Delhi District Court
State vs :- Manoj, on 22 September, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI
S.C.NO.24/07
STATE VERSUS:- MANOJ,
S/O SH. RAM VILAS,
R/O C-25, NANHE PARK,
UTTAM NAGAR,
DELHI.
(PERMANENT ADDRESS-VILLAGE HASSAN
PUR WAGAR, PS NAKARI, DISTT. BEGU,
SARAI VIHAR).
FIR NO.324/04
U/S 304 IPC.
PS UTTAM NAGAR.
JUDGMENT
One Smt. Veena, wife of Bahatu Ram used to reside along with her family and brother Biltu in H.No.C-25, Nanhe Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi on rent. In a room just across their room accused Manoj used to reside. Both Manoj as well as Biltu were rickshaw pullers by profession. On the night intervening 19/20-04-2004 accused Manoj allegedly came in a drunken state to the house at about 11pm and started abusing Smt. Veena. However, Biltu intervened in the matter and asked Manoj to not to abuse his sister. A quarrel between Biltu and Manoj took place and during the course of which Manoj went inside his room and came out with a 'danda' and gave 2/3 blows on the head of Biltu. As a result, Biltu fell down unconscious. Seeing the incident Smt. Veena rushed to the 2 nearby police post Matiala, PS Uttam Nagar where ASI Roop Parkash met her standing outside the police post. She narrated the entire incident to ASI Roop Parkash, who then along with her rushed to the spot. At the spot, he found Biltu in unconscious condition lying over there and Manoj also having sustained certain injuries. A PCR van was called for and both injured were removed to DDU Hospital. In the meantime, information about the incident was also received at PS Uttam Nagar vide DD No.40 and the same was also assigned for further necessary action to ASI Roop Parkash through Ct. Rajesh. After leaving Ct. Rajesh at the spot ASI Roop Parkash then went to DDU Hospital and collected MLC of accused Manoj. Injured Biltu was however referred to Trauma Center by the doctors and was found to be not fit for statement. Accused Manoj in the meantime had been discharged from the hospital so, ASI Roop Parkash again returned back to the spot and recorded statement of Smt. Veena and got a case registered at PS Uttam Nagar. He thereafter prepared the site plan of the spot. Accused Manoj was also arrested in the present case. His disclosure statement was recorded and from inside his room he got recovered the impugned 'danda' with which he had attacked Biltu.
Thereafter, on 26-4-04 Biltu was discharged from the hospital and was brought back to the house. However, at the house, his condition again deteriorated and he was taken back to the hospital i.e at Trauma Center in the night itself and where he was declared brought dead on 27- 3 4-04. Thus, necessary inquest proceedings were carried out and postmortem examination upon his dead body was also got carried out at DDU Hospital. The impugned 'danda' and the blood sample of Biltu were sent to FSL for examination. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, Challan was prepared and was filed in the court for trial.
Upon committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge for the offence u/S 304 IPC was framed against accused Manoj by the then Ld. Predecessor of this court. Accused Manoj however pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution thereafter in order to prove its case examined 16 witnesses. Accused Manoj was thereafter examined u/S 313 Cr.PC. He however refused to lead any evidence in his defence.
PW1 Smt. Kanta Yadav was the Record Clerk, Trauma Center, who proved the medical treatment record along with death certificate of Biltu as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B, as the concerned doctors were not available.
PW2 HC Seema Tyagi was the Duty Officer, PS Uttam Nagar, who had recorded the FIR Ex. PW 2/A in the present matter.
PW3 Mrs. M. Swami was the doctor in DDU Hospital, who initially examined Biltu at DDU Hospital on 20-4-04 vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. She had also medically examined accused Manoj vide MLC Ex.PW3/B. 4 PW4 HC Banwari Lal was the MHC(M), PS Uttam Nagar with whom the various case property articles in the present matter were deposited with and subsequently the same were sent to CFSL by him through Ct. Kirpal Singh.
PW5 Dr. LK Baruah had conducted the postmortem examination upon the dead body of Biltu vide his report Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Ct. Ajit Singh was the DD writer, PS Uttam Nagar on the night intervening 26/27-4-2004 when he received intimation from Trauma Center about re-admission of Biltu over there and as having been brought dead. After recording the said information vide DD No.40 Ex.PW6/A he gave the same to ASI Roop Parkash for further necessary action.
PW7 Smt. Veena was the sister of Biltu and allegedly an eye witness of the incident. In her deposition, she reiterated the prosecution story besides proving her complaint Ex.PW7/A lodged with the police on the basis of which the present case came to be registered.
PW8 Ct. Ashok Kumar was the duty officer, PP-Matiala, PS Uttam Nagar on 20-4-04, who had received the information about the admission of Biltu and Manoj at DDU Hospital from the Duty Constable of DDU Hospital and he recorded the said information vide DD No.44 Ex.PW8/A. PW10 Prabhu Ram was also allegedly an eye witness of the incident being occupant of one other adjoining room to the room of 5 complainant in the same house. He also in his deposition reiterated the prosecution story corroborating the deposition of Smt. Veena in material particulars.
PW12 Ballu Singh was also the Record Clerk, Trauma Center, who proved the admission summary of Biltu in Trauma Center Ex.PW1/C, as the concerned doctors were not available.
PW13 Bahatu Ram, who inadvertently was also examined as PW12 was the husband of complainant Smt. Veena. He too was allegedly an eye witness of the incident and corroborated the testimony of PW7 Smt. Veena in material particulars.
PW13 Ct. Kirpal Singh had taken the various case property articles in the present case to FSL-Rohini from MHC(M), PS Uttam Nagar on 10-6-04.
PW14 ASI Roop Parkash was the initial IO of the case. In his deposition, he reiterated the investigation carried out by him besides proving the various documents/memos prepared by him during the course of investigation.
PW15 SI Raj Pal Singh had taken over the investigation of the present case on 28-4-04 upon the death of Biltu. He had carried out the inquest proceedings and had got the postmortem conducted upon the body of Biltu. Upon completion of necessary further investigation, he had prepared the challan and submitted the same to court for trial. 6
PW9 Ct. Rajesh and PW11 Ct. Naresh Kumar were the two police officials, who had accompanied ASI Roop Parkash and ASI Rajpal Singh in the investigation of the case. Both of them deposed about the proceedings carried out by the two Investigating Officers in their presence.
Accused Manoj In his statement u/S 313 Cr.PC however stated the case of the prosecution to be false and the prosecution witnesses to be deposing falsely. He further stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he used to object to the visit of one Mr. Khakhar in the room of Smt. Veena Devi, the complainant herein.
I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as ld. defence Counsel Sh. NK Thakur for the accused.
It has been submitted by learned defence counsel for accused that the MLC of both Manoj and Biltu clearly shows that it was Biltu, the deceased, who was found to have consumed alcohol by the doctors and not accused Manoj. It was further submitted that the PCR official, ASI Mahender Singh, who removed injured Biltu to hospital had stated the history of injuries to the doctors as having been sustained pursuant to fall from height. It was also submitted that ASI Mahender Singh was deliberately not examined by the prosecution and thus an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the case of the prosecution. It was also submitted that prosecution has failed to prove that the death of Biltu 7 was in pursuant to the impugned injuries sustained by him in the alleged incident. Thus, it was submitted that the fact that the alleged incident was the prime cause for the death of Biltu has not been proved by the prosecution. It was further submitted that PW10 Prabhu Ram was clearly a planted witness as was evident from his un-natural conduct just after witnessing the incident. It was thus submitted that accused Manoj had been falsely implicated in the present case by complainant Smt. Veena as accused Manoj used to object to the visit of certain persons in the room of Smt. Veena. The prosecution was thus stated to have failed in proving its case against accused Manoj and he was thus prayed to be acquitted.
On the other hand, ld. APP strongly opposed the contentions of learned defence counsel stating that the testimony of PW7 Smt. Veena along with that of her husband PW13 Bahatu Ram besides that of ASI Roop Parkash was cogent, convincing and reliable in nature. It was further submitted that the testimony of PW5 Dr. LK Baruah clearly proves that the death of Biltu was the immediate result of the injuries sustained by him in the impugned incident. The prosecution was thus stated to be successful in proving its case against the accused. The accused was thus prayed to be convicted.
I have carefully perused the record.
8At the outset, I may state that from the records of the case, it is crystal clear that a quarrel did take place between deceased Biltu and accused Manoj on the impugned date, time and place of incident and in which both Manoj as well as Biltu sustained injuries. However, it appears that during the course of the quarrel deceased Biltu also fell down on the ground floor from a height and sustained further injuries and which finally resulted in his death. I shall be demonstrating the aforesaid conclusion as emanating from out of the evidence led by the prosecution while discussing and analyzing it viz a viz the contentions of learned defence counsel.
The factum of a quarrel having taken place between deceased Biltu and Manoj stands well established from the MLCs of both viz Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B. Both of them were removed by ASI Mahender Singh of PCR van to DDU Hospital on 20-4-04 from the spot and were got admitted in DDU Hospital. This fact has not been controverted by the accused at any place whatsoever. Accused Manoj clearly disclosed to the doctors that the injuries were sustained by him in an assault. This history of injuries as stated to by accused Manoj to the doctors finds mention in his MLC and remains un-controverted during the entire trial. Thus, if no such incident involving accused Manoj had taken place then, it was for accused Manoj only to explain as to how he was found by the police officials, who reached the spot soon after the incident as having sustained 9 injuries and under what circumstances he came to sustain said injuries. It was also incumbent upon him to explain as to who assaulted him resulting in said injuries on his person. Clearly, a failure on his part to put forward any explanation in this regard much less a plausible one gives rise to only one conclusion that he was involved in a quarrel with deceased Biltu which finally resulted in the present incident.
Coming to the MLC of deceased Biltu as was prepared on 20- 4-04 at DDU Hospital, it is evident from it that ASI Mahender Singh, who removed him to the hospital stated to the doctors, the alleged history of injuries as on account of "fall from height". Certainly said ASI Mahender Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and if the prosecution intended to rebut this information conveyed to the doctors by ASI Mahender Singh then they ought to have examined him as a prosecution witness. Moreover, it was for the prosecution to prove as to how and under what circumstances ASI Mahender Singh gathered this information that Biltu has "fallen from height" and for which reason he chose to disclose the said information to the doctors at DDU Hospital. Thus, if the alleged history given to the doctors by ASI Mahender Singh is claimed to be wrong by the prosecution then the prosecution has clearly failed in its endeavour to prove this assertion of their on account of non-examination of ASI Mahender Singh and an adverse inference thus needs to be drawn against the prosecution in this regard. It has to be thus presumed that ASI 10 Mahender Singh rightly conveyed this information about Biltu having sustained injuries on account of "fall from height" at the spot. Moreover, as the prosecution has claimed that Biltu was found lying unconscious at the spot by ASI Roop Parkash when he initially reached the spot so, it also cannot be presumed that Biltu himself gave the said information to ASI Mahender Singh. Even otherwise if Biltu would have given the said information to ASI Mahender Singh then, it would have been all the more fatal to the prosecution case.
At this stage, I may also mention that from the two MLCs, it is clear that the doctors mentioned the smell of alcohol to be positive in the case of deceased Biltu but, no such fact was mentioned in the MLC of accused Manoj.
Be that as it may be, the fact that a quarrel did take place on the impugned date, time and place between Biltu and Manoj stands well proved from the record. However, I may state that all through the entire trial accused has been taking inconsistent stands in the cross-examination of various prosecution witnesses and which fact clearly points out a guilty finger towards his involvement in the present crime. I may add a word of caution over here that though the guilt of the accused is being sought to be proved from the evidence led by the prosecution but taking of such inconsistent and false plea of defence is certainly an additional incriminating circumstance pointing out towards the guilt of the accused. 11
In the case STATE OF T.N. RAJENDERAN AIR 1999 SC 3535, 'it was observed by Hon'ble SC that if in a case the accused takes a false plea then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances'.
At this stage, I may also state that the aforesaid circumstances does go to show that Biltu during the course of quarrel fell down to the ground from a height which resulted in additional injuries on his person. During the testimony of none of the prosecution witnesses, it has come on record that the incident took place on the ground floor of the house or on the first floor of the house. Neither the site plan or any other proceedings carried out by the IO during the course of investigation points out any such fact as to the place of incident. ASI Roop Parkash on the other hand stated that when he reached the spot, he found Biltu lying unconscious on the ground. The aforesaid fact coupled with the history of injuries given to the doctor by ASI Mahender Singh as being "fall from height" goes to suggest that probably the incident took place on the first floor of the house and during the course of quarrel Biltu fell down on the ground and sustained additional injuries.
Furthermore to PW7 Smt. Veena, the complainant it was suggested by accused that Biltu was beaten by one Sunny, Khakhar Bhadur and Prabhu. It was also suggested that accused used to object to the visit of one Kusheshwar in her room and pursuant to which he has 12 been falsely implicated in this case. PW7-Smt. Veena however refuted both the suggestions as being false. On the other hand when PW13- Bahatu Ram, the husband of Smt. Veena entered the witness box, it was suggested to him that Biltu had received injuries on account of "fall from the roof". This suggestion was also stated to be false by the witness. No such suggestions qua the plea of defence as earlier taken were thereafter carried out in the statement U/S 313 Cr.PC by the accused. However, it is apparent from the cross-examination of PW7 Smt. Veena or from that of other prosecution witnesses that the injuries which were sustained by Biltu in the incident have not been disputed by the accused.
However, the contention of learned defence counsel that PW10 Prabhu Ram was in fact not an eye witness of the incident is not without force. Certainly, his conduct immediately after the incident seems to be highly improbable and unbelievable. It is difficult to place reliance upon the testimony of a person, who despite seeing the incident having taken place in which a boy from his neighbourhood residing in the same very house has sustained serious injuries and is lying unconscious but, he himself choses to go back to his house to start cooking his food and thereafter goes to bed. This conduct of his clearly raises grave shadows of doubts as to whether he actually witness the incident or not. However irrespective of his deposition, I may state that prosecution has been otherwise successful in proving its case against accused Manoj on the 13 basis of testimony of the other prosecution witnesses and the other material on record.
The FSL report Ex.PW15/D and Ex.PW15/E clearly shows that on the 'danda' viz the weapon of offence so recovered from the spot blood stains were found which upon examination were found to be of human origin and of the same group i.e of "O" group as that of deceased Biltu. Finally, I may also state that from the testimony of PW5 Dr. LK Baruah, it was clear that Biltu died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the present incident. From the mere fact that Biltu came to be discharged from the hospital after about 5/6 days of the incident and was again taken back to the hospital on the next day where he was declared brought dead, it cannot be presumed that the present incident was not the immediate cause of his death. I have been unable to find anything in the cross-examination of PW5 Dr. LK Baruah or in his postmortem report which could suggest that his death was not in pursuant to the said injuries sustained by him in the present incident.
Lastly, as regards certain irregularities etc. pointed out in the investigation of the matter, I may state that the same are not of any consequence so as to affect the probative value of the testimony of various prosecution witnesses.
It is well settled that owing to carelessness or negligence of an Investigating Officer, the prosecution case cannot be made to suffer if 14 the overall facts & circumstances of the present case speaks otherwise about its truthfulness and veracity. It was observed in the case DHANRAJ SINGH @ SHERA & ORS. VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AIR 2004 SC 1920 that if the carelessness or negligence of an investigating officer in investigating a case is relied upon so as to throw overboard, the entire prosecution case then it will amount to playing into the hands of such an investigating officer.
In the case RAM BALI VS. STATE OF UP AIR 2004 SC 2329 also it was observed by the Hon'ble SC that mere failure or omission or negligence on the part of IO cannot affect credibility of prosecution version.
In the case ZAHIRA HABIBULLA H. SHEIKH AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS , AIR 2004 SC 3114 , it was observed that it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective and the designed mischief would be perpetuated with a premium to the offenders and justice would not only be denied to the complainant party but also made an ultimate casualty".
However, from the overall facts & circumstances of the present case, it is clear that the impugned incident occurred at the spur of the moment without any intention or motive of causing death or it cannot be 15 stated that the injuries were caused with such knowledge that it will result in the death of Biltu. Clearly, some quarrel was admittedly going on between accused Manoj and Smt. Veena and upon the intervention of Biltu accused Manoj entered into a quarrel with him which not only resulted in injuries to both of them but, in the heat of moment accused Manoj took out a 'danda' from his room and attacked Biltu on his head which resulted in grievous injuries on his person. Biltu however finally succumbed to his said injuries after about 6/7 days of the incident and died. Thus, in the absence of there being any motive, intention or knowledge as to his act on the part of accused Manoj which led to the death of Biltu, he can be held liable only of the offence punishable U/S 326 IPC and not for the offence U/S 304 IPC. Since, it is clear from the record that he did give 2/3 lathie blows on the person of Biltu which resulted in grievous injuries to him and ultimately led to his death so, it is only for the offence U/S 326 IPC for which he can be held liable.
Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the case CHOWA MANDAL & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF BIHAR AIR 2004 SC 1603.
Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, I hereby while acquitting accused Manoj of the offence U/S 304 IPC holds him guilty of 16 the offence U/S 326 IPC and convict him thereunder.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17-9-07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS:ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI.17
IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI S.C.NO.102/07 STATE VERSUS:-DHARAMBIR ETC.FIR NO.48/2004
U/S 363/364A/302/201/120B IPC & 27 ARMS ACT. PS NARELA.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 6-9-07 accused persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran both have been convicted for the offences U/S 363/364A/302/201/120B IPC and 27 Arms Act, 1959.
I have heard ld. Counsels-Ms. Sadhna Bhatia and Sh. Manish Kumar for both the convict persons as well as ld. APP for the State on the point of sentence.
It has been submitted by learned defence counsel for convict Beghraj that he is a young boy, aged about 25 years and has no previous criminal record of any nature whatsoever. It was further submitted that he is the sole bread earner of his poor family, comprising of his old aged parents and his young wife. It has been submitted convict Beghraj has remained in jail during the course of entire trial i.e since 6-2-2004. A lenient view was thus prayed for.
As regards convict Kiran, it was submitted that he is aged 18 about 38 years and is the sole bread earner of his poor family, comprising of his old aged parents, his wife and five minor children. It was further stated that he too has no previous criminal record and has been in jail during the course of entire trial i.e for a period of more than 3½ years. A lenient view was thus prayed for.
On the other hand, ld. APP strongly opposed the contentions of learned defence counsels stating that the cruel hands of the two convict persons took away the life of a young boy and the sole ray of hope of the parents of said boy. It was also submitted that the facts & circumstances of the present case does not call for taking of any lenient view qua the present two convict persons. It was thus prayed that a severe sentence be imposed upon them.
I have carefully perused the record.
Before I advert on to the nature of quantum of punishment which may be inflicted upon the two convict persons, it will be worthwhile to mention that during the course of arguments on the point of sentence convict Beghraj specifically sought permission to address the court and upon being granted permission to do so, he stated that though he has in fact committed the present crime but, his co-convict Kiran is completely innocent. He also stated that the said crime was committed by him at the instigation of accused Dharambir (since acquitted). However, he was told by the court that it was too late in the day to make such a submission as 19 after the passing of the final judgment, the court cannot go back into an analysis of the said aspect of his confession of his guilt irrespective of the fact as to whether the same is a correct admission of his guilt by him or not or whether the same is feeble attempt on his part to save co-convict Kiran, who is none else but his brother-in-law (jija).
Be that as it may be, keeping in view the overall facts & circumstances of the case, coupled with the submissions made, I am of the considered opinion that the present case does not fall in the category of "rarest of rare" cases. I accordingly hereby sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence U/S 302/120B IPC .
In default of payment of fine, each of the two convict persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
As regards offence U/S 120B IPC for the offence of entering into a criminal conspiracy to kidnap Deepak for demand of ransom and to commit murder and to thereafter cause disappearance of the evidence of their crime, I sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the two convict persons shall 20 further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
As regards the offence U/S 363/120B IPC , I sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the two convict persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
As regards the offence U/S 364A/120B IPC, I sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the two convict persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
As regards the offence U/S 201/120B IPC , I sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, the two convict persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
As regards the offence U/S 27 Arms Act, 1959 , I sentence both the convict persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each.
In default of payment of fine, both the convict persons shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months each. 21
Benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC shall be given to both the convict persons.
It is further directed that all the substantiative period of sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
A copy of the Judgment as well as that of Order on Sentence be given free of costs to both the convict persons and another copy be attached with their jail warrants.
File be consigned to Record.
Announced in the open court on 11-9-07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT:ROHINI:DELHI 22 FIR NO.48/2004 U/S 363/364A/302/201/120B IPC & 27 ARMS ACT. PS NARELA.
6-9-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
All accused are present in JC with ld. Counsels Ms. Sadhna Bhatia and Sh. Manish Kumar on behalf of all the convict persons.
Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 6-9-07 accused persons, namely, Beghraj and Kiran both have been convicted for the offences u/S 363/364A/302/201/120B IPC and under Section 27 Arms Act, 1959 while acquitting accused Dharambir in the present case of all the offences. Accused Dharambir be released from JC, if not required in any other case.
Case is now adjourned for Arguments on on Sentence to 10-9-07.23
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 24 FIR NO.324/04 PS UTTAM NAGAR.
17-9-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
Accused Manoj is present in JC along with ld. Counsel Sh. NK Thakur. Vide my separate detailed judgment dated 17-9-07 accused Manoj has been acquitted of the offence U/S 304 IPC and has been convicted of the offence U/S 326 IPC.
Case is now adjourned for Arguments on Sentence to 21-9-07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE FAST TRACK COURTS:ROHINI COURTS:
DELHI.25
22-9-07 Pr. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict Manoj is present in JC along with ld. Counsel Sh. NK Thakur. Arguments on Sentence have been heard. Vide a separate detailed order dated 22-9-07, Order on Sentence has been announced.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 22-9-07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI 26 IN THE COURT OF SH. BHARAT PARASHAR:ASJ:FTC:ROHINI:DELHI S.C. NO. 24/07 STATE VERSUS:- MANOJ, S/O SH. RAM VILAS, R/O C-25, NANHE PARK, UTTAM NAGAR, DELHI.
(PERMANENT ADDRESS-VILLAGE HASSAN PUR WAGAR, PS NAKARI, DISTT. BEGU, SARAI VIHAR).
FIR NO. 324/04 U/S 326 IPC.
PS UTTAM NAGAR ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide my separate judgment dated 17.09.07 accused Manoj has been convicted for the offence U/S 326 IPC.
I have heard Ld. APP for the state as well as Ld. counsel Sh. N.K. Thakur for the convict on the point of sentence.
It has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the convict that he is a young boy aged about 26 yrs and is the sole bread earner of his poor family comprising of his wife and four minor children. It was also submitted that convict has already remained in jail for the past about 3 ½ years during the course of trial and that his conduct has completely remained above board. It was also submitted that convict has no previous criminal record A lenient view was thus prayed for.27
2
On the other hand Ld APP prayed for imposition of severe sentence in view of the fact that a young life was lost on account of the conduct of convict.
I have carefully perused the record. Keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case, coupled with the submissions made I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be suitably met if convict Manoj is sentenced to rigrous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence U/S 326 IPC. It is ordered accordingly.
In default of payment of fine, convict Manoj shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months.
Convict shall get the benefit u/s 428 Cr.PC. A copy of this order be given free of cost to the convict and another be attached with his jail warrants.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.09.07.
(BHARAT PARASHAR) ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE 28 FAST TRACK COURTS:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI