Delhi High Court
Amar Nath vs State on 13 September, 2013
Author: S. P. Garg
$-R-9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 13th SEPTEMBER, 2013
+ CRL.A. 383/2002
AMAR NATH ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Sumit Verma, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)
1. Amar Nath (the appellant) was arrested in FIR No. 527/1997
under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at PS I.P.Estate and was sent for
trial on the allegations that on 05.10.1997 at about 02.30 P.M. he
committed house trespass inside jhuggi belonging to Kavinder Kumar at
Jamuna Pushta, Gautam Puri after having made preparation to cause hurt.
It was further alleged that he, on the exhortation of his companion Dalip
Kumar, inflicted injuries to Lal Babu, Kavinder Kumar and Shatrughan
with a sickle. The police machinery was set into motion when information
about a quarrel at Jamuna Pushta, Gautam Puri was reported and Daily
Diary (DD) No. 14-A (Ex.PW-4/A) was recorded at 02.38 P.M. The
investigation was assigned to ASI Jai Pal Singh who with Const. Anand
went to the spot. He learnt that the injured had already been taken to
hospital. He went to JPN Hospital and collected the MLC of injured
Kavinder Kumar, Shatrughan and Lal Babu. He lodged First Information
Report after recording Kavinder Kumar's statement (Ex.PW-1/A). Amar
Nath and Dalip were arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-
sheet was submitted against the present appellant - Amar Nath. Dalip was
discharged on 23.08.1999. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to
bring home the guilt of the accused. In his 313 statement, he pleaded false
implication. The appellant was held guilty for committing the offences
under Sections 452/326/324 IPC. Vide an order dated 07.11.2001, he was
sentenced to undergo RI for three years and three months with total fine
`4,000/-. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.
2. During the course of hearing, appellant's counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that he has opted not to challenge the findings of
the Trial Court on conviction under the aforesaid offences. He however,
prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone
substantial part of the substantive sentence awarded to him.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge
conviction and has accepted it voluntarily in the presence of
overwhelming evidence in the statements of injured witnesses coupled
with medical evidence which is in consonance with ocular testimony,
appellant's conviction under the aforesaid offences is affirmed.
4. The incident took place on 05.10.1997. The appellant has
suffered ordeal of trial/ appeal for about sixteen years. Nominal roll dated
23.10.2002 reveals that he has already undergone one year and one day
incarceration as on 23.10.2002. He also earned remission for three months
and thirteen days. His substantive sentence was suspended vide order
dated 29.10.2002 and there is specific mention that the appellant had
served out almost half of the imprisonment awarded to him. Nominal roll
further reveals that he is not a previous convict and is not involved in any
other criminal activity. His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. He was
aged about 18 years on the date of incident. His age can be ascertained
from his nominal roll, statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and
order on sentence. Dalip at whose exhortation he allegedly inflicted
injuries was discharged. The Trial Court record reveals that ossification
test was conducted and the report (Ex.CW-1/A) recorded his age in
between 15 - 16 years as on 24.10.1997. However, on the basis of school
record, his date of birth was ascertained as 04.05.1979. It reveals that the
appellant was aged about 18 years on the date of incident. Taking into
consideration all these mitigating circumstances, the appellant is ordered
to be released for the period already undergone by him. The fine has since
been deposited.
5. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The Trial
Court record be sent back forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 13, 2013/tr
