Sachin Kumar vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 1891 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


                               RESERVED ON : 6th MARCH, 2014
                               DECIDED ON : 15th APRIL, 2014


+                         CRL.A. 1440/2011
      SACHIN KUMAR                                      ..... Appellant
                          Through :    Mr.Sunil Upadhyay, Advocate.


                          versus


      STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)           ..... Respondent
                    Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


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

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Sachin Kumar (the appellant) challenges conviction under

Section 307 IPC by a judgment dated 23.09.2011 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 34/11 arising out of FIR No.

137/2009 PS Kapashera. By an order dated 27.09.2011, he was sentenced

to undergo RI for five years with fine ` 20,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant as set up in the charge-sheet

were that on the night intervening 30.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 at about

01.15 A.M. at Budha Hospital, Gali No.2, High Tension Wali Gali,

Kapashera, New Delhi, he and his associate - Bablu (not arrested)

inflicted injuries to Krishan Mohan by firing at him in an attempt to

murder. Information about the occurrence was conveyed to the police and

Daily Diary (DD) No.3A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at 01.21 (night). DD

No.4A (Ex.PW-1/B) recorded at 02.40 (night) at PS Kapashera on getting

information about the incident from PCR. The Investigating Officer

lodged First Information Report after recording complainant - Krishan

Mohan's statement (Ex.PW-4/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant

with the facts were recorded. On 08.07.2009, the appellant surrendered in

the Court and was arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge-

sheet was submitted against the appellant; he was duly charged and

brought to trial. The prosecution examined seven witnesses to substantiate

the charges against him. In 313 statement, he pleaded false implication

and denied his complicity in the crime. The trial resulted in his conviction

as aforesaid.

3. During the hearing of the appeal, appellant's counsel on

instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to challenge his

conviction under Section 307 IPC. He, however, prayed to modify the

sentence order as the appellant has already remained in custody for about

21 months besides remission. He is not a previous convict. The appellant

voluntarily offered to pay ` 25,000/- as compensation to the victim.

Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the

mitigating circumstances.

4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on

conviction under Section 307 IPC which is based upon cogent and reliable

testimony of the injured witness coupled with medical evidence,

conviction under Section 307 IPC is affirmed. Sentence order dated

27.09.2011 records that the appellant was the sole bread-earner of the

family; has four minor children to take care of them. He has clean past

record. Nominal roll dated 10.07.2013 reveals that he has suffered

incarceration for one year, eight months and five days besides remission

for four months and twenty-five days as on 18.06.2013. It further reveals

that he is not involved in any other criminal case and has clean

antecedents; his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He was granted

interim bail on various occasions and there are no allegations that he

misused the liberty or indulged in any unlawful activity during that period.

The appellant was granted interim bail as his wife had to undergo surgery.

The medical papers showing the critical condition of his wife were got

verified and confirmed true. The victim and the appellant were known to

each other prior to the incident and had visiting terms. The prosecution

could not gather clear motive of the appellant to pick up a quarrel with the

victim during night time at his residence. No other independent public

witness was associated to find out as to under what circumstances, the

occurrence took place. It appears that the complainant did not present true

facts regarding the genesis of the incident. Though the appellant was

known to him, he was not named in the information made at 100. The fact

remains that the victim sustained injuries at the hands of the appellant and

his associate - Bablu who could not be arrested. The injuries sustained by

the victim were 'simple' in nature and he was discharged from the

hospital the next day. Considering these peculiar facts and circumstances,

no useful purpose will be served to send the appellant who is on bail to

custody. The period already undergone by the appellant in custody which

is more than two years is taken as substantive sentence. Other terms and

conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed. The appellant shall

deposit ` 40,000/- in the Trial Court within fifteen days to be paid as

compensation to the victim after due notice.

5. Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court

record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the

order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 15, 2014 / tr