Delhi High Court
Ramveer vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 1 December, 2009
Author: V. K. Jain
21
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of the order: 01.12.2009
+ CRL.A. 226/2006
RAMVEER ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. S.K. Sood, Advocate
versus
THE STATE NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through:Mr. O.P. Saxena, APP for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers
may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?
% V.K. JAIN, J.(ORAL)
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 8 th
February, 2006 and Order on Sentence dated 13th February,
2006 whereby the appellant was convicted under section
304 Part I IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10
years and to fine of Rs.1000/- or to undergo SI for two
months in default. The case of the prosecution, as set out in
the FIR is that the appellant Ramveer took the deceased
Chander Pal with him on 3rd October, 2003 on the pretext
of talking to him. While they were on the street, an
altercation took place between the appellant and deceased
Chander Pal. The cause of the altercation was the
allegation of the appellant that the deceased was
responsible for the wife of the appellant running away from
the house. This is the case of the prosecution that during
altercation the appellant pushed the deceased on the heap
of 'Rodi' lying at the spot as a result of which he fell down.
Thereafter, the appellant started hitting him with a 'Fatta'
lying on the spot and caused 3 injuries to him, as a result of
which he became unconscious and was declared brought
dead, when taken to the hospital.
2. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses in support of
its case whereas the two witnesses were examined in
defence.
3. The complainant Smt. Kalpana Devi wife of the
deceased Chander Pal came in the witness box as PW-1 and
staged that about 3-4 days before Diwali the appellant had
lunch in their house. The appellant wanted her husband to
come for searching a job to which the deceased refused and
thereupon the appellant took him forcibly and caught hold
of his hand. Some construction work was going on near
their house. The appellant took up a wooden plank 'Fatta'
and gave 2-3 blows on the head of her husband who fell
down on the ground and became unconscious.
4. PW-5 Mukta has stated that on 3rd November, 2003 at
about 2.30 P.M. she saw the appellant giving 'Fatta' blows
to the deceased Chander Pal though it was given only once.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant, under instructions
from the appellant, states that considering the evidence
produced by the prosecution, he does not contest the
appeal on merit of the conviction and only seeks reduction
of sentence. He further states that the appellant has
already spent about 7 years in jail and, therefore, his
sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone
by him.
6. A perusal of the record would show that the appellant
was arrested on 4.11.2003. Learned counsel for the
appellant states that the appellant was not granted bail
either during trial or during pendency of this appeal. The
appellant, thus, spent more than six years in jail.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the
case, including that the blows to the deceased were given,
pursuant to an altercation which took place between the
appellant and the deceased and also taking into account the
fact that it was not a pre-planned crime and the plank
(Fatta) used by the appellant for giving injuries to the
deceased was lying on the spot and was picked up from
there, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant
under section 304 part I IPC, he is sentenced to undergo RI
for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- or to undergo SI for
one month in default. The appellant will be entitled to
benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC. One copy of this order be sent
to the jail superintendent for information of the appellant
and for record.
V.K. JAIN,J
DECEMBER 01, 2009
RS
