Delhi High Court
Akil Ahmad And Ors vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 20 November, 2017
Author: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
Bench: Sangita Dhingra Sehgal
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.REV. P. NO.828/2017
Order reserved on : 13th November, 2017
Order pronounced on :20th November, 2017
AKIL AHMAD & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Jai Kumar Sinha, Advocate.
Versus
THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Anita Abraham, APP for the
State with ASI Moolchand, P.S.
Madhu Vihar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
1. The present Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under
Section 397/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter
referred 'Cr.PC.'), challenging the order dated 06.09.2017 passed
by the Additional Sessions Judge-04 (Shahdara), Karkadooma,
New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'ASJ') in FIR No. 1362/2014
whereby the petitioners were convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred as 'IPC') registered at Police Station Madhu Vihar, New
Delhi.
2. The brief and necessary facts of the case are that on 18.11.2014 at
about 10:30 p.m., the brother of the complainant, Abdul Rahim and
the brother-in-law of the complainant Pappu were to come and
meet him at his place of residence. The petitioner who was residing
CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 1 of 4
in the same house went to put a lock on the entrance, and when the
wife of the complainant, Smt. Hansa, requested him not to lock the
gate, he started abusing her. Just then the brothers of the petitioner,
Aleem, Shakeel and JCL-S arrived and started abusing the brother
and relative of the complainant. When this act was protested, the
petitioner and JCL-S started assaulting the complainant, his wife
and brother with iron rods. Consequently, the police was called and
they were brought to Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital where they were
examined medically. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged.
3. Vide impugned order dated 06.09.2017, the ASJ, framed charges
under Section 308/34 IPC against the petitioners. The petitioners
preferred a revision petition against the said order. Hence, the
present Criminal Revision Petition.
4. Assailing the impugned order,Mr. Jai Kumar Sinha, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant lodged a
false complaint in connivance with the police with an ulterior
motive to implicate the petitioners due to existing feuds between
the two families to which the two Civil Suits are pending between
the parties; that as per the MLC reports the nature of injuries
sustained by the complainant were 'simple' and could thus not be
fatal; that the police failed to recover the alleged iron rod from the
appellant; that the incident occurred on 18.11.2014 but the FIR was
lodged in the morning of 19.11.2014.
5. Per Contra, Ms. Anita Abraham, learned APP for the State
submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any
CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 2 of 4
jurisdictional infirmity or material irregularity to exercise the
jurisdiction vested upon the Appellate Court.
6. I have given my considered thought to the submissions made by
counsel for parties and perused material available on record.
7. At the outset, it is relevant to peruse Section 308 of the IPC which
reads as under :-
"Whoever does any act with such intention or
knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by
that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, or with fine, or with both."
8. Further, Section 34 of the IPC lays down the legal provisions
regarding Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention and reads as under:-
"When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner
as if it were done by him alone.".
9. According to the MLC, the complainant, Mr. Abdul Hakim
sustained multiple injuries on his head measuring CLW of 5cm x
0.5cm over vertex and CLW of 3cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm over the
parietal region, the wife of the complainant, Mrs. Hansha sustained
two injuries on the front region of the scalp measuring (1) CLW of
5cm x1cm x 0.5cm and (2) CLW of 3cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm. Further,
CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 3 of 4
the brother if the complainant, Abdul Raheem also sustained
injuries on the parietal region. The complainant and his family
members suffered from Multiple Lacerated Wounds on sensitive
body parts, which implies that they were repeatedly assaulted by
the appellant. Thus it can be assumed the appellant had knowledge
that his act could have caused the death of the appellant, yet he
indulged in it. On perusal of the FIR and the MLC report a prima
face case U/s 308 can thus be made out.
10. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the reasons
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the impugned order, do not
suffer from any illegality whatsoever and accordingly, the present
Criminal Revision Petition shall stand dismissed.
11. Ordered accordingly.
CRL.M(A).17923/2017
In view of the aforesaid order, the present application is rendered
infructuous.
Application stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J.
NOVEMBER 20, 2017 //gr/ CRL.REV.P.828/2017 Page 4 of 4