Naresh Saini & Ors. vs State Of Delhi
2013 Latest Caselaw 4411 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                           RESERVED ON : 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2013
                             DECIDED ON : 25th SEPTEMBER, 2013

+                        CRL.A. 415/2003

       NARESH SAINI & ORS.                             ..... Appellants
                         Through :   Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr. Advocate with
                                     Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate.
                    versus
       STATE OF DELHI                                ..... Respondent
                    Through :        Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

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

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Naresh Saini (A-1), Prabhu Dayal (A-2) and Sardar Preetam

Singh (A-3) were sent for trial for committing offence punishable under

Sections 308/506/341/323/34 IPC on the allegations that on 04.06.1997 at

about 11.00 P.M. near House No. 499, Hardev Puri, Gautam Nagar, they

in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries to Yogender

Kumar, Virender Kumar and Jatan Swarup and criminally intimidated

them. Vide order dated 18.01.2001, they were charged for committing

offences under Sections 308/506/34 IPC. The prosecution examined six

witnesses to establish the charges. In their 313 statements, A-1 to A-3

pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after

considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment dated 13.05.2003 in Sessions Case No. 87-A/2001

arising out of FIR No.573/97 PS Defence Colony convicted them under

Section 324/34 IPC. By an order dated 16.05.2003, they were sentenced to

undergo RI for two years with fine ` 5,000/- each.

2. During the course of arguments, appellants' counsel on

instructions stated at Bar, that the appellants have opted not to challenge

their conviction under Section 324/34 IPC and accept it voluntarily. He,

however, prayed to take lenient view and modify the sentence order as the

appellants are not previous convicts and are not involved in any other

criminal case. They are willing to compensate the injured. Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating

circumstances for modification of the sentence order.

3. Since the appellants (A-1 to A-3) have not opted to challenge

findings of the Trial Court on conviction under Section 324/34 IPC and

accept it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence adduced

by PW-1 (Yogender Kumar), PW-2 (Virender Kumar) and PW-3 (Jatan

Swarup), the victims / injured coupled with medical evidence, the

conviction under Section 324/34 IPC stands affirmed.

4. Appellants were granted anticipatory bail vide order dated

11.06.1997. Injuries on the person of Yogender Kumar and Virender

Kumar were opined 'simple' in nature caused by blunt object. Jatan

Swarup sustained 'grievous' injures with blunt object. The incident

occurred on 04.06.1997. The appellants have suffered agony of trial /

appeal for about sixteen years. The quarrel took place between the parties

on a trivial issue. They had prior acquaintance and the accused persons

used to hire A-1's tempo to bring vegetables from the market. On the day

of incident, the appellants went to A-1's residence to reason as to why he

had stopped another tempo driver Bengali not to bring their vegetables in

his tempo. A quarrel ensued there without any prior planning or

meditation. The appellants were not armed with deadly weapons. They did

not anticipate the arrival of the victims there to pick up quarrel. No

repeated fatal blows were inflicted on vital organs. The injured were not

admitted in the hospital and were discharged soon after their examination.

The appellants have clean antecedents and are not involved in any

criminal activity. They have offered to compensate the injured. Taking

into consideration all these mitigating circumstances, it is a fit case where

the appellants can be released on probation of good behaviour.

Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, and also the

fact that A-1 is getting treatment from AIIMS for suspected Cancer, the

order on sentence is modified and instead of sentencing the appellants at

once to any punishment, they are ordered to be released on probation on

their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 50,000/-, each with one

surety, each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for a

period of two years and to appear and receive sentence when called upon,

and in the meantime, they shall keep peace and good behavior. A-1 and

A-2 shall deposit ` 50,000/- each and A-3 shall deposit ` 30,000/- as

compensation before the Trial Court within 15 days. The Trial Court shall

issue notice to the injured / victims - Yogender Kumar, Virender Kumar

and Jatan Swarup to receive the compensation. ` 70,000/- shall be paid to

Jatan Swarup and ` 30,000/- each shall be paid to Yogender Kumar and

Virender Kumar. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The

Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order for

compliance.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 25, 2013/tr