Delhi High Court
Rajesh @ Vimal Kumar And Anr. vs State (Delhi Administration) on 8 December, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1995IIIAD(DELHI)343, 1995(32)DRJ5
JUDGMENT Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The appellants have been convicted under section 307 read with section 34 of the. Indian Penal Code and each one of them has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of RS.1000.00 each. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and the order of sentence they have preferred this appeal.
(2) The learned counsel for the appellants had been brief but incisive. They have pressed the appeal only on one ground and it is that the doctor who examined the injured and opined that the injuries were dangerous in nature had not been examined. They say that in view of this lacuna the conviction ought to have been only under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) The perusal of the impugned judgment would go to show that this very point was urged before the learned Additional Sessions Judge but without success. Probably the attention of the learned Additional Sessions Judge was not drawn to the judgment of this court in Narinder Kumar vs. State of Delhi, 1980 Cc Cases 62 (Delhi). In die said case also the doctor who had attended the injured during treatment was not produced and as such the injury could not be proved to be grievous. It was consequently held to be simple. The prosecution suffers from the same malady in the present appeal too. Though it placed on the record the medico-legal report, it never thought of examining the Doctor who had opined that the injuries were dangerous in nature. Since that particular opinion has not 'been proved through the doctor who gave it and since we do not know on what basis he formed that opinion, and keeping also in view the medico legal report placed on the record, I do feel that in the present case the conviction shall have to be only under section 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal with regard to conviction is accepted to that extent.
(4) This now leads me to the question of sentence. Admittedly the injuries were not caused by the appellants. Admittedly their role is covered under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I am further informed that both the appellants were a little above 16 years of age at the time of commission of the offence. Keeping all these facts in view and keeping also in view the fact that the appellants have already undergone sentence for a period of about four months I feel that interest of justice would be best served if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. I thus order acordingly. Let the appellants be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.