly established:
(1) As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character.
(2) Unless corroboration is insisted upon by statute, courts should not insist on corroboration except in cases where the nature of the testimony of the single witness itself requires as a rule of prudence, that corroboration should be insisted upon, for example in the case of a child witness, or of a witness whose evidence is that of an accomplice or of an analogous character.
(3) Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the Judge before whom the case comes.
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 9 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
11. In view of these considerations, we have no hesitation in holding that the contention that in a murder case, the court should insist upon plurality of witnesses, is much too broadly stated. Section 134 of the Evidence Act, has categorically laid it down that 'no particular number of witnesses shall, in any case, be required for the proof of any fact'.
The legislature determined, as long ago as 1872, presumably after due consideration of the pros and cons, that it shall not be necessary for proof or disproof of a fact, to call any particular number of witnesses. In England, both before and after the passing of the Evidence Act, 1872, there have been a number of statutes as set out in Sarkar's Law of Evidence -- 9th Edn., at pp. 1100 and 1101, forbidding convictions on the testimony of a single witness. The Indian Legislature has not insisted on laying down any such exceptions to the general rule recognised in Section 134 quoted above. The section enshrines the well recognised maxim that "Evidence has to be weighed and not counted". Our Legislature has given statutory recognition to the fact that administration of justice may be hampered if a particular number of witnesses were to be insisted upon. It is not seldom that a crime has been committed in the presence of only one witness, leaving aside those cases which are not of uncommon occurrence, where determination of guilt depends entirely on circumstantial evidence. If the legislature were to insist upon plurality of witnesses, cases where the testimony of a single witness only could be available in proof of the crime, would go unpunished. It is here that the discretion of the presiding Judge comes into play. The matter thus must depend upon the circumstances of each case and the quality of the evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be either accepted or rejected. If such a testimony is found by the court to be entirely reliable, there is no legal impediment to the conviction of the accused person on such proof. Even as the guilt of an accused person may be proved by the testimony of a single witness, the innocence of an accused person may be established on the testimony of a single witness, even though a considerable number of witnesses may be forthcoming to testify to the truth of the case for the prosecution. Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 10 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
(1) Wholly reliable.
(2) Wholly unreliable.
(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
12. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way -- it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial. There is another danger in insisting on plurality of witnesses. Irrespective of the quality of the oral evidence of a single witness, if courts were to insist on plurality of witnesses in proof of any fact, they will be indirectly encouraging subornation of witnesses. Situations may arise and do arise where only a single person is available to give evidence in support of a disputed fact. The court naturally has to weigh carefully such a testimony and if it is satisfied that the evidence is reliable and free from all taints which tend to render oral testimony open to suspicion, it becomes its duty to act upon such testimony. The law reports contain many precedents where the court had to depend and act upon the testimony of a single witness in support of the prosecution. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is, by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. But, where there are no such exceptional reasons operating, it becomes the duty of the court to convict, if it is satisfied that the testimony of a single witness is entirely reliable. We have therefore, no reasons to refuse to act upon the testimony of the first witness, which is the only reliable evidence in support of the prosecution."
(emphasis supplied)
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 11 of 16
Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
19. In the present case, the testimony of PW2,
complainant/injured is wholly reliable and as such the ground urged on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has failed to examine any public witness or the caller, who made the call at 100 number is without merit. Further DW1, wife of the Appellant in her testimony has also admitted that on 04.07.2014, at about 9.15- 9.30 AM, while she was walking towards his work and reached the main Market, Khichripur, the complainant came on his motorcycle and stopped him. Similarly the injury of the complainant has also been proved by the PW4 Dr Manoj Teaotia who proved the MLC Ex.PW4/A, which records an incised step wound as well as an incised lacerated wound on the right forearm of the complainant. PW2 has identified the knife Ex.P2 and PW3 in his testimony had deposed that the knife was recovered from the room of the accused. Thus, the mere fact that the site plan does not mention the location of the motorcycle of the complainant or the position of his wife as well as the fact that the disclosure statement or the seizure memo of the case property do not bear the signature of HC Rupesh per se or that the sketch of knife has not been filed alongwith the chargesheet do not go to discredit the testimony of the complainant. As rightly observed by the Ld. Trial Court, the arrest and personal search memo bear the signatures of the said HC Rupesh which he had identified in his evidence. The arguments on the said aspect, as advanced by the defence, do not challenge the credibility of the case of the prosecution or the testimony of the complainant/injured, which is reliable and consistent.
20. It has also been argued on behalf of appellant that complainant used to molest the wife of the Appellant and on the CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 12 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) day of incident also when the wife of the accused was going to work, the complainant stopped her on the way and tried to molest her. On hearing cries of the wife of accused, crowd gathered there and somebody in the crowd caused injury to the complainant. Wife of the accused deposed as DW2 and stated that complainant was having bad on her and he used to stalk her and pass indecent comments. This witness could not produce any complaint which had been made by her regarding the aforesaid acts of the accused prior to the date of the incident. Defence has relied upon and produced copies of two representations respectively dated 24.07.2015 and 03.08.2015 made to the SHO PS Kalyan Puri, but the perusal of these representations also does not mention any allegation of molestation of his wife by the complainant. In such a scenario, the testimony of the DW1 is not sufficient to hold that the accused is innocent and as rightly observed by the Ld. Trial Court, there is a reasonable possibility that this witness has deposed to save her husband in the instant case.
21. Ld. Counsel for appellant has also argued that there is delay in filing the FIR since incident took place in the morning and the FIR was registered in the evening at about 3:50 pm. The delay in the present case is sufficiently explained by the testimony of PW2, who deposed that he was hospitalized and called to PS and about 4 pm he went to the police station and his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded on the basis of which, FIR was registered. Thus, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment on conviction dated 01.02.2023 passed by the Ld. Trial Court convicting the accused under Section 324 IPC.
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 13 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
22. Appellant has also challenged the order on sentence dated 07.08.2023, whereby Ld. MM sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a peirod of one year and also sentenced the accused to the fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to serve simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The Appellant had also filed an application for releasing him on probation, which was dismissed by the Ld. MM holding that in the present case, planned assault was orchestrated by the convict which is not acceptable in law abiding society. Ld. MM also referred to the injury sustained by the complainant has been established by the medical evidence.
23. The fact of the present case as reflected from the complainant Ex.PW2/A and the testimony of PW2 shows that in the present case, there was no pre-meditation or planning by the convict in so far as complainant/injured, who deposed as PW2 himself stated that he was on his way to the Anand Vihar Bus Terminal, he met wife of the accused and asked her to pay loan amount of Rs. 60,000/. The appellant/convict reach there and questioned the complainant/injured, the reason of his conversation with the wife of convict. He further deposed that while he was replying, the convict attacked him causing injuries to his right hand. The testimony of injured/complainant, which has been found to be reliable and consistent itself shows that the crime was committed in heat of passion and the same was not premeditated or deliberate as the convict could not have foreseen that the injured/complainant will stop his wife on her way to work. Further the injuries sustained by the complainant/injured in the present case are simple in nature. In Dilshad Ahmad v. State (NCT of CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 14 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Delhi), 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13081, the Hon'ble High Court observed
16. In Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 444, the Supreme Court noted the philosophy behind the grant of probation:--
"The Act is a milestone in the progress of the modern liberal trend of reform in the field of penology. It is the result of the recognition of the doctrine that the object of criminal law is more to reform the individual offender than to punish him........"
17. Court has to consider the circumstances of the case, nature of offence and character of the offender while exercising the power which is discretionary. Powers under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act vest with the Court when any person is found guilty of the offence committed, not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. This power can be exercised by the Court even at appellate or Revisional stage.
24. Convict is the sole bread earner in his family and have three children out of whom one child is stated to be suffering from disabilities. Convict does not have any criminal antecedents. The Court finds that considering the facts and circumstances of the matter, the Convict should be given an opportunity to reform and return to the society and thus he be given the benefit of probation.
25. It is also pertinent to observe that as per the report received from the DLSA i.e. Victim Impact Report, complainant spent Rs. 12,000/- on his medication, whereas, Ld. Trial Court imposed fine of Rs. 10,000/- and has directed that the said amount be paid to the complainant/victim towards compensation. No compensation was provided to the complainant towards pain, suffering and hardship. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances, convict is directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the victim/ complainant in terms of section 5 of the Probation of Offenders, Act. Since the Convict has been directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/-
CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 15 of 16 Shyam Lal Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) to the complainant, the fine of Rs. 10,000/- imposed by the Ld. Trial Court is set aside.
26. In view of the discussion as adumbrated above, the judgment of conviction dated 01.02.2023 is upheld and order on sentence dated 07.08.2023 passed by the Ld. CMM, East, Karkardooma Court, Delhi in session case no. 4525/2016 is set aside and the convict is sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment, which shall remained suspended and the convict is released on probation of good behavior for a period of 1 year. The Convict shall keep the peace and be of good behavior. He shall appear and receive the punishment if called upon by the Ld. Trial Court during the said period in case of violation of conditions of probation. The Convict shall furnish personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the satisfaction of Ld. Trial Court. The convict shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant/injured within 30 days from today. Probation officer shall furnish quarterly reports before the Ld. Trial Court. Appellant/convict is directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 03.07.2024 and furnish bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The bail bonds furnished before this Court are extended till 03.07.2024 and shall stand discharged on the said date.
27. Copy of this judgment alongwith TCR be sent to Ld. Trial Court forthwith.
28. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due Digitally signed compliance.
ALOK by ALOK SHUKLA Announced in the open court SHUKLA Date: 2024.06.03 on this 03rd Day of June, 2024. 14:33:59 +0530 (ALOK SHUKLA) ASJ-2/Special Judge (NDPS) East District, Karkardooma Court, Delhi/03.06.2024 CA no. 155/2023 Page no. 16 of 16