Delhi High Court
Gulfam @ Guddu vs The State on 22 January, 2010
Author: V. K. Jain
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. A. No. 53/2005
Date of Order: 22nd January 2010
# GULFAM @ GUDDU ..... Appellant
! Through: Mr. C.P. Nanda, Adv.
versus
$ THE STATE ..... 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
reported in the Digest? No
: V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2004
and order of sentence dated 30.11.2004, whereby the appellant
was convicted under Section 325 of IPC read with Section 34
thereof and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay
fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for six months in default.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 25th
October, 2000 at about 11.05 P.M. when the injured Yashpal was
coming to his house, the appellant caused injury to him at A-
Block, Kamal Vihar, Main Road.
3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its
case. The injured came in the witness box as PW-6 and stated
that on25th October, 2000, at 11.05 P.M. he was coming back to
his house, the accused person met him. They started abusing
him and caught hold of him and the appellant Gulfam @ Guddu
hit him in the abdomen with a pointed object and also hit on his
forehead and forearm.
4. The MLC of the injured, who was examined in Sanjay
Gandhi Hospital, shows that he suffered the following injuries:
(i) Incise wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. at epijastium.
(ii) Incise wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. deep in right lower chest
wall.
(iii) Incise wound 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep in left occipital
region.
(iv) Incise wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep on right
forehead.
(v) Incise wound right forearm 5 c.m. x 5 c.m.
5. In the statements under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C., the
appellant denied the allegation made against him.
6. Out of the persons arrayed at trial, two accused, namely,
Sultan and Md.Shakil were acquitted, whereas the appellant
Gulfam and one Shan Mohd. were convicted.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant states that considering
the evidence which had been produced during the trial, he does
not dispute the conviction of the appellant on merits and only
seeks benefit of probation considering the fact that he has
already spent about three months in custody and has also paid
fine which was imposed upon him.
8. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of
the case, including that this incident took place about ten years
ago and the appellant has already spent some time in custody,
the appellant is given benefit of probation and is directed to be
released on his furnishing a bond of peace and good conduct in
the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for
period of one year, to the satisfaction of the trial court. During
the period of bond, the appellant shall keep peace and good
conduct and shall refrain from committing any crime. He shall
appear, as and when directed, to receive the sentence imposed
on him. The appellant is granted four weeks time to furnish the
bond.
The appeal shall stand disposed of.
A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for
information and necessary action.
V.K. JAIN
(JUDGE)
JANUARY 22, 2010
RS
