Delhi High Court
Brahm Dutt Sharma vs State on 7 October, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
Bench: S.P.Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 7th October, 2013
+ CRL.A. 311/2001
BRAHM DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Nrip Vaibhav, Proxy Counsel.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant (Braham Dutt Sharma) questions the judgment dated 01.05.2001 in Sessions Case No.48/1999 arising out of FIR No.288/1997 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri by which he was convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year with fine `10,000/-. Out of fine realised, `8,000/- were to be paid as compensation to the victim. It is stated that fine of `10,000/- has since been deposited in the Trial Court.
2. Allegations against Braham Dutt Sharma were that on 17.09.1997, he stabbed Varsha @ Mithlesh, his wife, on her neck and Crl.A.No.311/2001 Page 1 of 4 gave beatings to her with hands andlegs. Information was received at Police Station Chanakya Puri that Braham Dutt Sharma had admitted his wife at RML hospital. SI Ramchander went to the spot and recorded the statement of Varsha @ Mithlesh. He lodged First Information Report and arrested the accused. During the course of investigation, statement of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC was submitted in the court. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish the appellant's guilt. In his 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The State did not challenge his acquittal under Section 307 IPC.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the finding of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 324 IPC and accepts it voluntarily. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as he has already remained in custody for 66 days before release on bail and has already paid fine `10,000/-. After his second marriage, he has three Crl.A.No.311/2001 Page 2 of 4 children to take care of them. He offered to pay a reasonable compensation to the victim.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction under Section 324 IPC and there is overwhelming evidence in the testimony of complainant coupled with medical evidence, the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 324 IPC stand affirmed. Nominal roll dated 18.12.2010 reveals that the appellant has already remain in custody for about two months and six days. The victim was his wife and he had taken her to the hospital after the occurrence. The injuries sustained by her were simple caused by sharp object. The appellant has suffered agony of trial/appeal for about 16 years. He has offered to pay reasonable compensation to the victim who is living separate from him since long. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no objection to modify the sentence order. Considering these facts and circumstances , the sentence order is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period already spent by him in this case. He shall deposit `40,000/- within 21 days before the Trial Court to be paid to the victim. The Trial Court shall issue notice to the victim-Varsha @ Mithlesh and shall release `.40,000/- along with `8,000/- (already Crl.A.No.311/2001 Page 3 of 4 awarded as compensation in the sentence order), (if not given so far) to the victim-Varsha @ Mithlesh.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court record, if any, along with copy of this order be sent back. Bail bond and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged.
(S.P.GARG) JUDGE October 07, 2013/sa Crl.A.No.311/2001 Page 4 of 4