Harvinder Singh @ Bittoo vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2013 Latest Caselaw 4129 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         CRL.A. 722/2010

%                         Date of decision: September 12, 2013

HARVINDER SINGH @ BITTOO                  ..... Appellant
                Through: Mr. S.B. Dandapani, Adv.
                Appellant present in J.C.
                versus

THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                 ..... Respondent
                  Through: Mr. Satish Kumar Verma, APP for State.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL

VEENA BIRBAL, J.

1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 15 th January, 2010 whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and the order of sentence dated 18 th January, 2010 whereby the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for five years with a fine of ` 5000/- and in default of payment fine to undergo SI for one month.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has stated that appellant is not challenging the conviction of the appellant u/s 307 IPC. It is submitted that appellant has already undergone major portion of sentence, as such his sentence be reduced to already undergone by him. It is further submitted that appellant is also not in a position to pay a fine of ` 5000/- being a very poor man, as such, fine imposed be also reduced.

3. I have heard the submissions made and gone through the material on

record including the trial court record.

4. In the present case, the occurrence is dated 12 th August, 2009. The star witness is injured himself i.e., Raju Misra, PW-1 who has categorically deposed that on 12th August, 2009 at about 9.30 am he was taking rest in a park near Keshopur. At that time, appellant had come in the park and inflicted injury upon him with a blade on his neck. After inflicting injury, the appellant ran away from the spot. As a result of injury, blood started oozing out and had spread on his cloth. In cross-examination , the injured, PW-1 has stated that appellant Bittoo was known to him and he used to meet him in a park in Keshopur. In cross-examination he has also deposed that appellant first demanded money from him and when he refused, appellant inflicted injury upon him with a blade. The injured, PW-1 has denied that appellant had inflicted injury upon him due to enmity. His material deposition is not demolished in cross-examination. His evidence is also in consonance with the statement Ex.PW 1/A which he had made to Head Constable Ramesh, PW-6 in DDU Hospital where the aforesaid police official had gone after receiving DD no.15 Ex.PW 6/A.

5. The other witness is Pravesh Misra, PW-2, brother of the injured/complainant, PW-1. He has deposed that on the day of occurrence, he was having tea on a tea shop near his house and at about 9.30/9.45 am, his brother Raju Misra, PW-1 came in an injured condition having cut injury on his neck and told him that appellant Bittoo had caused injury on him and his brother asked him to get him medical aid. As he had no money, he borrowed ` 500/- from his owner and took his brother to DDU Hospital.

6. The evidence of injured PW-1 also finds support from MLC Ex.PW 7/A which is proved on record by Dr.Rohit, PW-7. Senior Resident, ENT

Department, DDU Hospital who has deposed that on 12th August, 2009 he had examined injured PW-1 who was brought to the hospital by his brother with the alleged history of assault. At that time, injured was bleeding from the neck. The details of the injuries are given in the MLC Ex.PW 7/A and the same injuries are on the neck and have been opined as grievous injuries. The doctor has proved his opinion Ex.PW 7/B wherein he had opined that when he examined the patient, there was bleeding from the vessel (blood vessel) and if bleeding was not controlled at that time, then the patient could have gone into shock which could lead to the death of patient.

7. The appellant has denied the incriminating evidence put to him in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. However, he has stated that injured PW-1 had falsely implicated him as prior to the incident, one person, namely, Phool Chand had hit him with a knife and the injured PW-1 had accompanied him. He has further stated that because of some enmity, the injured PW-1 had given his name in the present case. The details of alleged enmity has not been given. No evidence has been led in defence. There is nothing on record to show that prior to the incident, appellant was hit with a knife by one Phool Chand and injured Raju Misra, PW-1 had accompanied him.

8. The evidence on record clearly establishes that appellant has caused injury on the vital part of the body of the injured. The weapon of offence used is `blade'. The injuries has been opined as `grievous'. As per opinion of Dr.Rohit, PW-7, if bleeding was not controlled at that time then the patient could go to shock which could lead to the death of patient. The evidence on record shows that appellant has caused injury with an intention to cause death of Raju Misra, PW-1.. Considering the evidence on record, the learned ASJ has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 307 IPC. In these

circustamces, the judgment passed by the learned ASJ is upheld.

9. On the point of sentence, nominal roll has been perused. As per nominal roll dated 20th August, 2013, appellant has undergone sentence of 4 years, 11 months and 2 days. As on today, he has completed 4 years, 11 months and 25 days. He has almost completed the sentence. Accordingly, appellant Harvinder @ Bittoo s/o Pritam Singh is sentenced to imprisonment already undergone by him.

10. As regards fine of ` 5000, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that this court vide order dated 13 th December, 2012 suspended the sentence of the appellant on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ` 15000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. However, he could not avail the benefit of the said order dated 13th December, 2012 due to non furnishing of the surety bond. Thereafter surety amount was reduced to ` 8000/-. It is stated that even then appellant could not furnish the same. In these circumstances, the fine imposed is reduced to ` 1000/-. In case of default of fine, appellant shall further undergo SI for 15 days.

Appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid modification.

VEENA BIRBAL, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2013 ssb