Bablu Haldhar vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 2100 Del

*               IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2008

%                                         Date of Decision: 21st April, 2010



#       BABLU HALDHAR                                      ...Appellant
!                               Through: Mr. Ajay Verma and Mr. Gaurav
                                         Bhattacharya, Advocates


                                      versus

$       STATE                                             ...Respondent
^                              Through:   Mr. Pawan Bahl, APP


        CORAM:
*       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
   the Judgment?(No)
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?(No)
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? (No)


                               JUDGMENT

P.K.BHASIN, J

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th

December, 2007 and order dated 14th December, 2007 passed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby the appellant was

convicted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections

307 and 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

a period of 5 years and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation for

his conviction under Section 307 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a

period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- with a default stipulation for

his conviction under Section 326 IPC and the substantive sentence of

imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

2) The relevant facts leading to the incident, in which two persons

were seriously injured and which injuries have been found by the

learned trial Judge to have been caused by the appellant while

acquitting his two co-accused persons who had also been sent up for a

trial by the investigating agency for their involvement in the same

incident which took place on the night of 3rd August, 2002, have been

noticed by the learned trial Judge in para no. 1 of the judgment and

the relevant portions only from that paragraph are being reproduced

below:

"On 3.8.2002 at about 10 p.m. when one Prem returned at his house at N-37/37, C-Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi from his work and was standing outside his house then he was confronted with by his three neighbourers namely accused Bablu Haldhar, Bona Haldhar and Banga Haldhar. Accused Bablu Haldhar allegedly asked Prem as to why children of Prem had quarreled with his children. Thereafter he asked his two brothers Banga Haldhar and Bona Haldhar to caught hold of Prem and which they accordingly did. Accused Bablu Haldhar in the meantime attacked Prem with a "chhura" (meant for cutting of meat) which he was carrying. Prem immediately cried „Bachao-Bachao‟ and upon hearing which his nephew Kartik also came running over there to save him but he too was attacked by accused Bablu Haldhar, Kartik however tried to save himself and in the process the chhura struck him on his right head. A number of persons from neighbourhood gathered over there and while Bablu Haldhar was caught hold of by them and chhura was also snatched from his hand but the other two co-accused persons ran away from the spot. Matter was immediately reported to police at no. 100. In the meantime both Prem and Kartik were removed to BJRM Hospital and from where they were referred to Trauma Center."

3) On the matter being reported to the police FIR No. 507/2002

was registered at Jahangir Puri Police Station under Section 307/34

IPC. During the course of investigation, the three persons who had

allegedly assaulted PW-1 Prem Sarkar and PW-2 Kartik, namely, the

appellant Babloo Haldhar, Bona Haldhar and Banga Haldhar were

arrested and on completion of investigation a charge-sheet was

submitted in the Court of area Magistrate against all three of them

under Sections 307/326/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. In

due course the case was committed to the Sessions Court where

charges under Sections 307/326/34 IPC were framed against all the

three accused persons and against Bablu Haldhar, the appellant

herein, an additional charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was

also framed. All the three accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed

trial. The prosecution sought to establish its case relying upon the

evidence of the two injured persons, namely, PW-1 Prem Sarkar and

PW-2 Kartik and three other eye witnesses of the incident, namely,

PW-3 Ganesh Singh, who is the complainant/informer also, PW-5

Vinesh Kumar Singhal and PW-13 Ms Sagri. Out of these five material

prosecution witnesses, PW-5 Vinesh Kumar Singhal had turned hostile.

The learned trial Judge, however, accepted the evidence of the

remaining four witnesses but only in respect of the appellant/accused

Bablu Haldhar and gave benefit of doubt in respect of his co-accused

persons, namely, Bona Haldhar and Banga Haldhar.

4) Feeling aggrieved, the convicted accused Bablu Haldhar filed

this appeal challenging his conviction for the offences punishable

under Sections 307/326 IPC and the sentences awarded to him.

However, at the commencement of the hearing of the appeal, learned

counsel for the appellant had stated that he had the instructions from

the appellant not to challenge the judgment of the trial Court whereby

he was convicted for the aforesaid offences but a mercy plea should

be made to this Court for taking lenient view on the point of

punishment of imprisonment considering the fact that the appellant is

an old person of about 60 years of age and is suffering from various

ailments and which circumstances, according to the counsel for the

appellant, had been noticed by the learned trial Judge also in his order

on sentence.

5) Even though the learned counsel for the appellant did not

challeng the findings of the trial Court holding the appellant guilty but

in order to satisfy myself about the correctness of the conclusions

arrived at by the learned trial Court I have myself also examined the

evidence of the two injured witnesses and two other eye witnesses of

the incident whose evidence has been found to be wholly reliable by

the learned trial Court. After going through their evidence I am also

fully convinced that their evidence is unimpeachable and has been

rightly accepted by the learned trial Court and the appellant's counsel

has rightly not made any effort to challenge the trial Court's

appreciation of the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and 13. Therefore, this

court has no hesitation in affirming the judgment of conviction

rendered by the learned trial Court.

6) Coming now to the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for

taking a lenient view on the point of sentence I am of the view that

considering the mitigating circumstances highlighted by the counsel

for the appellant and the fact that the appellant has already remained

in jail for about 3 years and 9 months, the interests of justice would be

met if the sentence of imprisonment in respect of the conviction of the

appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is reduced to the

period already spent by him in jail while maintaining the sentence

awarded to him by the trial Court for his conviction under Section 326

IPC. This appeal accordingly stands allowed partly as noticed above.

Since the trial Court had ordered substantive sentences on both the

counts to run concurrently the appellant shall now be released from

jail, if not required to be detained there for some other case.

P.K.Bhasin, J

April 21, 2010/pg