Lalit Kumar vs State Nct Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 4701 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Date of Decision: 9.10.2013

+     CRL.A. 13/2010

      LALIT KUMAR                                      ..... Appellant
                         Through: Mr. R.K. Jain along with Mr. Ankur
                                  Jain, Advs.

                         versus

      STATE NCT OF DELHI                        ..... Respondent
                   Through: Mr. O.P.Saxena, APP for State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.11.2009 whereby the appellant and three more co-accused persons have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC and the order of sentence dated 23.11.2009 whereby the appellant and co- accused persons have been awarded sentence of RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of `3,000/- failing which to further undergo SI for a period of 3 months each. Benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that appellant is not challenging the conviction of the appellant under Section 308/34 IPC. It is submitted that occurrence is of 2006 and the age of the appellant at the time of incident was below 23 years. The role assigned to him is only catching hold of the victim at the time of incident. It is stated

that the appellant be given chance to reform himself instead of sending him to imprisonment. He be given benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. by releasing him on probation of good conduct. It is stated that there is no previous conviction against the appellant.

3. The alleged occurrence is dated 29.5.2006. The FIR Ex.PW5/A was registered on the statement of Deepak Aggarwal PW1 wherein he has alleged that on the aforesaid date at about 8.50 p.m. when he had returned back to his house at B-6, Gali No.2, East Azad Nagar, Delhi and had parked his motorcycle the two accused persons, namely, Vinod @ Ganja and Hem Singh were standing there. He had alleged that a complaint case was filed by him and his family members against the aforesaid persons in the court and on seeing him they threatened to withdraw the court case otherwise they would teach him a lesson and they started abusing him. When Deepak Aggarwal i.e. PW1 asked the aforesaid accused persons not to abuse, they went to their house and brought lathis with them and two more co-accused persons, i.e. Sukhbir and one boy had also come with them. The co-accused Sukhbir and the present appellant had caught hold of Deepak Aggarwal PW1 and other two accused persons gave him beatings with lathi. His brother-in-law Vicky Messey PW4 came out of the house and tried to rescue Deepak Aggarwal i.e. PW1. Thereupon, the accused persons inflicted lathis upon him also as a result of which they sustained head injuries. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the present appellant as well as other co-accused persons before the concerned learned MM for having committed offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC.

4. After the case was committed to Sessions, charge was framed against the appellant as well as co-accused persons for having committed offence

punishable under Section 308/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. Prosecution in all had examined 11 prosecution witnesses before the learned trial court. Deepak Aggarwal PW1 has deposed the incident on oath and has also proved his statement Ex.PW1/A which he had made to the Police as a result of which FIR No.211/2006 Ex.PW5/A was registered. Vicky Messey PW4 has also deposed the alleged incident on oath. There are other eye witnesses to the alleged occurrence i.e. Jamna Devi PW-2, Shalini PW-3, mother and sister of complainant. The evidence of eye witnesses finds support from MLC Ex.PW7/A & PW7/B which has been proved on record. From the evidence, the role assigned to the appellant i.e. he had caught hold of Deepak Aggarwal PW1 at the time of incident is established. The injury on the MLC Ex.PW7/A of Vicky Messey PW4 is simple and the MLC Ex.PW7/B of Deepak Aggarwal PW1 is grievous. Dr. R.K. Paul PW7 has also come in the evidence and has proved the aforesaid MLCs. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the injuries are on the vital part i.e. head. Considering the evidence on record learned ASJ has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 308/34 IPC.

6. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned trial court holding the appellant guilty under Section 308/34 IPC is upheld.

7. On the point of sentence, learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for few days. It is submitted that considering the role of the appellant and his age he be given benefit under Section 360 of Cr.P.C. Learned APP has not disputed the applicability of Section 360 Cr.P.C. in the present case. The appellant has faced the agony of litigation for about 7 years. No previous conviction has been proved

against the appellant. The benefit under Section 360 Cr.P.C. can be given to him.

8. Considering the age, character & antecedents of the appellant and the circumstances in which offence was committed, it would be expedient to release the appellant on probation of good conduct. Accordingly, it is directed that sentence imposed upon him be not given effect to and the appellant be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on his entering into a bond of `10,000/- with one surety of the like amount, to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the appellant shall keep peace and be of good behaviour. The requisite bond shall be furnished by the appellant before the concerned trial court within a period of four weeks. In case of non- compliance, sentence imposed by learned ASJ shall remain in force.

9. The appeal stands disposed of in above terms. No costs.

VEENA BIRBAL, J OCTOBER 9, 2013 kks