The State vs Baldev S/O Munshi Ram on 23 March, 2012

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

The State vs Baldev S/O Munshi Ram on 23 March, 2012

                                     -1-

           IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
       ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT
                  ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. : 1750/05
PS : Sultan Puri
U/s : 308/323/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 143582009
In the matter of
The State
Versus
1.       Baldev S/o Munshi Ram,
         R/o 208, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
2.       Subhash S/o Sushil Kumar,
         R/o 165, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
3.       Munshi Ram S/o Prabhu Dayal,
         R/o 208, V.&.P.O, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
4.       Sunita W/o Vijay Singh,
         R/o 451, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
5.       Sudesh S/o Baldev,
         R/o 208, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
6.       Nand Ram S/o Prabhu Dayal,
         R/o 244, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
7.       Vijay S/o Pratap Singh,
         R/o 451, Puth Kalan, Delhi.
                                                ...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 343/09
Date of Institution : 02.06.2009
Date of Committal : 03.08.2009
Date of reserving judgment/order : 19.03.2012
Date of pronouncement : 19.03.2012
FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri                 Page 1 of 26
                                        -2-

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused persons namely Baldev, Subhash, Munshi Ram, Sunita, Sudesh, Nand Ram and Vijay were sent up by police of PS Sultan Puri to stand trial for offence punishable U/s 308/323/34 IPC.

2. In brief the prosecution case is that on 11.11.2005, on the receipt of DD NO.44B, HC Sameer along with Ct. Devender reached at the place of occurrence i.e H.No. 219, Puth Kalan and came to know that the injured had been removed to SGM Hospital. No eye witness was found. He reached at SGM Hospital and obtained the MLC of Sunita and MLC of Satish was not ready, but doctor had observed that the history of physical assault and he was transferred to STC and declared him unfit for statement. Medical examination of Prem, Ram Chander, Nagender, Saroj, Sudesh and Vijay was also obtained. However, all those persons left the hospital without giving the statement to unknown place. He kept the DD for inquiry. On 12.11.2005, he obtained the MLC of Satish and reached at the spot, where Smt. Prem met and gave her statement. On the basis of the same, FIR was registered and the accused persons were arrested and after completion of investigation, they were sent for trial.

3. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 03.08.2009 by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 13.10.2009 after finding prima-facie, charged the accused persons namely Baldev, FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 2 of 26 -3- Subhash, Munsi Ram, Sunita, Sudesh, Nand Ram and Vijay for offences punishable U/s 308/323/34 IPC to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as seven (7) witnesses :-

6. The prosecution examined following material witnesses :-

i. PW-1 Sh. Satish Kumar, the injured in this case.

ii. PW-2 Smt. Prem, is the complainant & injured, who proved her statement, Ex.PW2/A. iii. PW3 Sh. Nagender is injured & material witness.

7. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses : -

i. PW-4 Dr. Brajesh Singh, who proved the MLC, prepared by Dr. Mustak and Dr. Vijay of Ram Chander, Ex.PW4/A, MLC of Smt. Prem, Ex.PW4/B, MLC of Nagender Ex.PW4/C, MLC of Saroj Ex.PW4/D, MLC of Vijay Ex.PW4/E and MLC of Sudesh is Ex.PW4/F. ii. PW5 HC Krishan Pal, the duty officer, who recorded the DD entry, Ex.PW5/A and recorded the FIR, Ex.PW5/B and made his endorsement on rukka Ex.PW5/C.

8. The prosecution also examined witness of arrest and investigation :

i. PW-6 ASI Shamir Singih, is the initial IO, and recorded the statement of the complainant, Ex.PW2/A. He made FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 3 of 26 -4- endorsement on the said statement and prepared rukka, Ex.PW6/A. ii. PW-7 ASI Devender Joshi, the second I.O. He prepared the site plan, Ex.PW7/A and recorded the statements of the witnesses. Accused persons were arrested vide arrest memos Ex.PW7/B to H.

9. After conclusion of the trial, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC recorded wherein they denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. They stated that they are innocent and falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant party as they wanted them to shift from the place, which was purchased by them and a cross-case had also been registered against the complainant party. However, they chose to lead evidence in their defence.

10. Accused persons also examined DW1, which is with respect to the cross case, registered on their complaint.

11. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. R. K. Dahiya, Advocate, for all accused persons. I have also gone through the record.

12. PW-2 Smt. Prem testified that accused Baldev resides in her neighbourhood. In the year 2002, she had taken loan of Rs. 40,000/- from him on the interest @ 3% per month. Her husband had also got the papers of his plot ad measuring 50 yards with accused Baldev. She used to regularly pay the interest and due to FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 4 of 26 -5- domestic problem, she could not pay the interest for 8 months. Prior to one day of the present incident i.e 11.11.2005, she and her family member went to the house of Baldev for settling the money transaction by paying the amount to him, on which accused gave her threat that he had purchased the said plot from her husband, and he also threatened to return the money. On 11.11.2005, accused Baldev, Sudesh, Munshi, Nand Ram, Pratap, Vijay and Sunita came to their house and told that they will put the lantern (concrete roof) on the plot, on which they told not to do so, as they were the owner, on which they started quarreling with them.

13. She further stated that accused Sudesh caught hold of her daughter Saroj. They were armed with lathies. Accused Munshi hit her with danda on her leg. Accused Sudesh struck the head of her daughter against the wall. Accused Pratap caught hold her husband and they all gave beatings to them. When, she cried, her son Satish came out, on which when he tried to save them, accused persons caught hold her son and accused Subhash and other accused persons gave danda blows on the head of her son. When, her other son Nagender tried to intervene, he was also beaten up in the similar manner. Thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot, saying that they were dead. They called at 100 number. Thereafter, they were removed to SGM Hospital. Thereafter, her elder son Satish was referred to Trauma Centre, near Chandgi Ram Akhada. Police had recorded her statement on the next day.

FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 5 of 26 -6-

14. PW1 Satish Kumar testified that on 11.11.2005, he was on leave and about 2:30 p.m, he was present at his house. All of a sudden, he heard a noise. He came outside of his house and saw that accused Baldev, Sudesh, Sunita and Munshi were grappling with his mother and abusing her. He tried to intervene and save his mother. Accused Subhash was having a danda in his hand and he gave a beating to them. Accused Subhash hit him on his head with danda. He also gave danda blows to his brother Nagender. They tried to run away, but accused Baldev exhorted the other accused persons, to caught hold of them and they should not be spared. He was overpowered by accused Baldev and Vijay. His mother was caught hold by accused Sunita. His sister Saroj was also overpowered by accused Sudesh. Accused Nand Lal caught hold his brother Nagender. Accused Subhash gave a beating to all of them. He and his brother Nagender received head injuries by the danda of accused Subhash. His father, who was aged about 80 years also came forward to rescue them. He pleaded before the accused persons to leave them, but the accused persons also gave a beating to his father with kicks and fists blows. He also became unconscious.

15. PW3 Nagender also similarly testified that he was present in his house. He heard a noise and came out and saw that a quarrel was taking place in their plot and he also saw that accused Baldev and Vijay were beating his mother and father with lathis. His brother Satish also came out and when he along with his brother tired to save his parents, in the meanwhile, accused persons namely FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 6 of 26 -7- Sudesh, Sunita, Nand Ram, Munshi and Subhash also reached at the spot. Accused Subhash and one other person, who accompanied accused Subhash gave beatings to his brother Satish and also to him with lathis. His sister Saroj also reached at the spot and the accused persons gave beatings to her also with lathis/dandas. Accused Sudesh had caught hold his sister Saroj, accused Sunita caught hold his mother and accused Nand Lal caught hold him and accused Subhash gave beatings to them with lathis/dandas. Accused persons gave beatings to him, his brother Satish on their head. They all received injuries. They were taken to hospital. His brother Satish was firstly taken to SGM Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to another hospital situated at Trans Yamuna. He was also medically examined at SGM Hospital and his sister was also examined at the said hospital. From SGM Hospital, they were also examined at another hospital.

16. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the said plot was sold by the husband of the complainant in which the son of the complainant was the witness and when they came to raise construction on the said plot, which was owned by them, the complainant persons picked up the quarrel with them and gave beatings to them and with respect to the same, the case was registered against them and submitted that in fact, the complainant persons are the aggressors and they have falsely implicated in this case their entire family in order to force them to leave their claim over the plot. Ld. Defence counsel has further submitted that the offence U/s 308 IPC is not proved and cited judgments Ranjit Singh v. State, 1995 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 7 of 26 -8- A I H C 4282 of Delhi High Court. In the said case, there was a discrepancy on account of eye witness and the medical evidence and the court convicted for offence punishable U/s 323 and not U/s 308 IPC.

17. PW2 in her cross-examination stated that no document was prepared in her presence, regarding the loan of Rs. 40,000/-. The same was prepared in front of her husband and loan was taken by her husband. No receipt was issued by the accused Baldev Singh for the interest paid to him for two years. She denied that the said plot was sold by her husband to accused Baldev Singh for a consideration. She does not know whether her husband had executed certain documents in the office of Sub-Registrar pertaining to the said plot. She does not know, whether her son Satish is an attesting witness on the said documents. She voluntarily stated that her son Satish is drunkard. She stated that she does not know whether document Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB, Ex.PW1/DC & Ex.PW1/DD were executed by her husband and attested by her son Satish. She also does not know, whether by said document her husband had handed over the possession of the said plot to accused Baldev. She admitted that on 11.11.2005, Baldev was making construction on the said plot, when she along with her family members quarreled with him and caused injuries on them. She voluntarily stated that they themselves came. She admitted that they are facing trial in FIR N.1958/05, PS Sultan Puri and she along with her husband and son are the accused in the said case. She also admitted that civil suit regarding the said plot FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 8 of 26 -9- is pending in Tis Hazari Courts.

18. On the other hand, PW3 Nagender stated that at the time of quarrel, he was present at in his house. He heard a noise and came out and saw that a quarrel was taking place in their plot No. 219A and he also saw that accused Baldev and Vijay were beating his mother and father with lathis. He also denied the suggestion that his father had sold an area of 50 sq. yards, out of the said plot to accused Baldev on 14.03.2002. He also stated that they had not kept any document with accused Baldev for securing the said loan. He does not know whether the FIR No. 1958/05, dt. 09.12.2005, U/s 323/341/34 IPC, PS Sultan Puri was registered. Although he admitted that he is facing the trial in one case before Ld. MM. He also stated about ignorance about civil suit regarding the said portion of the plot.

19. PW1 Satish Kumar in his cross-examination denied the sale, but admitted the document, Ex.PW1/DA, which bears his signature at point A, as a marginal witness. Similarly document, Ex.PW1/DB also bears his signatures at point A, as a marginal witness, and Ex.PW1/DC also bears his signatures at point A, as a marginal witness, and the document Ex.PW1/DD also bears his signatures at point A, as a marginal witness. He voluntarily stated that the accused persons had made to him drink cold drink before taking him from his house, therefore, he does not know anything about the execution of the said documents. He stated that his father had not accompanied him to the office of Sub-Registrar. He had gone FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 9 of 26 -10- alone there on the asking of the accused persons and admitted the photograph at point X on Ex.PW1/DA, Ex.PW1/DB and Ex.PW1/DC are of his father. He admitted the cross case and civil case pending.

20. The document Ex.PW1/DA is the general power of attorney, made by Ram Chander in favour of Baldev Singh (accused), which is witnessed by PW Satish, Ex.PW1/DB deed of will, which is also signed by Satish as a witness having photograph of Ram Chander, Ex.PW1/DC the receipt of receiving of Rs. 20,000/- in consideration of sale in which Satish is the witness, Ex.PW1/DD, the possession of the said plot in which Satish had signed as a witness. Agreement to sell, which is also signed by Satish as a witness. Therefore, all these documents taken together makes apparent that there was a sale of the said plot in favour of Baldev by Ram Chander. Smt. Prem claimed that Satish is a drunkard and had signed the documents after drinking, whereas he claims that he had taken the cold drink. He claims that he was not accompanied by his father to the Sub-Registrar Office, whereas the documents bears the photographs of his father, in which he was the attesting witness. There are also inconsistency with respect to the loan having been taken and the payment in respect of the said loan was having been made. Apparently this plot was own by accused Baldev and they wanted to raise construction on the said plot, which admittedly was objected to by the complainant and her family.

FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 10 of 26 -11-

21. Now, coming to the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant Satish has given as simple. Although he had sustained injuries on his head and with respect to the medical examination of other persons i.e Ram Chander and Prem, which is not the MLC and on the request of the police, their medical examination was conducted and there was no injury marks noticing. The injuries were also not proved as the doctor, who had examined those persons have left the services of the hospital and the injuries were proved by the other doctor. Even, otherwise, the nature of injuries were given as simple. However, it is proved on record that the accused persons formed an intention at the spot and caused injuries, which was simple in nature. The common intention can be gathered from the fact that all were involved in quarrel. It is however immaterial that who had taken which part and all are liable for the act of others.

22. Now, the question arises, whether U/s 308 IPC is made out.

Apparently, there was an injury on the head of Satish. However, admittedly there was a cross case and there was a dispute, regarding the plot, which apparently was owned by the accused Baldev and therefore there appears to be no intention to cause culpable homicide and the injury has been sustained in the fight by both the parties. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the offnece U/s 323 IPC is made out against all the accused persons.

23. Now, coming to the defence of the accused persons. Their defence is that they had gone to raise construction, which was FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 11 of 26 -12- objected to and the fight started and they had cause injuries in the self defence and the cross FIR was registered against the complaint party. It is not disputed that the fight had taken place and merely because the other party has picked up the dispute does not mean that the common intention cannot be formed and by causing injuries to them cannot be said to be caused on account of private defence.

24. Therefore, as per discussion above, I am of the opinion the prosecution has succeeded in proving offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC against accused persons namely Baldev, Subhash, Munshi Ram, Sunita, Sudesh, Nand Ram and Vijay beyond reasonable doubt. They are accordingly convicted for the said offences.

25. Let the report of probation officer be called. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 19.03.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 19.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 12 of 26 -13- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - MUNSHI RAM Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Munshi Ram in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and he has clean antecedent. He is aged about 83 years and he is married and having five child. He is hard of hearing and old aged. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that he be given benefit of probation.

Report of probation officer seen. Probation officer has reported that he is earning hand and responsible person and also recommended that there is likelihood of reformation of convict, if released on probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 13 of 26 -14- sentencing him at once. Accordingly, convict Munshi Ram is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. He shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding his behaviour and conduct.

Since it is cross-case, no compensation is awarded. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost and copy of the judgment be also sent to probation officer for compliance. File be consigned to record room. Announced in the open court today i.e on 23.03.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/Delhi.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 14 of 26 -15- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - BALDEV Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Baldev in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and he has clean antecedent. He is aged about 42 years and he is married and having two child. He is a security guard by profession. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that he be given benefit of probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 15 of 26 -16- sentencing him at once. Accordingly, convict Baldev is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. The convict is further directed to not consume liquor during period of probation and he shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding his behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 16 of 26 -17- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - VIJAY Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Vijay in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and he has clean antecedent. He is aged about 41 years and he is married and having four child. He has rental income and has part time driver by profession and sole bread earner in the family. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that he be given benefit of probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 17 of 26 -18- probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of sentencing him at once. Accordingly, convict Vijay is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. The convict is further directed to not consume liquor during period of probation and he shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding his behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 18 of 26 -19- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - NAND RAM Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Nand Ram in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and he has clean antecedent. He is aged about 87 years and he is married and having two child. He is retired pensioner. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that he be given benefit of probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 19 of 26 -20- sentencing him at once. Accordingly, convict Nand Ram is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. He shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding his behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 20 of 26 -21- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - SUBHASH KUMAR Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Subhash Kumar in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate.

Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and he has clean antecedent. He is aged about 25 years and he is married and having one child and a sports man and sole bread earner in the family. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that he be given benefit of probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 21 of 26 -22- probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of sentencing him at once. Accordingly, convict Subhash Kumar is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on his executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that he shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. The convict is further directed to not consume liquor during period of probation and he shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding his behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 22 of 26 -23- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - SUNITA Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Sunita in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and she has clean antecedent. She is aged about 35 years and she is married and has four child and housewife. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that she be given benefit of probation.

Report of probation officer seen. Probation officer has recommended that there is likelihood of reformation of convict, if released on probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of sentencing her at once. Accordingly, convict Sunita is released on FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 23 of 26 -24- probation of good conduct for a period of one year on her executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that she shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if she is so directed. She shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding her behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 24 of 26 -25- IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 1750/2005 PS : Sultan Puri U/s : 323/34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE - SUDESH Pr. : Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. P.P for the State.

Convict Sudesh in person with Sh. R.K. Dahiya, Advocate. Arguments heard on sentence.

Report of probation officer was called. Received and perused. It is submitted on behalf of convict that convict is not a previous convict and she has clean antecedent. She is aged about 38 years and she is married and has two child and housewife. It is further submitted that there is no involvement of the convict prior or subsequent to the present offence. Therefore, it is submitted that she be given benefit of probation.

Report of probation officer seen. Probation officer has recommended that there is likelihood of reformation of convict, if released on probation.

The convict is found guilty of offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In this case there is no premeditation to commit offence. In the cross-case arising out of the same transaction the complainant party were accused persons. Therefore keeping in view totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and antecedent of the convict, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met in giving the benefit of probation u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act to the convict instead of sentencing her at once. Accordingly, convict Sudesh is released on FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 25 of 26 -26- probation of good conduct for a period of one year on her executing personal bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each to the satisfaction of this court subject to the condition that she shall keep peace and be of good behaviour during that period. The convict is also directed to appear and receive sentence during the period of one year, if he is so directed. The convict is further directed to not consume liquor during period of probation and he shall report to the probation officer every 3 months and the probation officer shall file quarterly report to the court regarding her behaviour and conduct.

23.03.2012 FIR No. : 1750/05, PS :Sultan Puri Page 26 of 26

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

The State vs Baldev S/O Munshi Ram on 23 March, 2012