Delhi High Court
Sham Lal vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 29 August, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 29th AUGUST, 2013
+ CRL.A. 774/2000
SHAM LAL ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Sham Lal (the appellant) challenges conviction in Sessions
Case No. 257/1997 arising out of FIR No. 344/1996 PS Hauz Khas by
which he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 308 IPC.
By an order dated 14.11.2000, he was sentenced to undergo RI for one
year with fine ` 10,000/-.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 11.05.1996 at
about 09.30 A.M. near Khel Gaon Road he fractured Gaya Baksh's
parietal bone with fists with an attempt to commit culpable homicide.
During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer SI Prem
Chand lodged First Information Report after recording Babu Ram's
statement (Ex.PW-2/1). The accused was arrested. Statements of the
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 325/308 IPC.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses. In his 313 statement, the
accused pleaded false implication and stated that he was not the author of
the injuries to the victim. Considering the rival contentions of the parties,
the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant perpetrator
of the crime under Section 308 IPC.
3. During the course of arguments appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his
conviction under Section 308 IPC. She however, prayed to take lenient
view as the appellant had already undergone 25 days in custody in this
case and is not a previous convict.
4. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have examined
the record. PW-1 (Gaya Baksh), the victim in his Court statement
attributed specific role to the appellant for inflicting injuries on his body.
The appellant did not opt to cross-examine him. The testimony of the
victim remained unchallenged. PW-2 (Babu Ram) corroborated the
version of PW-1 in its entirety and narrated the incident in detail as to how
and under what circumstances the appellant while driving a blue line bus
hit Gaya Baksh with fist blows and caused injuries to him. Again, he was
not cross-examined. PW-1 and PW-2 did not nurture any grievance/
enmity with the accused to falsely implicate him in the incident. They
were not acquainted with him. There is no conflict between ocular and
medical evidence. MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) reveals that the victim sustained
fracture of parietal bone. It stands established that the appellant was the
author of the injuries caused to the victim.
5. Conviction of the appellant under Section 308 IPC, in my
view, cannot be sustained. The incident took place all of a sudden without
any prior meditation. The appellant had no enmity with the victim. He got
engaged when PW-1 (Gaya Baksh) challenged him and objected to his
driving the bus in a rash and negligent manner. The appellant did not like
the comments, came down from the bus and thrashed him with fists. He
was not armed with any deadly weapon. He took the injured to the
hospital by hiring a TSR and admitted him there. Offence under Section
308 postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under
such circumstances that if one by that caused death, he would be guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the instant case, the
intention of the appellant was to beat the victim for the comments made
by him. There was no enmity between the two. The appellant in a sudden
flash of anger hit Gaya Baksh with fists and it resulted in the fracture of
the bone. It was a case u/s 325 IPC whereby the appellant inflicted
grievous hurt on the victim's body voluntarily.
6. The appellant has already remained in custody for 25 days.
He has suffered trial since 1996. He is not a previous convict and is not
involved in any other criminal case. He has already deposited fine `
10,000/-. He has four kids to maintain. He has opted to pay compensation
to the victim. Taking into consideration all these mitigating
circumstances, no useful purpose will be served to send the appellant in
custody to serve the remaining period of sentence and in the interest of
justice, sentence order is modified and the appellant is sentenced for the
period already undergone by him in this case with fine ` 10,000/- under
Section 325 IPC. He is, however, directed to pay ` 20,000/- as
compensation to the victim - Gaya Baksh who sustained grievous injuries
on his body and remained admitted in hospital for about seven days for no
fault of his. ` 20,000/- shall be deposited before the Trial Court within one
month and the Trial Court shall issue notice to the victim - Gaya Baksh to
receive and collect the compensation amount along with ` 10,000/- which
was awarded as compensation out of fine.
7. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 29, 2013
tr
