Tasvir Singh vs State Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 5471 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           RESERVED ON : 20th NOVEMBER, 2013
                           DECIDED ON : 27th NOVEMBER, 2013

+      CRL.A. 578/2000 & CRL.M.A.Nos. 1497/2007 & 1498/2007

       TASVIR SINGH                                 ....Appellant
                 Through :      Mr.Prag Chawla, Advocate with
                                Mr.Saurabh Shoken & Mr.C.R.Sagar,
                                Advocates.

                                VERSUS

       STATE OF DELHI                               ....Respondent
                Through :       Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Tasvir Singh (the appellant) impugns the correctness of a

judgment dated 11.09.2000 in Sessions Case No. 22/96 arising out of FIR

No. 157/95 PS Narela convicting him for offence under Section 326 IPC.

By an order dated 12.09.2000, he was awarded RI for three years with fine

` 500/-. The case of the prosecution as projected in the charge-sheet was

that on 22.05.1995 at about 09.15 P.M. at village Bakner, Harijan Basti,

the appellant inflicted injuries to Satpal in an attempt to murder him.

During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts

were recorded. The accused was arrested and after completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against him in the Court in

which he was duly charged and brought to trial. In order to bring home the

charge, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. Statement under Section

313 Cr.P.C. was recorded to explain the incriminating circumstance

appearing against him to which the appellant pleaded false implication

and claimed that the injuries were due to fall on damaged iron gate when

the victim was under the influence of liquor. DW-1 Vedpal appeared in

defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival

contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment,

held the appellant guilty for the offence mentioned previously giving rise

to the filing of the present appeal.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have

examined the record. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the

Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper

perspective and fell in grave error in relying on the testimonies of

interested witnesses without independent corroboration. The witnesses

have given conflicting and inconsistent version regarding the incident and

cannot be believed. Initially, the case was registered under Section 324

IPC and in connivance with the police, the complainant got the case

altered to Section 307 IPC. Counsel adopted alternative argument to take

lenient view as the matter has since been settled with the complainant/

victim. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound

reasons to discard the testimony of the injured which is corroborated by

medical evidence.

3. Though the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW-3

(Nand Kishore) and PW-4 (Savitri), the Trial Court suspected their

presence at the spot and placed no reliance on their deposition. Star

witness is PW-2 (Satpal) on whose statement (Ex.PW-2/A), First

Information Report was lodged in promptitude by sending rukka (Ex.PW-

7/A) at 11.45 P.M. after the occurrence at 09.15 P.M. The complainant,

who was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital by HC Rajpal from PCR named

Tasvir Singh for inflicting injuries on abdomen by a knife. MLC (Ex.PW-

10/A) records arrival time of the patient at 10.40 P.M. with the alleged

history of being stabbed by someone. While appearing as PW-2, the

complainant proved the version given to the police at the earliest available

opportunity without major improvements or variations. He deposed that

an altercation had taken place between his brother Nand Kishore and Sonu

(appellant's son). When he objected to the accused for the beatings to his

brother Nand Kishore aged about 14 years, the appellant injured him by a

knife on abdomen and fled the spot. In the cross-examination, he denied to

have consumed liquor or to have sustained injuries due to fall on the

railing. The appellant was unable to elicit major discrepancy to dislodge

the testimony of the injured victim on material facts. He did not deny his

presence at the time of occurrence. In fact, injuries sustained by the victim

are not under challenge. Appellant's only plea is that he was not the

author of the injuries and the victim who was under the influence of liquor

got it by fall on the railings. MLC (Ex.PW-10/A) does not show that the

patient was under the influence of liquor or had consumed liquor. The

Investigating Officer categorically denied if there was any railing around

the 'chaupal' where the occurrence took place. The appellant did not

produce on record any site plan to show if there was any iron gate / railing

around the 'chaupal'. PW-9 (Dr.V.P.Singh) who medically examined the

victim opined the nature of injuries as 'dangerous'. He admitted in the

cross-examination that injuries described in the MLC were possible due to

fall on a sharp edged railing / pointed object. Mere putting a suggestion is

not enough to discredit the testimony of the injured. The appellant did not

adduce any evidence to establish that on the date and time of the

occurrence, the victim was under the influence of liquor or had a fall on

the railing. Non-examination of independent public witness is not fatal to

the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies and improvements highlighted

by the learned counsel for the appellant are not of that magnitude to affect

the core of prosecution case that the injuries were inflicted by the

appellant by a knife on the abdomen of the injured. Minor discrepancies

here and there which do not go to the root of the case are inconsequential.

After the conviction, the appellant opted to settle the dispute with the

complainant which further strengthens the case of the prosecution.

Initially, the case was registered under Section 324 IPC. However, when

the victim moved the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. it was altered to

Section 326 IPC. When the examining doctor opined the nature of injuries

as 'dangerous', the offence charged was altered to Section 307 IPC. I find

nothing unusual in it. PW-3 (Nand Kishore) and PW-4 (Savitri) have

supported the prosecution on other aspects and corroborate the testimony

of the complainant to that extent. Exclusion of their evidence would not

dilute the veracity of the statement given by the complainant in the Court.

The prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the

appellant was the author of the injuries.

4. The Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the

appellant under Section 326 IPC and he was awarded RI for three years

and fine ` 500/-. He remained in custody only for 14 days as per nominal

roll on record. However, during the pendency of the appeal, Crl.M.A.Nos.

1497/2007 and 1498/2007 were moved by the appellant and victim Satpal

respectively to inform that the matter has been settled and the complainant

had no grievance against the appellant and did not intend to pursue the

matter further. The appellant and the complainant appeared in the Court

on 23.02.2007. The complainant filed an affidavit stating that he had no

grievance of any nature left against the appellant and did not want to

pursue the case. On 14.03.2007, the Investigating Officer appeared in the

Court and identified the complainant. The complainant affirmed his

signatures on the affidavit dated 25.01.2007 and compromise deed and

again, informed the Court that he did not want to pursue the case. It

appears that the matter has since been settled with the complainant who

was represented by his counsel amicably. The incident pertains to the year

1995 and had taken place on a trivial issue when a quarrel took place

between his brother Nand Kishore and Sonu (appellant's son). The

weapon of offence could not be recovered. There was no previous history

of enmity between the parties. The appellant has undergone the ordeal of

the trial / appeal for about 18 years. Taking into consideration the

mitigating circumstances and the fact that the matter stands settled with

the complainant and he does not want any further action, no useful

purpose will be served to send the appellant who has no criminal

antecedents and is aged about 59 years to jail. To compensate the victim,

the appellant can be directed to pay ` 50,000/- as compensation.

5. In the light of above discussion, the period already spent by

the appellant in this case is taken as the substantive sentence under

Section 326 IPC. The appellant shall deposit compensation of ` 50,000/-

in the Trial Court within fifteen days besides depositing unpaid fine (if

any) and the compensation will be released to the complainant after due

notice.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending

applications also stand disposed of.

7. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the

order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE NOVEMBER 27, 2013/tr