Delhi High Court
Krishan Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 19 August, 2013
Author: Sunita Gupta
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. A. 135/2004
Date of Decision: 19th August, 2013
KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through Mr. Nitender Sharma, Advocate
versus
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through Ms. Fizani Hussain, APP
SI S.P. Samaria, PS Mehrauli
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
JUDGMENT
: SUNITA GUPTA, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 31 st January,
2004 and order on sentence dated 3rd February, 2004 in Sessions Case
No.82/2003 in case FIR No. 154/2003 under Section
308/332/353/333 IPC, PS Mehrauli vide which the appellant was
convicted for offence under Section 308 IPC and was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine in the
sum of Rs.15,000/- failing which he was to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year.
Crl. A.135/2004
2. Prosecution case emanates from the fact that complainant Het
Ram was posted as Head Master in MCD primary school, Bhatikalan,
Mehrauli. The appellant Krishan Kumar was working as school
attendant in the same school. He was habitual in coming late to the
school. On 31st March, 2003, when he arrived late, Het Ram told him
that he was writing an application for his transfer to some other
school. Thereupon appellant thrust a danda blow on the head of Het
Ram. As a result of which, he fell down and became unconscious.
Shiv Narain and Hari Shankar, teachers came to the rescue of Het
Ram. The accused also gave danda blows to them. Het Ram was
admitted in Mahendra Hospital, Green Park Extension by his
colleague Jagdish Prasad. Intimation was sent to the police. ASI
Lala Ram and Constable Vipin Kumar went to Mahendra Hospital
where statement of complainant Ex.PW-2/A was recorded. A danda
was produced by watchman of the school, namely, Surender Kumar
on 1st April, 2003 which was seized. On 7th April, 2003, the appellant
surrendered before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. He was
formally arrested. After completing investigation, charge sheet was
submitted against him.
Crl. A.135/2004
3. Charge for offence under Section 308 IPC was framed against
the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined 9
witnesses. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused
while recording his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he
admitted giving danda blow to Het Ram, Shiv Narain and Hari
Shankar. However, he alleged that he has been framed in this case
and that the witnesses are interested witnesses.
5. Vide order dated 31st January, 2004, the appellant was
convicted for offence under Section 308 IPC and sentenced as stated
above. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order on
sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.
6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant, however, he
prayed for a lenient view on the ground that the appellant was aged
about 18 years at the time of incident and is now 26 years of age. He
had already deposited the fine. He remained in jail for a period of 9
months. He has also adequately compensated the injured, who has
since expired, which fact was admitted by his daughter. Learned
Public Prosecutor for the State has no objection to taking a lenient
Crl. A.135/2004
view in the matter in view of the circumstances pleaded by learned
counsel for the appellant.
7. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 308
IPC is concerned, same does not call for any interference inasmuch as
the case of prosecution stands proved from the testimony of
complainant-Het Ram, PW-3-Shiv Narain Sharma, coupled with the
medical evidence and the admission of the appellant himself in his
statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. wherein he admitted that he had
inflicted danda blows on Het Ram, Shiv Narain Sharma and Hari
Shankar.
8. The only question left for consideration is whether the
appellant is entitled for leniency in the sentence or not.
9. It is a matter of record that the incident took place in the year
2003 and the appellant is suffering the protracted trial for the last
about ten years. He is stated to be 18 years at the time of incident.
The fine imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge has already
been paid by him. The appellant had stated that he has adequately
compensated the injured and sought time to produce the complainant
but during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant died.
Subsequently his widow and one son also expired leaving behind one
Crl. A.135/2004
married daughter only. Smt. Sangeeta, daughter of the deceased
complainant appeared and admitted that there was a settlement
between the appellant and her deceased father and as per that
settlement, her father has received a compensation of Rs. 80,000/-.
She also supported the prayer made on behalf of the appellant for
taking a lenient view in the matter. The record also reveals that when
application for suspension of sentence and release of appellant on bail
was moved, nominal roll of the appellant was called which reflected
that he had already undergone a sentence of about 9 months including
the remission earned by him. Under the circumstances, keeping in
view the totality of facts and circumstances, the order on sentence is
modified to the extent that the period of sentence is reduced to the
period during which the appellant has remained as under trial in this
case. Fine has already been deposited.
10. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
11. Trial Court record be sent back.
SUNITA GUPTA
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 19, 2013
rs
Crl. A.135/2004
