Delhi High Court
Shashi Bhushan Etc. vs State on 22 January, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987(1)CRIMES514, 31(1987)DLT218
JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-Ud-Din, J.
(1) Appellants Shashi Bhushan and Rosban Lal both brothers were convicted under Sections 452 and 323, Indian Penal Code, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi but instead of sentencing them to undergo imprisonment, benefit of Section 360 Criminal Procedure Code, was extended to them and they were ordered to be released on their furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 3.000.00 each with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months undertaking to appear and receive sentence if called upon to do so by the Court and also undertaking to keep peace and be of good behavior. The prosecution's case in respect of the other two accused who were also put on trial namely Madan and Manmohan was not believed.
(2) The case is on my board at Item No. I today. Unfortunately, the learned counsel for the appellants failed to put in his appearance. 1. have heard Sodhi Teja Singh and has fairly taken me through the record.
(3) The facts of the prosecution case are that on 1-4-1973 at about 1045, the appellants along with Madan and Manmoban entered the premises of Virender Kumar armed with lathies and after entering the premises they inflicted bleeding injuries on his person.
(4) The entire case rests on the testimony of Surinder Kumar, Public Witness 1, brother of the injured Public Witness 2, Virinder, the victim of the assailants, Public Witness 3 Subhash Public Witness 4, Brij Mohan, who were supposed to testify in respect of the actual occurrence. The trial court has ignored the testimony of Public Witness 3, Subhash as well as that of Public Witness 4 Brijmohan after arriving at a conclusion that their presence at the scene of incident is doubtful and they are planted witnesses. Public Witness 5 Harish is not an eye witness to the incident. He has only seen the accused person running from the scene of incident and when he went inside the house of the victim he found him bleeding from bead and legs injuries.
(5) The record of the case clearly goes to establish that there is a long drawn enmity between the parties. The case of the prosecution could not be thrown over board simply because there was enmity, In fact such offences very often are committed because of some enemical back-ground. The simple fact that there was enmity between the parties does not entitle the appellants to any benefit, as even the enmity between the parties cannot be allowed to be solved by taking law into their own hands. The fact of the matter is that Virinder had sustained injuries and the certificate in this regard has been proved by Public Witness 7 Khajan Singh, Record Keeper of the hospital. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the injury is not self inflicted. Indeed, it is correct that it is not for the appellants to prove bow the victim Virinder sustained this injury. All that is required in the circumstances of this case is that in the light of the enmity between the parties, the Court has to approach the testimony of Surinder Kumar Public Witness 1 and Virinder cautiously. The corroboration to the testimony of these two witnesses is provided by Public Witness 5 Harish who had after the trespassing seen the accused person escaping from the scene of incident and has also seen bleeding injuries having been sustained by Virinder. There is nothing worthwhile on the record as to why Harish Pw 5 should come and testify against the assailants. For all purposes he seems to be innocent and impartial person having nothing to do with either of the parties. Under these circumstances, the trial court, to my mind, was completely justified in convicting the appellants under Section 452 and Section 323, Indian Penal Code. The trial court has already shown plenty of mercy to the appellants by giving them benefit of Section 360. Criminal Procedure Code. With these observations, I find no merit in this appeal. Dismissed.