Delhi High Court
Noor Alam vs The State (Govt. Of Nct) Delhi on 29 January, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 14th January, 2013
DECIDED ON : 29th January, 2013
+ CRL.A.No.1232/2010
NOOR ALAM ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate with
Mr.Gaurav Bhattacharya and Mr.Shiv
Kumar Dwedi, Advocates.
Versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. The appellant-Noor Alam has preferred the present appeal
against the judgment dated 28.04.2010 and order on sentence dated
30.04.2010 of the Additional Sessions Judge in FIR 326/2004, Police
Station Timar Pur (Sessions Case No.1/2002) by which he was convicted
for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years with fine of `20,000/-
and failing to pay fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 01.07.2005 at
about 10:45 P.M. at Pusta, near Ganda Nala, Gandhi Vihar, Timar Pur,
Delhi he, in furtherance of common intention with his associates Noor-
Salam and Mohd.Hafaz Alam (Proclaimed Offender) attempted to murder
Samir-ul-Hasan. The appellant caught hold the victim and Noor-Salam
fired at him twice with a country made pistol.
3. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove the charge.
Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he
pleaded false implication due to enmity. He examined himself in
defence. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the
counsel for the appellant and appreciating the evidence on record, by the
impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offence
previously described. Being aggrieved, he has filed the present appeal.
4. During the course of arguments on appeal the learned counsel
for the appellant, on instructions from the appellant, stated that he was not
challenging the conviction under Section 307 IPC. Prayer was made to
modify the order on sentence as the appellant had already undergone
substantial period of sentence awarded to him.
5. I have examined the Trial Court record. Since the appellant
has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction,
his conviction under Section 307/34 IPC is affirmed.
6. Regarding order on sentence, the appellant was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of `20,000/-.
Nominal roll dated 01.08.2011 reveals that he has already served four
years, ten months and fifteen days in custody. He earned remission of
nine months and twenty-two days, the period undergone has since
increased to about seven years. Nominal roll also reveals that the
appellant is not involved in any other criminal case. He is not a previous
convict.
7. Perusal of the file reveals that the appellant was the king-pin
who fired twice with a country made pistol at the victim Samir-ul-Hasan.
During trial, the appellant did not appear regularly and was declared
Proclaimed Offender. The victim suffered 'grievous' injuries on his body
and remained confined to hospital. The occurrence took place on
01.07.2005. The victim/injured Samir-ul-Hasan's statement was recorded
on 13.12.2005. The injured/complainant-Samir-ul-Hasan was brought to
the court for examination on cot (as per court observation). Apparently,
the victim did not recover from the injuries sustained by him. The victim
expired on 28.01.2007 in the village. Family members of the victim
claimed that the death of the injured was due to injuries sustained by him
in the incident. However, no cogent evidence came on record to show
that there was close nexus between the injuries and the death of the victim
as no post-mortem was conducted. The fact remains that the injuries to
the victim were grievous in nature and were on vital organ of the body.
8. Considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
the order on sentence is modified and the substantive sentence is reduced
from RI ten years to RI for nine years. Other sentences are left
undisturbed.
9. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
10. Copy of the order be sent to the appellant through
Superintendent, Tihar.
11. Trial Court record be sent back with the copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 29, 2013
sa
