Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar, Fir No.300/99, Ps. Model ... on 6 November, 2013
State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC. IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 300/99. PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 279/337/325 IPC. STATE VS. ANIL KUMAR. JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 162/6
B. DATE OF OFFENCE : 10.06.1999
C. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 18.04.2000
D. NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT : Sh. Avinash Chander Sharma
S/o Late Sh. Hans Raj Sharma
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Anil Kumar @ Lalla
S/o Sh. Ram Nath
F. OFFENCE COMPLAINED OF : U/s 279/337/325 IPC.
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Convicted U/s.323 IPC
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 06.11.2013.
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision:
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case, as alleged by the prosecution and as unfolded from the charge sheet are that on 10.06.1999 an information of quarrel was received at PS Model Town and it was reduced in writing vide Page No.1/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
DD No.49B. On receipt of said DD, SI Sudhir Kumar along with constable Sunil Dutt reached the spot i.e main road adjoining a park near dirty drain Gurmandi, Model Town, Delhi. There they came to know that the injured has already been taken to Parmarth Nursing Home. Thereafter, SI Sudhir Kumar went to Parmarth Nursing Home, where he came to know that he has been taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. Subsequently, he went to the said hospital and collected the MLC of the injured Avinash Chand Sharma. He recorded the statement of the injured Avinash Chand Sharma, who had asserted that on 10.06.1999 at around 8.00 p.m, he was returning to his home on his motorcycle bearing no.DL8SZ1779 from Kamla Nagar after shopping. In his complaint, he had alleged that when he reached gurmandi near dirty drain adjoining park, he saw a scooter coming from opposite direction being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and it rammed in his motorcycle. Due to said impact, complainant sustained scratches and injuries. The complainant had alleged that he inquired from the scooter driver about the reason for his fast driving in the street. Thereafter, the scooter rider lifted the complainant and threw him on the ground. In the meanwhile, some other persons gathered there and started beating the complainant. The complainant had alleged that on hearing noise of the quarrel, his wife also came at the spot and she raised her voice, due to which the accused persons and his associates ran away from the spot. The complainant had also alleged that his gold chain was also lost in the said quarrel. In his complaint, he stated that he can identify the driver of the offending scooter as well as his associates. The said complaint was endorsed by SI Sudhir Kumar to prepare a rukka and an FIR U/s.279/337 IPC was got lodged at PS Model Town. Thereafter, the statement of other eyewitness i.e the wife and the son of the complainant Smt. Shashi Sharma and Sh. Rohit respectively were recorded. They supplied the number of the offending scooter to be DL6SE1052 and also claimed that they can identify the rider of the said scooter. Subsequently, on 26.07.1999 a notice U/s.133 M. Page No.2/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
V. Act was served upon the owner of the said offending scooter namely Sh. Ravi Kumar. He gave a reply to the said notice and told that accused Anil Kumar was driving his said scooter. Thereafter, the accused Anil Kumar was arrested and the offending scooter was seized. The IO obtained the opinion regarding nature of injury sustained by injured namely Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma, on which doctor opined that nature of injury sustained by him is grievous. On conclusion of the investigation, the challan under section 279/337/338 IPC was filed against the accused.
2. The accused was summoned by the court for facing trial for the aforesaid offence. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to the accused. Prima facie charge U/s.279/337/325 IPC was made out against him. Accordingly, on 16/03/2001, the Ld. Predecessor of this court framed charge against him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
4. PW1 Smt. Shashi Bala has deposed that on 07.07.99 her husband namely Sh. Avinash Sharma expired. She has testified that on 10.05.1999 she was present at her house and on that day she along with her son Rohit came out from her house for shopping. She has further deposed that when she reached at main road, she saw that a quarrel was gong on and there his husband namely Sh. Avinash Sharma and accused along with his 34 associates were quarreling. She has further testified that there was a huge gathering and the accused along with his associates was giving beatings to her husband. She has further testified that the blood was oozing out from the mouth of her husband. She has further deposed that she along with 34 other public persons picked up her husband and took him to Parmarth hospital at Shakti Nagar. There the doctor conducted Xray and other investigation and told her that the back bone of her husband is broken.
Page No.3/13State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
Thereafter, they took him to HRH, there also he was medically examined. She has further deposed that the police also reached there and recorded statement of her husband. She has further testified that the doctor advised him for operation and thereafter, on 25.06.1999, her husband was operated for the injuries and on 06.07.99 he was discharged from the hospital. She has further deposed that on the next day morning her husband expired. She has further testified that when the quarrel was going on, the motorcycle of her husband was standing on the side of road and one scooter bearing number DL61052 was also parked there. She has correctly identified the accused to be the person who was quarreling with her husband. In her crossexamination, she has admitted that she had not seen the accident.
5. PW2 Sh. Rohit is the son of the complainant and he has deposed that on 10.06.99, he alongwith his mother was going to market for purchase of vegetables. At 7.30 p.m, when they reached near park, they saw that a quarrel was going on and his father Sh. Avinash Sharma was being beaten by 5 to 7 persons. His father was pushed by the said persons and he fell down on a sharp edged stone lying there. He has testified that his father sustained injuries due to fall on the said stone. He has further deposed that a scooter bearing no.DL6S1052 was also standing there. He has testified that he can identify the writing and signature of his father as he is well acquainted with them. He has identified signature of his father on complaint dtd.10.06.1999 and the same is Ex.PW2/A. He has also correctly identified the accused to be the same person, who was beating his father.
6. PW3 Sh. Devender Mohan has deposed that on 10.06.1999, his brother Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma met with an accident and he was taken to HRH for examination, where he remained under treatment. He has testified that he was operated on 25.06.1999 and thereafter, he was discharged from hospital on 06.07.1999. He has further deposed that they brought him to house and on the next day i.e 07.07.99, in the morning he fell strain and they took him to Man hospital. There he was declared as dead.
Page No.4/13State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
7. PW4 Sh. K. V. Singh is the medical record clerk at HRH and he has deposed that the MLC bearing no.7803/99 of injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma is in the handwriting of Dr. Rakesh Kumar. He has testified that the doctor Rakesh Kumar has left the service from the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He has further deposed that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of the said doctor as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his duties. He has proved the said MLC as Ex.PW4/A. He was recalled and he identified the signatures of Dr. Vivek Goel at point B on the said MLC Ex.PW4/A. Dr. Vivek Goel has opined on the said MLC that injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma suffered grievous injuries.
8. PW5 HC Sunil Dutt was with IO on 10.06.1999.
9. PW6 Retd. SI Jai Singh has proved his mechanical inspection report of motorcycle bearing no.DL8SG1779 and scooter bearing no. DL6SE1052 as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.
10. PW7 SI Sudhir Kumar is the IO of the case and he has deposed that on 10.06.1999, he was on night emergency duty from 8.00 p.m to 8.00 a.m. He has testified that at about 8.30 p.m, the copy of DD no.49B regarding an accident/quarrel at gurmandi near nala was handed over to him. He has further deposed that he along with Ct. Sunil Dutt went to the spot and there they came to know that injured was already taken to Parmarth hospital. He has further testified that they went to Parmarth hospital and from there they came to know that the injured was shifted to HRH. He has further deposed that they went to HRH and from there he collected the MLC of injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma. He has further testified that on the MLC, the concerned doctor had endorsed that the injured was fit for statement and therefore, he met with the injured who narrated the incident which was reduced into writing. He has further deposed that he prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and handed it over to Ct. Sunil Dutt for getting the case registered. He has further testified that in the Page No.5/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
hospital he also met with the son of the injured namely Rohit and thereafter, he along with Rohit went to the spot. He has proved the site plan as Ex.PW7/B. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of Rohit on the spot and thereafter, he along with Rohit went to his house there he recorded the statement of his mother namely Smt. Shashi Bala. He has proved the seizure memo as Ex.PW7/C. He has further deposed that he again met with Sh. Rohit, and he disclosed that he knew the driver of the offending vehicle and gave him the particulars of the driver. He has further testified that he recorded the supplementary statement of Sh. Rohit. He has further deposed that on 26.07.1999, he served the notice U/s.133 of M. V. Act upon the owner of the offending scooter namely Sh. Ravi Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Nath vide notice Ex.PW7/E. He has further testified that the owner of the said offending vehicle gave a reply to the said notice and produced the accused Anil Kumar stating him to be the person who was driving it. After interrogation, the accused Anil Kumar was arrested. He has further deposed that the doctor opined that the injured sustained grievous injuries.
11. PW8 Sh. Ravi Kumar is the registered owner and superdar of scooter bearing no.DL6SE1052. He had brought the said scooter in the court and the same is Ex.P1.
12. PW9 Retd. HC Munni Singh was duty officer at PS Model Town, who recorded this FIR and he has proved its copy as Ex.PW9/A and endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW9/B.
13. PW10 Dr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, CMO, HRH has identified his handwriting and signatures on the MLC bearing no.7803/99 of the injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma, that was prepared by him on 10.06.1999. The same is already Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was listed for recording the statement of the accused.
14. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating evidence were put to him for seeking his explanation. He has stated that he is innocent and he have been falsely implicated in the present Page No.6/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
case. He has denied to have committed any accident and he has further denied to have caused injuries to anyone. He further stated that he does not want to lead evidence in defence. Accordingly, the matter proceeded for final arguments.
15. I have heard Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have carefully perused the case file.
16. The cardinal principle of the criminal law is that the accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
17. In the instant case, the accused is charged for the offence punishable U/s.279/337 IPC in addition to the offence punishable U/s.325 IPC. The offence U/s.279/337 IPC relates to rash and negligent driving on a public way and causing simple injury to the person due to said rash and negligent driving. The prosecution has alleged that the accused was driving his scooter bearing no.DL6SE1052 in a rash and negligent manner. The complainant/injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma was the sole eyewitness to the alleged accident caused by the accused with his rash and negligent driving. However, Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma had died before he could testify in the court. The remaining prosecution witnesses are admittedly not the eyewitnesses to the said accident and therefore, none of them has deposed anything incriminating against the accused in respect of the manner in which the accident took place. Thus, even if it is assumed that the accident took place between the scooter of the victim and the motorcycle of the accused on the alleged date, time and place, in that case also, in absence of any admissible incriminating evidence, it cannot be conclusively inferred that the accused is responsible for the said accident or that he was driving his motorcycle in a rash or negligent manner. Besides, the prosecution has failed to place on record the photographs of the place of the Page No.7/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
accident and further, the site plan Ex.PW7/B also lacks in material detail like the width of the road, skid marks, blood marks, if any, the speed of the vehicles, the speed limit on the road etc. The photographs of the spot and the meticulous site plan would have given some insight of the incident and it could have formed some basis for attributing rashness and negligence in the driving of the accused. Thus, in the light of above discussion, there is not even an iota of admissible incriminating evidence against the accused to indict him for either of the offence punishable U/s.279/337 IPC. Accordingly, the accused stands acquitted for the said offences.
18. Now, only offence punishable U/s.325 IPC survives and therefore, I shall now delve upon the allegations in respect of the said section. PW1 Smt. Shashi Bala and PW2 Sh. Rohit have categorically and unequivocally identified the accused to be the perpetrator of the offence of criminal assault against the injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma. Both of them have consistently testified that they had seen the accused alongwith his associates assaulting the injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma. Furthermore, the MLC of the complainant Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma has been duly proved as Ex.PW4/A and it is also established that Dr. Vivek Goyal has opined on the said MLC that their nature is grievous. Thus, it is duly substantiated that on the alleged date, time and place of incident, the complainant sustained grievous injuries.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out towards certain contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the said witnesses. He has argued that the accused was not previously known to either of the eyewitnesses and he was not apprehended at the spot, but despite that his TIP was not got conducted after he was arrested nearly one and a half month of the accident. He has further contended that PW1 Smt. Shashi Sharma has testified in her crossexamination that the accused was beating her husband injured Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma with lathies, however, the other eyewitnesses i.e PW2 Sh. Rohit Sharma is conspicuously silent in Page No.8/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
respect of weapon of offence. It is further argued that there is apparent contradiction between the testimonies of the eyewitnesses in the manner in which the criminal assault was caused upon the injured. With these submissions, the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that there is sufficient doubt regarding the identity of the accused and also in respect of the credibility of the eyewitnesses, who are interested witnesses being wife and son of the injured.
20. The argument of defence regarding nonconducting of TIP of the accused is relevant but this fact itself is not sufficient to discard the otherwise reliable and credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses. The TIP of the accused is merely a corroborative piece of evidence and its absence is not enough to throw away the case of prosecution. The TIP was to be conducted on the basis of application moved by the IO and the victims cannot be deprived of justice merely because the third party i.e IO, on which they admittedly do not have any control, failed to discharge his lawful duties. It is not denied that the accused Anil Kumar was a stranger to the eyewitnesses at the time of the incident and he was not apprehended at the spot. However, if the logic of the defence is applied then no stranger can be ever convicted for the commission of any offence, if he manages to flee away from the spot after its commission. The defence has failed to attribute any reason or motive for the eyewitnesses to falsely implicate the accused. Thus, the said argument of the defence does not hold any ground as non conducting of TIP is not fatal.
21. The witnesses are not expected to meticulously remember the incident in a perfect manner, all the more, when they are examined after more than three years of the incident. Moreover, PW1 Smt. Shashi Sharma was recalled for her crossexamination after more than a decade and there is no surprise that discrepancies in her testimony in respect of the manner in which her husband/complainant was being assaulted might have creeped in, as it is naturally expected that the memory is bound to fade with the passage Page No.9/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
of time. The human memory is fallible and by no stretch of imagination it can be termed as picture perfect memory. Thus, the said contradictions are of no consequence and being minor in nature, does not adversely effect the case of the prosecution. The essence of the testimonies of both the eyewitnesses are same as they have consistently testified that the accused Anil Kumar criminally assaulted the complainant/injured PW1 Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma.
The defence Counsel has also pointed out alleged contradiction/improvement between the complaint Ex.PW2/A and in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses PW1 and PW2 in respect of the presence of PW2 Sh. Rohit Sharma at the spot. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the said complaint Ex.PW2/A. However, the FIR is not expected to be the encyclopedia of the entire incident and it need not contain the name of all the witnesses present at the spot. Only those improvements are fatal, which are inherently improbable and does not naturally fit into the sequence of events as asserted in the previous complaints/statements. In the present case, the alleged improvement does not destroy the crux of the allegations and the said improvement can at the most be called as explanation of the attending circumstances at the spot. Thus, the said contention of the accused also does not hold any ground and therefore, it is discarded. The prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accused. It is relevant to mention the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1978) 4 SCC 161, which are as follows: "A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, Page No.10/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation."
22. The other defence raised by the accused persons is that the eye witnesses are partition or interested witnesses and their testimonies are not corroborated by the independent public witnesses. It is therefore, contented by the defence that the testimonies of the interested witnesses cannot be relied upon. It is not denied that the two eyewitnesses are wife and son of the injured/complainant. However, at the same time they are natural witnesses as the incident took place near their house. The testimony of a natural witness cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that he is an interested witness. I find support from the findings given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Teja Ram & Ors. AIR 1999 SC 1776, wherein it is held that : "Rejection of testimony of the interested witness on the ground that they all were relatives of deceased and no independent witness were examined, not proper. Over insistence as witness having no relation with the victim often results in criminal justice going away. When any incidence happens in dwelling house, the most natural witness would be inmates of the house".
In these circumstances, the said eyewitnesses are natural witnesses and the nonjoining of independent public witness does not adversely effect the case of the prosecution, if the said witnesses are otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. The testimony of the witness is weighed and not counted. One credible witness outweighs the testimonies of number of other witnesses. Thus, the corroboration by an independent public witness is not always mandatory. Hence, the said contention of the defence is also of no consequence.
23. The MLC dated 10.06.1999 of the injured/complainant Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma, Ex. PW4/A reflects that he sustained injuries on the said Page No.11/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
date. The consistent testimonies of the eyewitnesses regarding criminal assault upon the complainant have been duly corroborated by the MLC of the complainant Ex.PW4/A. There is no reason why the eyewitnesses would have implicated the innocent persons by concealing the name of actual perpetrator of the crime/offence, who caused the duly proved injuries upon him.
Thus, the alleged motive of falsely implicating the accused is not credible. On the other hand, the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are reliable and trustworthy, who have consistently testified that the accused criminally assaulted the complainant Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma.
24. The above discussion reflects that the testimonies of the eye witnesses inspires sufficient confidence. Therefore, not only the identity of the perpetrator of the present offence has been established, but it is also proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the accused criminally assaulted the complainant / PW1 Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma.
25. Thus, the only contentious issue that survives is whether the grievous injury is due to criminal assault or they are on account of road traffic accident. It is the case of the prosecution, that the complainant Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma sustained two sets of injuries i.e one due to road traffic accident and other by criminal assault. However, the prosecution has failed to lead any evidence to bifurcate the two sets of injuries. Therefore, it is not established beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries caused by the criminal assault of the accused are necessarily grievous in nature. Hence, he cannot be convicted for causing grievous injuries to the complainant. But simultaneously, he cannot be absolved of his criminal liability of voluntarily causing hurt as merely causing bodily pain is sufficient to attract the provisions of offence punishable U/s.323 IPC.
provisions of offence punishable U/s.323 IPC.
26. In the instant case, the accused is charged for the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC. The offence punishable u/s 323 IPC is a minor offence and therefore by invoking the provisions u/s 222 (2) Cr.P.C. the Page No.12/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
accused can be convicted for the offence u/s 323 IPC, although the accused is not charged with it.
27. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily caused simple injuries to the complainant Sh. Avinash Chand Sharma. Accordingly, the accused Anil Kumar is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 323 IPC.
Put up on 18.11.2013 for arguments on quantum of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN (DHEERAJ MOR) COURT TODAY I. E. 06.11.2013. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH)/ROHINI/DELHI Page No.13/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
FIR NO. 300/99.
PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 279/337/325 IPC.
06.11.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Accused Anil Kumar on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, the accused stand convicted for offence punishable U/s 323 IPC.
Put up on 18.11.2013 for argument on quantum of sentence.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM(N)/Rohini/Delhi 06.11.2013 Page No.14/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEIV (DISTRICT NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI FIR NO. 300/99.
PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 279/337/325 IPC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 05.12.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict.
Arguments on the quantum of sentence were heard at length on the last date of hearing. Case file including the probation reports perused.
Ld. APP for the state had argued that the convict be sentenced to a maximum punishment so that a deterrent message be given to the society and like minded people be discouraged from entering into the criminal activities.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convict had contended that he has clear antecedents. It was further submitted that convict Anil Kumar is 33 years of age and he is working as supervisor in hotel. It was further submitted that the convict is the sole bread earner in his family and he has large family consisting of parents, three minor children and wife to support. It was further submitted that the convict has already suffered a lot due to commission of this offence as he is facing ordeal of trial since last 14 years. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for the convict that he be given an opportunity for reformation and a lenient view may be taken. The said incident took place at the spur of moment and without any preplan. It is an offshoot of road rage. It is therefore, submitted on behalf of the convict that the benevolent Page No.15/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
provisions of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 be invoked in his favour as he is the first offender.
No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. It is also essential to understand crime as a social and individual phenomenon and the need to prevent its commission or repetition by adapting an attitude conducive to the resocialisation or repformation of the criminal. The criminal's reformation serves a great social purpose and society itself becomes the greatest beneficiary of this reformation by being freed from his depredations. If the society cannot reform an offender, it is punishment for the society.
The submission made on behalf of the convict are corroborated by the report of probation officer dtd.25.11.2013. Convict is facing trial in this case since last almost 14 years and he has shown genuine remorse for the offence committed by him. His desire to reform also seems to be genuine. There has been increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as useful and selfreliant member of the society without subjecting him to deleterious effects of jail life. Further, it is apparent that the convict is not hardened criminals and therefore, he must be shielded from the hardened criminals in the Jail and must be given an opportunity to reflect upon the offence committed by him and to reform.
Keeping in view the nature of offence, the character of the offender, his family background and social ramifications, it is the expedient to release the convict on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond for an amount of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Same are furnished and they are accepted. He is also directed to pay the cost of legal proceedings of Rs.5000/ in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. The same is paid. Copy of Page No.16/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
this order as well as the judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor)
today on 05.12.2013 MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi
05.12.2013.
Page No.17/13
State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
FIR NO. 300/99.
PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 279/337/325 IPC.
05.12.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict.
Today, matter is listed for order on sentence.
Vide separate order on sentence the convict is released on probation of good conduct on his entering into a bond for an amount of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Same are furnished and they are accepted. He is also directed to pay the cost of legal proceedings of Rs.5000/ in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. The same is paid. Copy of this order as well as the judgment be given to the convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi 05.12.2013 Page No.18/13 State Vs. Anil Kumar, FIR No.300/99, PS. Model Town, U/s 279/337/338 IPC.
FIR NO. 300/99.
PS: MODEL TOWN U/S: 279/337/325 IPC.
18.11.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict.
A report be called from the probation officer for the next date of hearing. Put up on 25.11.2013 for awaiting report of probation officer.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi 18.11.2013 25.11.2013.
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convict along with the convict.
A report from the probation officer is received and the same is perused. Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Put up on 05.12.2013 for orders/clarifications, if any.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM (N)/Rohini/Delhi 25.11.2013 Page No.19/13