Dalvinder Singh Sodhi & Anr. vs State
2013 Latest Caselaw 5268 Del

$~R-20.

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+        CRL.A. 102/2005
%                                                 Judgment dated 18.11.2013
         DALVINDER SINGH SODHI & ANR.           ..... Appellants
                      Through : Ms.Manisha Bhandari and Mr.M.L.
                                Yadav, Advs.

                             versus

         STATE                                              ..... Respondent

                             Through :     Mr.Firoz Khan Ghazi, Adv.

         CORAM:
               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374 Cr.P.C.

against the judgment dated 21.1.2005 and order on conviction dated 25.1.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby appellant no.1, Ghanshyam, has been awarded sentence of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial with fine of Rs.1.00 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for one year for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. Appellant no.2, Rajiv Sodhi, was directed to undergo five years of RI with fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine, SI for six months, for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. It was also directed that appellant no.2 would be given benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

2. The brief facts of this case, as noticed by the trial court, are as under:

"On 10.12.98 at about 9 p.m. Ashok Gupta who is resident of house No.D.1/11 came from his shop at Chandni Chowk and found that

one car was parked in front of gate of his house. He parked his car by the side and went to D.1/10 to inquire as to whose car was parked opposite his house (so that it was removed). In the meantime, Dalvinder Singh came out of house No.D.1/10 and dragged him inside his house. One boy of thin stature who was putting spectacles fired at him from a revolver from behind. The bullet went into his shoulder got embedded there. There were several other persons. Ashok Gupta after receiving bullet injury was taken to Din Dayal Upadhya (DDU) hospital and from there he was taken to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He was operated, bullet, was taken out from his body. He suffered fracture of scapular of right arm. Son of Dalvinder Singh absconded after the incident. He could be arrested only after about 11-12 days of the incident. Accused Dalvinder Singh in his disclosure statement stated that it was his revolver with which his son fired at the injured. Police then made an application to the Licensing Authority to verify if any licence for revolver was issued in the name of Dalvinder Singh or his son. However, the report came that no licence was issued either to Dalvinder Singh or his son Rajiv Singh.

Rajiv Singh after his arrest made statement to police as to where he was concealing himself after absconding. His statement was found false. The fire arm, by which he had fired could not be recovered since he misled the police about, where he had thrown the fire arm. Evidence showed that accused Rajiv had not only fired on the injured at his shoulder but head also fired in the air. Two empty cartridges were recovered from the spot. These cartridges and bullet were sent for FSL examination and report showed that both shells/empty cartridges were fired from the same

pistol. Bullet was fired from a standard factory made pistol. The bullet recovered from the body of injured during operation was handed over to police by the doctor.

Police filed challan against accused persons after completing the investigation. Charge u/s 307 r/w sec.34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial."

3. Learned counsel for the appellants on instructions from appellant no.2, who is present in Court, submits that appellants do not wish to press this appeal on merits but they pray that the sentence awarded to appellant no.2 be modified to the period already undergone i.e. 01 year, 04 months and 25 days, besides, remission earned by him i.e. 04 months and 12 days, out of the sentence of five years, which have been awarded to him.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have deposited the fine of Rs.1.50 lakhs, which have been imposed by the trial court, out of which Rs.1.00 lakh has been paid to the injured as compensation. Counsel further submits that the appellants have no previous history and they have roots in society. It is also submitted that in case appellant no.2 is asked to complete his sentence, appellant no.2 and his family will suffer. It is next contended that the appellants have not been involved in any other matter and they have been living peacefully in the same area since then.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions. In this case, appellant no.1 was sentenced to imprisonment already undergone during trial, which is stated to be approximately 24 days. Appellant no.2, who is the son of appellant no.1, was sentenced to five years of RI.

6. Having regard to the submissions made and taking into consideration the facts that appellants have suffered trial since the year 1998, appellant no.2 is the sole bread winner of his family, he is now leading a normal life, after his release on bail he has joined the main stream of the society, he is residing in the same area where the incident has taken place, he has no past history, no other incident has been pointed out and he has not been involved in any other criminal case in the past, subject to appellant no.2 paying further compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the victim and Rs.25,000/- to the State, the order on sentence is modified to the period already undergone. The costs shall be deposited by appellant no.2 with the trial court within two weeks from today.

7. Appeal stands disposed of in view of above.

                                                                 G.S.SISTANI, J
NOVEMBER           18, 2013
msr