Shaffi Mohd. vs State (Delhi Administration)
1990 Latest Caselaw 569 Del

JUDGMENT

Santosh Duggal, J.

(1) This revision petition was filed after petitioner's appeal against the judgment of conviction under section 325 Indian Penal Code and sentence was dismissed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

(2) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records including the judgments of the two courts below. I find that the trial court had examined the injured and one of the eye witness besides the investigating officer who proved the sketch plan, other recoveries and registration of the case. I The defense of the accused has been rejected on appreciation of evidence and I do -not find any infirmity in the judgment of the trial court as it is based on evidence produced before him. The learned appellate court has endorsed this finding and there is thus a concurrent finding of facts by the two courts below.

(3) On being asked as to what could be the point of law as result of which revision petition was now being heard, Mr. Mehta stated that the medical evidence has not been proved before the trial court and as such the con- viction for offence under Section 325 Indian Penal Code was not sustainable and that even if the statement of the injured was to be believed, it could have been a case of conviction only for offence under Section 323 IPC.

(4) I have gone through the record in the light of this contention. I find that the Mlc relating to the injured Mangal Ram had been exhibited in evidence as Ex. Pa with the consent of the learned defense counsel. It thus became evidence before the court. In this Mlc it is clearly recorded that there was fracture of the humerus. It was thus proved on record that the injured had suffered a grievous hurt, and the conviction under section 325 Indian Penal Code was rightly recorded.

(5) I therefore do not find any material on record which could show that the proceedings before the trial court or the judgments of the courts below suffer from any infirmity or illegality.

(6) I therefore do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed.

(7) The trial court records along with a copy of this order be sent back so that steps be taken for arrest of the accused for serving the sentence awarded to him by the trial court, namely R 1. for six months and also to verify whether fine stands paid failing which the convict has to further undergo S.I. for thirty days in default of payment of fine.

(8) The trial court shall take necessary steps in this respect and have the warrants of arrest issued against the convict Shaffi Mohd. whose revision is hereby dismissed.

(9) The direction of the trial court for payment of Rs. 800.00 to the injured out of the amount of fine of Rs. 1000.00 is also maintained and the trial court shall ensure that in case the amount of fine already stands paid, then the amount of Rs. 800.00 is paid to the injured Mangal Ram after proper identification.