High Court of Delhi was dealing with the petition challenges the judgment and order on sentence whereby the appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 186/333/34 IPC and awarded sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for offence punishable under Section 333/34 IPC.
Brief Facts:
The prosecution case was initiated on a receipt informing that near Police picket, one person in drunken condition has given a blow with razor to a Police official. Ct. Kulvir Singh stated that he was on duty from 4.00 PM to 12.00 mid-night in the area. At about 10.45 PM when he reached the North Yard of the Railway opposite platform 10 and 11 which is not a public place, and public is not allowed so as to avoid theft of railway property, he saw 2 – 3 boys sitting there. When he asked the boys to go away, they did not go away. When he touched one of them and asked them to go, he started abusing him, grappled with him and took out a razor and gave a blow on his left-hand wrist at two places, due to which bleeding started. The complainant snatched the razor from him whereafter that boy and his associates started pelting stones on him. Statement of an eye-witness Pankaj was also recorded and at the instance of Pankaj appellant was arrested. As per the Doctor the injury was grievous in nature and thus Section 333 IPC was added.
Appellant’s Contention:
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the prosecution examined Constable Kulvir who was the victim, however failed to examine Head Constable Vijay Pal who was accompanying him. It was submitted that the fact that Constable Kulvir received grievous injury has not been proved by the MLC and thus the appellant cannot be convicted for offence punishable under Section 333 IPC and at best only for offence punishable under Section 332 IPC for which the maximum sentence of 3 years imprisonment can be awarded. It was further submitted that there are inherent contradictions in the testimony of the victim and the appellant be thus acquitted or in the alternative be released on the period already undergone.
Respondent’s Contention:
Learned APP for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Ct. Kulvir received grievous hurt and his hearing was impaired due to which he was prescribed hearing aid and was declared unfit for service. It was submitted that the offence committed by the appellant is grievous in nature and his conduct in the jail is also not satisfactory as he has received punishments in the year 2019 and 2020.
HC’s Observations:
After hearing both the sides Court stated that from the testimony of the injured victim and the eye-witness the fact that the appellant assaulted the complainant first with a razor and then with a brick stand proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Court found that as per the MLC the complainant received two incised wounds on the left forearm and a mild traumatic swelling on the left side forehead. The study of the CT scan of the head of the complainant reveals there is communited depressed fracture of anterior wall of frontal sinus. Court stated that in view of the fracture on the frontal bone involving anterior wall of frontal sinus it is evident that the complainant received a grievous injury and the record further shows that he suffered hearing impairment and was thus declared unfit in medical category Aye and Bee permanently and fit in medical category Cey-one and Cey-two with hearing aid.
HC Held:
After evaluating submissions made by both the parties the Court held that “considering the nature of injury received by the complainant the offences punishable under Section 186/333/34 IPC stands probed beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant has been awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹10,000/- in default whereof to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 333/34 IPC i.e., the maximum sentence that can be awarded under Section 333 IPC. Further, the sentence in default of payment of fine of ₹10,000/- awarded being 2 years simple imprisonment is also highly excessive. Considering the weapon of offence used and that the offence was not committed in a pre-meditated manner but on the spur of the moment, this Court deems it fit to modify the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone.”
HC uphold the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 186/34 IPC and 333/34 IPC and modifying the sentence to the period already undergone.
Bench: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Mukta Gupta
Case Title: Pramod v. State
Case Details: CRL.A. 48/2020
Picture Source :
