Delhi High Court
Ashwani Kumar @ Bindu & Ors vs State Of Nct Of Delhi on 29 February, 2012
Author: Suresh Kait
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. No.625/2009
% Judgment delivered on: 29th February, 2012
ASHWANI KUMAR
@ BINDU & ORS ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Anil Soni, Adv.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP for State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
SURESH KAIT, J. (Oral)
1. Vide the instant Appeal, appellants have assailed the impugned
judgment and order on sentence dated 12.08.2009 and 13.08.2009
respectively whereby they were held guilty and convicted and under
Section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 sentenced to undergo RI for a
period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine they shall further undergo SI for a period of 6 months.
2. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that though vide the
instant Appeal, they have challenged impugned judgment and order on
sentence mentioned above, however, on instruction he has prayed that
while maintaining the conviction, they may be released on probation.
3. Vide order dated 16.02.2012, SHO, PS-Uttam Nagar was
directed to verify as to the criminal record of the appellants from the
Crime Report Office and submit the report.
4. Pursuance to that, status report dated 22.02.2012 has been filed.
On perusal of the instant report, it is revealed that no other case is
pending against the appellants or they ever convicted by any court.
5. It is further submitted that appellant no. 1 is a shop keeper and
has been running a grocery shop in the neighbourhood and he has no
criminal antecedents. Appellant no. 2 is a Bus conductor having no
criminal antecedents and appellant no. 3 was merely 18½ years at the
time of incident and was pursuing his graduation from Maharana
Pratap College at Ambe, District Una (H.P.), bearing a good character
in college and no bad / criminal antecedents.
6. Ld. Counsel for the appellants has furnished an FIR no. 92 dated
24.03.2009 wherein a case against the complainant has been registered
under Section 365 Indian Penal Code, 1860, which proves his conduct.
7. Ld. APP on the other hand submits that PW-1 and PW-2 have
fully supported the case of the prosecution and the injuries received by
the complainant have been opined to be grievous in nature as there was
a fracture in Occipital bone. The said injuries are on vital part of the
body, therefore the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Therefore the prayer of the appellants may not
be allowed.
8. Keeping in view the submission of learned counsel for
appellants as they all belongs to poor strata of society and the status
report into view, while maintaining the conviction, order on sentence
dated 13.08.2009 is modified to the extent that they shall be released
on probation for good conduct and behaviour for a period of 1 year.
9. The appellants are directed to appear before the Trial Court
/Successor Court and furnish requisite bond for good conduct and
behaviour for a period of 1 year within 2 weeks.
10. I here make it clear that in the event of failure of the bail bond,
he shall suffer the remaining imprisonment.
11. Accordingly, Crl. A. 625/2009 is partially allowed and disposed
of on the above terms.
12. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J
FEBRUARY 29, 2012
Jg
