Nalbir vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi
2010 Latest Caselaw 634 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        Crl. A. No. 416/2005

                               Date of Order: 4th February, 2010

#      NALBIR                                     ..... Appellant
!                             Through: Mr. V.Madhukar and
                              Mr. Jayendra Sevada and Mr.Paritosh
                              Anil, Advs.
                         versus

$      THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI    ..... Respondent
^                        Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP.

*      CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

       1.      Whether the 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                   No
               reported in the Digest?

: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

1. This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 26th

February, 2005 and Order of Sentence dated 28th February,

2005, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 307 of

IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay

fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for four months in default.

2. On 13th April, 2000, SI Ramesh Chand of Police Station

Kanjhawla, went to Village Jonti, on receipt of copy of DD No.

44-B. He came to know that injured had been taken to Jaipur

Golden Hospital. When he reached the hospital, the injured was

found unfit for statement. His grandfather Ziley Singh was,

however, present in the hospital and lodged a complaint Ex. PW-

1/A. The complainant alleged that on that day, he was going to

meet one Prakash. His grandson, Sarwan Kumar was going

ahead of him, at a distance of about 10-15 yards. When they

reached near the house of Sher Singh at about 6.00 pm,

appellant Nalbir, who was a resident of the village and with

whom they had previous enmity on the issue of land and a civil

litigation was also pending in Civil Court, fired a shot on his

grandson from the back. The bullet hit the spinal cord of his

grandson. On account of his advanced age, the complainant

could not apprehend the appellant, despite effort made by him.

3. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 21

witnesses. One witness was examined in defence.

4. The complainant came in the witness box as PW-1 and

stated that on 13th April, 2000, at about 6.00 pm when he was

going to Prakash, owner of harvesting machine, his grandson

Shrawan Kumar was going ahead of him and was being followed

by the appellant Nalbir. He further stated that accused Balbir

and Joginder, (who have been acquitted), were also with the

appellant Nalbir and at the extortion Joginder, the appellant

Nalbir fired a bulled shot at the back of Shrawan Kumar. Balbir

then said "MAR GAYA SALA" and then all the three run away.

He further stated that a civil dispute was going between him and

the appellant. The complainant tried to apprehend the appellant,

but could not succeed. He then took the appellant to Jaipur

Golden Hospital, where police recorded his statement.

5. The injured came in the witness box as PW-2 and stated

that on 13th April, 2000, he was going to the shop of cable

operator. When he reached near the house of Sher Singh, he

heard Joginder saying "MAAR GOLI". He was then hit with a

bullet on his back and fell down. When he looked back, he saw a

pistol in the hand of the appellant Nalbir.

6. PW-4 Dr. Jyoti Shankar examined the appellant vide Ex.PW-

4/A and found one penetrating wound. PW-8 ASI Kale Ram has

stated that on 14th April, 2000, the appellant Nalbir was

apprehended while coming from the side of village Samalakha

and on his search, one country-made pistol Ex.P-1 was recovered

from his possession alongwith two live cartridges.

7. PW-9 Head Constable Jagdilsh Chander has stated that on

1st May, 2000, one empty cartridge was recovered from under

the accidental car of the appellant Nalbir and was seized vide

memo Ex.PW-9/A. PW-19 SI Ramesh Chand has corroborated

the deposition of PW-9 about recovery of a cartridge from under

the car of the appellant.

8. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant

denied the allegations against him. DW-1 Bheema has stated

that on 12th April, 2000, Nalbir had come to his house at 4.00 pm

and has stayed there till 14th April, 2000.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant states that

considering the evidence that has been produced by the

prosecution against the appellant, which has been believed by

the Trial Court, he does not dispute the conviction of the

appellant under Section 307 of IPC and only seeks reduction of

the sentence awarded to him, considering the fact that he has

already spent more than six years in jail.

10. A perusal of the Nominal Roll of the appellant dated 5th

September, 2005 would show that as on 1st September, 2005, he

had already spent one year 10 months and 4 days in jail. The

appellant having not been granted regular bail by this Court

during pendency of this appeal, he has thereafter continued to

be in judicial custody, except for a period of two weeks for which

he was granted interim bail vide order dated 31 st May, 2005, to

attend the marriage of his daughter. Taking into consideration

all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years

and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for 2 months in

default.

A copy of this order be sent to the appellant through Jail

Superintendent.

Trial Court Record be sent back, alongwith a copy of the

judgment.

V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 04, 2010 bg