Delhi District Court
State vs . Mukesh Kumar on 16 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Mukesh Kumar
FIR No. 253/02
U/s : 279/337 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 28.01.2003
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 16.09.2014
Date of judgment : 16.09.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 253/02
2.Date of the Commission : 24.03.2002
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Mukesh Kumar S/o Sh. Kishan Chand
: R/o Village & Post Office Bharilal, New
: Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Ms Tanuja Singh D/o Sh. B. N. Singh
: R/o H. No. 121/176, Silver Oaks, DLF,
: Phase I, Gurgaon, Haryana.
5.Offence complained of : 279/337 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 279/337 IPC
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 1/16
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 24.03.2002 at about 6.30am at traffic light Modi Hospital, Press Enclave Road, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused Mukesh Kumar was found driving a vehicle i.e. Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-5479 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and public safety to others and while driving the above said vehicle in same manner accused hit against Zen Car bearing no. UP-07J-3832 and caused simple injuries to Ms Tanuja Singh D/o Sh. B.N. Singh and thereby committed offences u/s 279/337 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant, an FIR bearing number 253/02 under section 279/337 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 28.01.2003.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, charge for the offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC was framed against the accused person namely Mukesh Kumar and read out to the said accused person, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 07.04.2004.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the above said allegations against the accused Mukesh Kumar, prosecution has examined the following witnesses.
6. PW-1 Ms Tanuja Singh being complainant was examined on 18.07.2006 and deposed that she was serving as Channel Producer in NDTV and on 24.03.2002 at about 6.30am she was going to her office by her Maruti FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 2/16 Zen car bearing no. UP-07J-3832 via Saket as her office was situated at G.K.-I, New Delhi and when she reached at red light of Modi Hospital, one Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-5479 came from the side of Sheikh Sarai at a very fast speed and struck into her car from the side of driver seat. She further deposed that it was a T junction and she had a green signal to move and she was taking her right turn when the said Ambassador car hit against her car and the impact was so high that her car skidded and hit against the divider and was badly damaged. She further deposed that due to the impact her car turned towards left side, but she was to take right turn and she received injury on her right arm, back and neck as she herself was driving the car and doctor gave stitches on her right arm at Batra Hospital where she had gone for treatment. She further deposed that the accused who told his name as Mukesh present in the court was driving the offending car and the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the accused. She further deposed that she made a call at 100, PCR van came first and thereafter local police came at the spot and recorded her statement vide Ex. PW-1/A and seized the offending car vide Ex. PW-1/B. She further deposed that the vehicle was registered in the name of her Mausi namely Pushpa Singh and same was taken on superdari by her.
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein she stated that she was to reach at her office at 6.45am. She further stated that the distance between the place of accident and her office was 3 Km. She denied the suggestion that she was in hurry to reach her office in 15 minutes and in the same, she jumped the red signal. She further deposed that including the red light of Modi Hospital, there were three red lights in the way to her office from the spot and it would take more than five minutes to cross all these three red lights and she had to complete the FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 3/16 way in 10 minutes to her office from spot. She further stated that she was possessing a DL valid up to 2012 and she was driving her car at 10-15 KM/H as she was to take right turn. She further deposed that she did not see the speeding car/offending vehicle, while she was to take right turn and she cannot tell the speed of offending vehicle, however it was quite high. She voluntarily stated that due to impact of accident, she could have came out of car, had she not wearing the seat belt. She denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to her own fault or that she was driving at fast speed as she had to cover 3 Km distance in 15 minutes after crossing the red lights.
8. PW-2 Shadi Lal being retired foreman DTC was examined on 20.07.2011 and deposed that on 24.03.2002 he had conducted mechanical inspection of vehicle i.e. Car bearing no. UP-07J-3832 and one Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-5479 at PS Malviya Nagar at the request of IO. His detailed report to this effect is Ex. PW-2/A and B respectively.
9. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
10. PW-3 Ranbir Singh being superdar was examined on 20.07.2011 and deposed that he was the owner of car (Taxi) bearing no. DL-1T-5479 and accused Mukesh Kumar present in the court was his driver. He further deposed that he gave the reply of the notice u/s 133 M.V. Act vide Ex. PW-3/A and photocopy of the RC etc. were also given to the police vide Ex. PW-3/B.
11. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
12. PW-4 W/ASI Usha who is a formal witness was examined on 25.07.2012 and proved the FIR Ex. PW-4/A and endorsement on the basis of FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 4/16 rukka Ex. PW-4/B (OSR).
13. This witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-5 Ct. Ram Singh was examined on 04.10.2012 and deposed that on 24.03.2002 he was on emergency duty along with HC Satbir at PP Pushp Vihar, PS Malviya nagar and on that day on receipt of DD no. 44 regarding accident they reached the spot i.e. T point Modi Hospital where they found one Taxi bearing no. DL-1P-5479 and maruti Zen bearing no. UP-07-3852 in an accidental condition. He further deposed that the accused Mukesh present in the court was driving the Taxi and lady namely Tanuja Singh was driving the maruti Zen and the car of the lady was badly damaged and she was injured and lady namely Tanuja Singh went to Batra Hospital on her own for treatment and HC Satbir left him at the spot and went to the Batra Hospital. He further deposed that HC Satbir came back at the spot at about 10.30am and handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, he came back to the spot and handed over original Tehrir and copy of FIR to the IO. He further deposed that IO prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW-5/A. Both the vehicle were taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/B and memo Ex. PW-5/B. Copy of the RC and insurance of offending vehicle were seized vide memo already Ex. PW-3/B which bears his signature at point B. The accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-5/C and D respectively. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement to this effect. He further deposed that the identity of the case property was not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel.
15. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein he admitted that the IO recorded his statement at the last in FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 5/16 the police chowki itself and none of the statement of any witness was recorded in his presence but only the accused was interrogated in his presence. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein she stated that all the proceedings i.e. seizure memo, personal search memo, arrest memo and other documents were prepared at the spot itself. First of all, IO recorded the Tehrir and in the last IO recorded his statement in the present matter and they went to the spot on the two wheeler of the IO and the number of the same he does not remember. He further deposed that it took him around half an hour at the PS at the time of registration of FIR and IO had went to the Batra Hospital on his own two wheeler. He further deposed that as on the day of incident it was election day so no public persons were available on the spot. He denied the suggestion that the public persons were available on the spot and a busy road or that he never visited the spot personally. He further denied the suggestion that all the proceedings were done at the PS or that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case at the behest of the complainant. He further deposed that all the seized vehicle were first of all removed to the PS with the help of the crane. He further deposed that he cannot say whether the crane deriver has been made witness by the IO or not, neither he can tell the registration number of the crane.
16. PW-6 HC Vijender being DD writer was examined on 19.07.2013 and deposed that on 23/24.03.02 he was posted as DD writer at PP Pushp Vihar, PS Malviya Nagar and on that day at about 7.15am in the morning he received a call as regards accident from South District Control room which was handed over to HC Satvir Singh and thereafter HC Satvir Singh along with Ct. Ram singh were sent to the spot.
17. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 6/16 despite opportunity given.
18. PW-7 Dr. Mohit Kumar was examined on 19.07.2013 and deposed that he had prepared the MLC of Ms Tanuja Singh which is dated 24.03.2002 at 8.20am which is Ex. PW-7/A bearing his signatures at point A. He further deposed that the patient was an accident victim and as per the record and examination of the injured, injured were found to be simple in nature and she was referred for radiological for examination.
19. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
20. PW-8 ASI Satbir Singh being IO was examined on 03.05.2014 and deposed that on 24.03.2002 he was posted as HC at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day he had received DD no. 44, PP Pushp Vihar and he along with Ct. Ram Singh reached the spot i.e. red light, Modi Hospital where he met injured Kanhaiya and accused Mukesh also present there and he found a maruti van no. UP-70J-3852 and a Taxi bearing no. DLT-5479 in accidental condition. He further deposed that he shifted injured to Batra Hospital with the help of her lady friend and he left Ct. Ram Singh at the spot and reached Batra Hospital from where he collected MLC, same is Ex. PW-1/A bearing his attestation at point B. He further deposed that he returned back at the spot and handed over a Tehrir to Ct. Ram Singh who got case registered and seized both vehicles vide memo already Ex. PW-1/B and PW-5/B bearing his signature at point B and handed over a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act to the owner of vehicle and received reply vide already Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point B and conducted personal search and arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW-5/D bearing his signature at point C. In the meantime, he prepared site plan which is already Ex. PW-5/A bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he had got conducted mechanical inspection of both FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 7/16 vehicles vide already Ex. PW-2/A and B both bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of all witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court. He further identified the accused present in the court.
21. This witness was also not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity given.
22. As all witnesses were examined by the prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 03.05.2014. Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.07.2014 in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and he does not want to lead any defence evidence.
23. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the state and by Ld. Defence counsel. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
24. In the present matter prosecution has examined eight witnesses in total to prove its allegations qua accused that on the date and time as earlier mentioned, the accused Mukesh Kumar was driving his vehicle i.e. Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-5479 on the public way in a rash and negligent manner and hit against Maruti Zen car bearing no. UP-07J-3832 and thereby causing simple injuries to Ms Tanuja Singh and thereby committing offences punishable u/s 279/337 IPC.
25. Further, before appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state the essential ingredients of section 279 IPC. Same are as follows:
(1)That the accident actually took place.
(2)That the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving.
(3)That the accused was the person who was driving the FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 8/16 vehicle at the relevant time.
The words i.e "rash" and "negligent", have not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. However as per Blacks Law Dictionary, Eighth Edition the word 'Negligent' is characterized by a person's failure to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised in the same circumstances.
Quoting from the article "Negligence, Mens Rea and Criminal Responsibility" by H.L.A.Hart in Punishment and Responsibility the dictionary further goes on to explain the difference between an act done inadvertently and an act done negligently.
"[A] careful consideration is needed of the difference between the meaning of the expression like 'inadvertently' and 'while his mind was a blank' on the one hand, and 'negligently' on the other hand. In ordinary English, and also in Lawyer's English, when harm has resulted from someone's negligence, if we say of that person that he has acted negligently we are not thereby merely describing the frame of mind in which he acted. 'He negligently broke a saucer' is not the same kind of expression as 'he inadvertently broke a saucer'. The point of adverb 'inadvertently' is merely to inform us of the agent's psychological state, whereas if we say 'He broke it negligently' we are not merely adding to this an element of blame or reproach, but something quite specific, viz. we are referring to the fact that the agent failed to comply with a standard of conduct with which any ordinary reasonable man could and would have complied: a standard requiring him to take precautions against harm. The word 'negligently', both in legal and non legal contexts, makes an essential reference to an omission to do what is thus required: it is not a flatly descriptive psychological expression like 'his mind was a blank'."
The Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, Sixth Edition defines 'Rash'as doing something that may not be sensible without first thinking FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 9/16 about the possible results.
Elaborating further, in State of H.P. v. Piar Chand, Cr. Appeal No. 109 of 2003, decided on 2.6.2003, Himachal Pradesh High Court, while dealing with the meaning of the expression " rashness " and " negligence "
held as follows :
"18. Criminal rashness is doing a dangerous or wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and may cause injury but without intention to cause injury and without knowl- edge that injury would probably be caused. Therefore, to incur criminal liability, the act must be done with rashness or indifference as to the consequences. Criminal negli- gence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exer- cise reasonable care and proper precaution imperative to be adopted by a person to avoid causing of injury to the public or a person or a individual."
8. The distinction has been very aptly pointed out by Holloway, J. in these words :
"Culpable rashness is acting with the consciousness that the mischievous and illegal consequences may follow, but with the hope that they will not, and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The imputability arises from acting despite the consciousness. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that the illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstances which show that the actor has not exercised the caution incumbent upon him and that if he had, he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the negligence of the civic duty of circumspection." (See In Re : Nidamorti Nagabhusanam 7 Mad. HCR 119)".
26. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses in total. Charge u/s FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 10/16 279/337 IPC was framed qua accused Mukesh Kumar on 07.04.2004. Complainant has been examined as PW-1 Ms Tanuja who deposed that on the date of incident i.e. 24.03.2002 at about 6.30am she was going to her office by her Maruti Zen car bearing no. UP-07J-3832 via Saket and when she reached the red light of Modi Hospital, one Ambassador car bearing no. DL-1T-5479 came from the side of Sheikh Sarai at a very fast speed and struck into her car from the side of driver. She further explained that spot of accident was a T junction and as she was moving a green light and was taking her turn towards right, the Ambassador car hit against her car and the impact was so high that her car skidded and hit against the divider and got badly damaged. She further deposed that impact was such that her car turned towards left while she was trying to take right turn and she also received injury on her right hand and she was herself driving the car. She further deposed as regards having received stitches on her right arm at Batra Hospital and identified the accused Mukesh present in the court who was driving the offending car due to whose negligence the accident occurred. She further deposed as regards having made a call on 100 when PCR came and her statement was recorded vide Ex. PW-1/A bearing her signature at point A. She further identified her signature on the seizure memo of her car Ex. PW-1/B bearing her signature at point A.
27. This witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused wherein she denied the suggestion that accident occurred on account of her jumping the red light while she was hurry to reach in her office. She further denied the suggestion that the accident was caused due to her own fault as she was jumping the red lights.
28. Apart from this witness, the superdar of the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1T-5479 has been examined as PW-3 namely Ranbir Singh.
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 11/16 He also deposed that he received a notice u/s 133 M.V. Act which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that on the day of accident the accused Mukesh Kumar was driving the offending vehicle. He further exhibited the photocopy of the RC which was seized vide memo Ex. PW-3/B. He further identified the offending vehicle which was taken by him on superdari.
29. Next witness was examined by the prosecution as PW-4 woman ASI Usha who deposed that on the date of accident i.e. 24.03.2002 she was posted as DO at PS malviya nagar and at about 10.55am she received a Rukka through Ct. Ram Singh on the basis of which she recorded the present case FIR, copy of which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-4/A and endorsement on rukka has been exhibited as Ex. PW-4/B (OSR).
30. Another witness Ct. Ram Singh has been examined as PW-5 who deposed that on the date of incident he was on emergency duty and he received DD no. 44 regarding accident along with HC Satbir who reached the spot at T junction of Modi Hospital where both the offending vehicles bearing no. DL-1P-5479 and maruti Zen bearing no. UP-07-3852 were found in an accidental condition. He further deposed that the car of injured lady was badly damaged and she was injured and she went to Batra Hospital for her own treatment along with HC Satbir. He further deposed that IO came back to the spot at around 10.30am and handed over the rukka to him for registration of the FIR and after registration of FIR, copy of FIR was handed over to the IO. The preparation of the site plan is Ex. PW-5/A. He further identified his signatures on the seizure memos of the offending vehicle and the vehicle of the injured being Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-5/B bearing his signatures at point B. He further identified his signatures at point B on Ex. PW-3/B being seizure memo of RC and insurance of the offending vehicle. He further deposed that FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 12/16 personal search of the accused was conducted in his presence and memo Ex. PW-5/D and arrest memo Ex. PW-5/C were prepared in his presence bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein he admitted that no other public persons were made witness in the present matter despite the spot of accident being busy road.
31. The prosecution has further examined HC Vijender as PW-6 being DD writer at PS Malviya Nagar on 23/24.03.2002 which was handed over to the HC Satvir Singh. He further deposed that HC Satvir Singh and Ct. Ram Singh were sent to the spot.
32. Apart from this witness, the Mechanical Inspector has been examined as PW-2 who gave his detailed report Ex. PW-2/A and PW-2/B bearing his signature at point A. The said two reports mentions the damage on the offending vehicle bearing no. DL-1T-5479 which are as follows:
● Bonnet bend on the right side.
● Right side head light broken.
● Right side mudguard damage.
● Side bumper dented.
● Front number plate damage.
● Green colour impression found on the vehicle.
● Other mechanicalism including Brake, Accilator, Clutch and
Steering were found to be O.K.
33. On the other hand the mechanical inspection report of the car of the injured bearing no. UP-07J-3832 are as follows:
● Front wind screen damage.
● Left hand side both window damage.
● Right and left side window and glass broken.
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 13/16
● Rear left side wheel rim bend.
34. It is clear from the nature of damages on both the vehicles that the accident took place in the manner as explained by PW-1. The spot of accident has further been explained by site plan which is on record which is Ex. PW-5/A in which the position of the offending vehicle and the vehicle of the injured have been mentioned. The fact that PW-1 received injury has further been substantiated by MLC which has been duly proved by PW-7 Dr. Mohit Kapila and which has been exhibited as Ex. PW-7/A wherein the patient received simple injury as per the report. As per the report of Batra Hospital, the date and the time have been mentioned to be 24.03.2002 at 8.20am which is corroborating the version of the prosecution as regards the time of the accident. It has also been mentioned the road traffic injury and place of incident to be near Modi Hospital. The MLC further substantiates the wound as backache, wound over right upper arm around 1 inch.
35. Apart from the witnesses as examined above and their depositions corroborating each other, the IO has also been examined as PW-8 (mentioned as PW-7 on account of typographical error). The IO has also deposed the sequence of events leading to the registration of the FIR, preparation of documents and filing of challan by him in the court. He also identified the accused.
36. Apart from the corroborating documents such as site plan, MLC, seizure memos of the offending car and the vehicle of the injured, mechanical inspection reports and the copy of the FIR etc., the statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 07.07.2014 wherein it was put to him whether the accident took place on 24.03.2002 at 6.30am at T Junction, Modi Hospital, Press Enclave Road, to which he replied in FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 14/16 affirmative and admitted that he was driving the Ambassador car and accident took place with a Maruti Zen car which was being driven by a lady. He further admitted the preparation of other documents and did not lead any defence evidence. It has been settled by the various higher courts that admission under section 313 Cr.P.C. can be taken to be a relevant fact in deciding the fate of the accused.
This question has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court in case titled :
Janki Dass Vs. State 1995CriLJ2175, (1994)ILR Delhi392 In this murder reference the only question of law that arose for consideration was as to whether a admission made under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. can form the basis of conviction. The Court Held that : "The underlying object behind Section 313 is to give an opportunity to the accused to be heard not only on what is prima facie proved against him but on a very circumstance appearing in evidence against him so that he is not condemned unheard. It enables the accused to explain the circumstances appearing against him in evidence. The answers given by an accused may be taken into consideration in judging not only his innocence but also judging his guilt. There is nothing in the language of Section 313 to suggest that answers given by an accused admitting the evidence or circumstances proved against him, have to be ignored and have not to be taken into consideration for judging his guilt.
The weight to be attached to the statement of an accused made under Section 313 of the Code though cannot be placed in a straight jacket since it has to vary according to the circumstances of each case, yet the legal position seems to be clear that such statements FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 15/16 can be taken into consideration in judging not only the innocence but guilt of the accused and admission made in a statement under Section 313 of the Code can be made the basis of conviction".
37. Further, controverting the submissions made by Ld. Defence counsel, no public witness apart from the injured herself has been cited as a witness, it is necessary to observe here that in most cases public witnesses unless they are affected themselves are unwilling to become witnesses and get involved in police cases. Further, it is settled law that the complainant herself being an injured is in a perfect position to corroborate and to depose as regards accident having occurred as he/she is the prime witness having witnessed the cause of accident.
38. Thus, on account of the above mentioned observations the guilt of the accused has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and he is required to be convicted u/s 279/337 IPC and accused Mukesh Kumar is accordingly, convicted for offences punishable under section 279/337 IPC.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 22.09.2014 at 2.00pm.
ANNOUNCED IN THE COURT (CHETNA SINGH) ON 16.09.2014 MM-02(SD)/16.09.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 16 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/16.09.2014
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 16/16
State Vs Mukesh Kumar
FIR No.253/02
u/s 279/337 IPC
PS Malviya Nagar
14.10.2014
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict is present in person with Ld. Counsel.
Arguments on sentence advanced.
IO is present. He has given his statement as regards complainant Ms Tanuja not being traceable.
It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that the convict is the first time offender and has clean antecedent and is the sole bread earner of his family. Hence, it is prayed that either he be released on probation of good conduct.
On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued for maximum punishment, as he states that the offence has been proved by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt and the convict does not deserve any leniency as he caused simple injuries to complainant Ms Tanuja Singh.
Heard.
Aggravating Circumstances:
Facts leading to the conviction of the convict clearly reveals that the convict was found driving his vehicle bearing no. DL1T5479 in a rash and negligent manner and caused simple injuries to complainant Ms Tanuja Singh.
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 17/16 Thus, his guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mitigating Circumstances:
(1)That the convict is the sole bread earner.
(2)That he is the first time offender.
(3) That the trial has been dragged for 12 long years.
Considering all the aggravating and mitigating circumstances and on account of submission made by Ld. Counsel for the convict on sentence, this court is of the considered opinion that convict is released on Probation of good conduct u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 however, he is directed to deposit compensation amount of Rs. 15,000/ u/s 5 (1)(a) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to be paid to injured Ms Tanuja Singh.
Time sought by convict for payment of compensation amount.
Be listed for payment of compensation for 28.10.2014 at 10.00am.
(CHETNA SINGH)
MM02/SD/14.10.2014
FIR No. 253/02 State Vs Mukesh Kumar Pages 18/16