Delhi High Court
Jagbir Singh & Ors. vs State on 9 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 2nd DECEMBER, 2013
DECIDED ON : 9th JANUARY, 2014
+ CRL.A. 346/2000
JAGBIR SINGH & ORS. ....Appellants
Through : Mr.K.B.Andley, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.M.L.Yadav & Mr.Laksh, Advocates.
versus
STATE ....Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Jagbir Singh (A-1), Daryao Singh (A-2), Raj Singh (A-3),
Ramesh Chand (A-4), Sardar Singh (A-5), Inder Singh (A-6), Ajit (A-7),
Baljeet (A-8), Daljeet (A-9), Jasmer (A-10), Gulab (A-11), Kartar Singh
(A-12), Suraj Mal (A-13) and Jasvir (A-14) were arrested by the police of
PS Punjabi Bagh in case FIR No. 717/85 and sent for trial on the
allegations that on 29.10.1985 in the morning time at village Pitampura,
they formed an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to give
beatings to Raghubir Singh, Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh
and Vijender Singh. They all along with their associate Girdhari (since
PO) pursuant to the common object of the unlawful assembly inflicted
injuries to Raghubir Singh in an attempt to murder him. They also caused
injuries to Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender Singh.
During the course of investigation, the accused persons were apprehended
and arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted
against them for committing offences punishable under Sections
147/148/149/307/323/34 IPC. They were duly charged and brought to
trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish their guilt. In
313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime
and pleaded false implication. After appreciating the evidence and
considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the
impugned judgment, held them guilty for committing offences under
Sections 324/34 IPC. It is relevant to note that A-5 and A-7 died during
trial and proceedings against them stood abated. By an order on sentence
dated 26.05.2000, A-6 and A-11 were released on probation of good
conduct for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond in the sum
of ` 10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount. Other convicts were
awarded RI for one year with fine ` 2,500/-, each. Being aggrieved, the
convicts have preferred the appeal. It is further apt to note that during
appeal, A-12 expired and the appeal stood abated qua him. It was further
reported that A-6 and A-11 who were released on probation also expired.
The State did not challenge the judgment.
2. During the course of arguments, appellants' counsel on
instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge
their conviction under Sections 324/34 IPC. He, however, prayed to take
lenient view as the appellants' have suffered the agony of trial for more
than twenty five years and are not previous convicts. Learned Addl.
Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating
circumstances.
3. Since the contesting appellants have given up challenge to
the findings recorded under Sections 324/34 IPC, their conviction as
recorded by the learned Trial Court in the presence of overwhelming
evidence is confirmed. The incident is dated 29.10.1985. Apparently, the
appellants have suffered ordeal of trial / appeal for more than 27 years.
They also remained in custody for some duration at the initial stage of
investigation. It is significant to note that cross case vide FIR No. 713/85
under Sections 147/148/149/452/307/34 IPC 'State vs. Ram Niwas etc.'
(SC No. 1/91) was registered against eighteen accused persons including
the injured in this case and eight individuals sustained injuries in the said
FIR. However, the accused persons therein were given benefit of doubt
and were acquitted on 20.05.2000. The prosecution did not offer
explanation as to how and under what circumstances, the complainant side
in the said FIR sustained injuries. Vide order dated 13.08.2013 State was
directed to verify antecedents of the appellants. State filed the report only
in respect of A-1 which revealed that he was not involved in any other
criminal case and had clean antecedents. Despite orders dated 17.09.2013,
State failed to furnish antecedents of the other appellants and to produce
on record any document to show their involvement in any other criminal
case. Interest of justice would be served if the appellants are granted
probation and at the same time compensate the injured persons.
Appellants' counsel has no objection to pay reasonable compensation to
the victims. A-1 was in service with DTC whereas A-10 was employed in
Education Department, Govt. of Delhi and A-13 was in service with
MCD. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the appellants are
ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one
year on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of ` 10,000/-, each with
one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the
direction to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the
aforesaid period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good
behaviour. The appellants shall pay compensation @ ` 25,000/-, each and
shall deposit the amount within fifteen days before the Trial Court. ` 1 lac
shall be paid to the victim Raghubir Singh who sustained grievous
injuries. Remaining amount would be disbursed in equal proportions to
other victims - Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender
Singh. If the victims are not available, the amount shall be distributed to
their legal heirs.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial Court
record be sent back immediately with the copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 09, 2014/tr
