Delhi High Court
Brahm Dutt Sharma vs State on 7 October, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 7th October, 2013
+ CRL.A. 311/2001
BRAHM DUTT SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Nrip Vaibhav, Proxy Counsel.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellant (Braham Dutt Sharma) questions the judgment
dated 01.05.2001 in Sessions Case No.48/1999 arising out of FIR
No.288/1997 registered at Police Station Chanakya Puri by which he was
convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one year with fine `10,000/-. Out of fine realised,
`8,000/- were to be paid as compensation to the victim. It is stated that
fine of `10,000/- has since been deposited in the Trial Court.
2. Allegations against Braham Dutt Sharma were that on
17.09.1997, he stabbed Varsha @ Mithlesh, his wife, on her neck and
gave beatings to her with hands andlegs. Information was received at
Police Station Chanakya Puri that Braham Dutt Sharma had admitted his
wife at RML hospital. SI Ramchander went to the spot and recorded the
statement of Varsha @ Mithlesh. He lodged First Information Report and
arrested the accused. During the course of investigation, statement of
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 307 IPC was submitted in the
court. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to establish the appellant's
guilt. In his 313 statement, the appellant pleaded false implication. On
appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the
parties, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant
under Section 324 IPC and sentenced him accordingly. The State did not
challenge his acquittal under Section 307 IPC.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel on
instructions, stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge the
finding of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 324 IPC and
accepts it voluntarily. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as he has
already remained in custody for 66 days before release on bail and has
already paid fine `10,000/-. After his second marriage, he has three
children to take care of them. He offered to pay a reasonable
compensation to the victim.
4. Since the appellant has opted not to challenge the conviction
under Section 324 IPC and there is overwhelming evidence in the
testimony of complainant coupled with medical evidence, the findings of
the Trial Court on conviction under Section 324 IPC stand affirmed.
Nominal roll dated 18.12.2010 reveals that the appellant has already
remain in custody for about two months and six days. The victim was his
wife and he had taken her to the hospital after the occurrence. The
injuries sustained by her were simple caused by sharp object. The
appellant has suffered agony of trial/appeal for about 16 years. He has
offered to pay reasonable compensation to the victim who is living
separate from him since long. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor
has no objection to modify the sentence order. Considering these facts
and circumstances , the sentence order is modified and the appellant is
sentenced to undergo the period already spent by him in this case. He
shall deposit `40,000/- within 21 days before the Trial Court to be paid to
the victim. The Trial Court shall issue notice to the victim-Varsha @
Mithlesh and shall release `.40,000/- along with `8,000/- (already
awarded as compensation in the sentence order), (if not given so far) to
the victim-Varsha @ Mithlesh.
5. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial
Court record, if any, along with copy of this order be sent back. Bail bond
and surety bond of the appellant stand discharged.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
October 07, 2013/sa
