Delhi District Court
Sanjay Sharma vs The State on 27 November, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI AMIT BANSAL
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04, NEW DELHI DISTRICT
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Unique I D No. : 02403R0132732014
Criminal Appeal Number : 97/1/14 dated 16.08.2014
FIR No. : 520/2000
PS: : Connaught Place
U/S: : 279/338 IPC
Sanjay Sharma
S/o Sh Om Prakash Sharma
R/o D-75, Sector 23,
Raj Nagar,
Ghaziabad, UP. .....Appellant
versus
The State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) .....Respondent
Appeal received by Court : 16.08.2014
Arguments concluded on : 27.11.2015
Date of judgment : 27.11.2015
JUDGMENT
1 By way of present appeal, the appellant herein has challenged the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2012 passed by Ms Jasjeet Kaur, Ld. MM, PHC, New Delhi whereby the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under sections 279/338 IPC and the consequent order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 whereby the appellant was awarded a sentence to undergo SI for 02 months along with a fine of Rs.500/- for the commission of offence punishable under section 279 CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.1/6 IPC and further to SI for 06 months along with a fine of Rs 500/- for commission of the offence punishable u/s 338 IPC. It was mentioned in the impugned order on sentence that both the sentences shall run concurrently and in default of payment of fine, the convict was to undergo further SI for 01 month. As per the impugned order on sentence dated 15.07.2014, the fine which was imposed was not paid by the appellant/convict.
2 The appellant/convict/accused was facing trial on the allegations of the prosecution that on 30.07.2000 at about 10.35 pm at red light crossing, New Regal Building, B K S Marg, within the jurisdiction of PS Connaught Place, he drove a Fiat car with registration no. DEB 5247 in rash or negligent manner and while driving the above said vehicle in a above said manner, hit it against a scooter bearing no. DNH 8014 and caused grievous injuries on the person of complainant Mr Amarjeet Sobti S/o Sh Harcharan Sobti and thereby committed offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.
3 The charge sheet u/s 279/338 IPC against the accused was filed before the court of Ld. MM and the Notice against the accused /appellant was framed by the Ld. Trial court u/s 279 / 338 IPC on 15.07.2006 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4 The prosecution in support of its case, examined total six witnesses. The injured / complainant Sh Amarjeet Sobti was examined as PW1, the registered owner of offended vehicle (scooter no. DNH 8014) Sh Harcharan Sobti was examined as PW2, the record clerk of CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.2/6 Lady Harding Medical College Sh Puranmal was examined as PW3, ASI Madan Lal (Duty Officer) was examined as PW4, Mr Tasnimuddin Siddiqui (Mechanical Inspector) was examined as PW5 and Inspector Satyavir (IO of the case) was examined as PW6.
5 The statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded on 13.10.2011, wherein, the accused preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
6 Vide impugned judgment dated 20.03.2012, the accused was convicted for the offences punishable u/s 279/338 IPC and thereafter vide impugned order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 was sentenced accordingly.
7 I have heard the arguments and perused the record including trial court record.
8 It is pertinent to note that during arguments on the appeal, the complainant/injured/PW1 Sh Amarjeet Sobti was summoned for some clarifications at the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State. On 27.11.2015, however, the appellant/convict and the complainant/injured stated before this court that they had voluntarily compromised the matter u/s 338 IPC and the appellant also paid further compensation amount to the tune of Rs 25,000/- in cash to the complainant/injured before the court. The complainant/injured stated that he had also earlier received compensation of about Rs 20,000/- and that he had no objection if the offence u/s 338 IPC was compounded. The appellant also prayed for leave of the court to compound the offence u/s 338 IPC and further stated that he did not challenge the legality and validity of CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.3/6 judgment dated 20.03.2012 qua his conviction u/s 279 IPC. The appellant further stated that by way of the present appeal, he was only assailing the extent and legality of order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 qua the offence u/s 279 IPC and prayed for a lenient view. The complainant / injured stated that he had no objection if a lenient view was taken against the appellant/convict u/s 279 IPC. The separate statements of complainant/injured and appellant/accused were also recorded on 27.11.2015.
9 Section 320 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short referred to as CrPC) shows that offence under Section 338 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the court by the person to whom the hurt is caused. The facts of the case and the above said recorded statements of the complainant/injured and appellant/convict would show that both of them voluntarily and without any undue force or coercion or pressure compromised the offence u/s 338 IPC and the appellant also further paid Rs 25000/- as compensation amount before the court to the complainant/injured. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case, statements of the parties and as the appellant has duly compensated the complainant/injured, this court grants permission u/s 320 (5) CrPC for compounding of the offence u/s 338 IPC and the offence under Section 338 IPC is compounded accordingly. Upon composition of the offence u/s 338 IPC, the appellant is accordingly acquitted u/s 338 IPC in terms of Section 320 (8) CrPC.
10 As far as Section 279 IPC is concerned, the appellant has stated CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.4/6 vide his separate recorded statement dated 27.11.2015 that he was not challenging the legality and validity of judgment dated 20.03.2012 qua his conviction u/s 279 IPC and that by way of present appeal, now he was only assailing the extent and order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 qua offence u/s 279 IPC. It would thus show that the appellant has not challenged his conviction u/s 279 IPC vide judgment dated 20.03.2012 and is only challenging the extent and legality of order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 qua offence u/s 279 IPC. In these circumstances, the conviction of appellant/convict u/s 279 IPC vide judgment dated 20.03.2012 is upheld.
11 The Ld. Counsel for the appellant/convict has argued that appellant is aged about 45 years, has old aged mother to look after, his family consist of a wife, two unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter. The appellant is working as a clerk/munshi of an advocate and he is the sole bread earner of his family. He has further prayed for a lenient view against the appellant for commission of offence u/s 279 IPC mentioning that the offence u/s 338 IPC has already been compounded and that the appellant has further paid compensation amount of Rs 25000/- in cash to the complainant/injured before the court. 12 The Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and as the accident cases are increasing day by day, no leniency should be shown to the appellant/convict.
13 As discussed above, the complainant/injured in his recorded statement dated 27.11.2015 has given his no objection if a lenient view CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.5/6 is taken against the appellant/convict u/s 279 IPC. 14 I am not inclined to release the convict / appellant on probation of good conduct in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and also as the accident offences are increasing day by day. The Victim Impact Report (VIR) as called by this court would show that the appellant shifted the injured /victim to the hospital. Further, the offence u/s 338 IPC has been compounded, the complainant/victim has been adequately compensated and further compensation amount of Rs 25000/- has been paid by the appellant/convict to the complainant/injured/victim. In facts, the appellant/convicts deserves a lenient view while being sentenced u/s 279 IPC. The interest of justice would be served, if the appellant /convict is sentenced to TRC (till the rising of the court) and to pay a fine of Rs 1000/- u/s 279 IPC. The appellant/convict is sentenced accordingly u/s 279 IPC. Total fine of Rs 1000/- has been paid today itself before this court by a separate receipt. The impugned judgment dated 20.03.2012 and impugned order on sentence dated 15.07.2014 are modified accordingly. 15 The present appeal is disposed of with the above said directions. 16 TCR be sent back with copy of the judgment.
17 Appeal file be consigned to record room after completion of all other necessary formalities.
Announced in the open
Court on 27.11.2015 ( Amit Bansal )
Addl. Sessions Judge -04,
New Delhi District, Patiala House
Courts, New Delhi/27.11.2015
CA No. 97/1/14 FIR No. 520/2000 PS Connaught Place Sanjay Sharma Vs The State Page No.6/6