Delhi High Court
Kayyum vs State Govt.Of Nct Of Delhi on 25 February, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : February 25, 2014
+ CRL.A. 361/2011
KAYYUM ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.M.L.Yadav and Mohd.Shamikh,
Advocates.
VERSUS
STATE GOVT.OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Kayyum (the appellant) impugns the legality and correctness
of a judgment dated 18.11.2010 in Sessions Case No.43/09 arising out of
FIR No.425/2002 registered at Police Station New Seelam Pur by which
he was held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 IPC and 25
Arms Act. By an order on sentence dated 19.11.2010, he was awarded RI
for seven years with fine `5,000/- under Section 307 IPC and RI for one
year with fine `1,000/- under Section 25 Arms Act.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 08.12.2002 at
02.45 p.m. in front of MCD office near Pragati Library, Double Storey,
Seelam Pur, he inflicted injuries to Mohd.Firoz Khan by firing at him with
a country made pistol in an attempt to murder him. On 04.01.2003, the
appellant was found in possession of a desi katta in contravention of the
notification and provisions of Arms Act. During investigation, statements
of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The exhibits were
sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After police
investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the court against the appellant;
he was duly charged; and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 17
witnesses to prove his complicity in the crime. In 313 statement, he
denied the incriminating circumstances and pleaded false implication. He
did not prefer to lead any evidence in defence. The trial resulted in his
conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellant
has preferred the appeal.
3. During the course of hearing of the appeal, appellant's
counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellant has opted not to
challenge the findings of the trial court on conviction and has opted to
accept it voluntarily. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as
the appellant has remained in custody for about four and a half years. He
is not a previous convict and has six children to take care of them. He
offered to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant. Learned APP
has no objection to it.
4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on
conviction recorded by the trial court and has accepted it voluntarily in
view of the overwhelming evidence in the statement of the complainant
coupled with medical evidence, his conviction under Section 307 IPC and
25 Arms Act is affirmed. Nominal roll dated 17.06.2013 reveals that he
was under detention for the last two years, seven months and nineteen
days besides remission for eleven months and nineteen days as on
01.07.2013. He was granted interim bail on three occasions and there are
no allegations of its misuse. The fine has since been deposited. The
appellant is not a previous convict and is not involved in any criminal
case. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. He has suffered ordeal of
trial/appeal for about ten years. At the same time the record reveals that
the injuries were inflicted to the complainant by an unauthorised fire arm
on the vital organ. The nature of injuries was opined as 'dangerous' by
the examining doctor. The appellant did not give plausible explanation
for inflicting injuries to the complainant who was acquainted with him
prior to the incident. It was a narrow escape for the victim.
5. The prison term for seven years awarded by the trial court
cannot be termed excessive. However, considering the mitigating
circumstances and the offer for payment of reasonable compensation, the
sentence is modified and the substantive sentence of RI for seven years is
reduced to RI for six years. Other terms of the sentence order are left
undisturbed. The appellant shall deposit `25,000/- within four weeks in
the trial court to be paid as compensation to the victim- Mohd.Firoz Khan.
The trial court shall release the compensation amount after due notice to
the victim.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial
Court record along with a copy of this order be sent back forthwith. A
copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
sa
