Delhi High Court
Mool Chand @ Chilli & Ors. vs State on 10 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : December 12, 2013
DECIDED ON : January 10, 2014
+ Crl.A.No.420/2000 & Crl.M.A.No.5951/2013
MOOL CHAND @ CHILLI & ORS. ..... Appellants
Through : Mr.Sunil Tiwari, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Mool Chand @ Chilli (A-1), Badari Nath (A-2), Shankar
(A-3), Amar Singh @ Amaroo (A-4) and Shiv Om (A-5) were arrested by
the police of PS Rajouri Garden in case FIR No.631/1995 for committing
offences under Section 307/34 IPC and sent for trial on the allegations that
on 20.08.1995 at about 11.40 A.M. at DDA park, E-Block, near public
latrine, Rajouri Garden they, in furtherance of common intention inflicted
injury to Rakesh in an attempt to murder him. During the course of
investigation, the accused persons were arrested and crime weapons were
recovered at their instance. Statements of witnesses conversant with the
facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet
was submitted against all of them and they were duly charged and brought
to trial. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses to prove their guilt. In 313
statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and
pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after
considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court by the
impugned judgment held all of them perpetrators of the crime under
Section 324/34 IPC. It is relevant to note that the State did not challenge
the judgment. It is further relevant to note that during appeal A-1 and A-5
expired and the appeal stood abated qua them.
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. He prayed to take lenient
view as the appellants are not previous convicts and have suffered agony
of trial for more than 18 years. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has
no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.
3. Since the contesting appellants have given up challenge to
conviction recorded under Section 324/34 IPC in the presence of
overwhelming evidence, their conviction stands affirmed.
4. So far as A-2 and A-4 are concerned, considering their
mitigating circumstances, they deserve to be released on probation. As
per nominal roll dated 06.02.2013, A-2 was 18 years of age on the day of
occurrence. He remained in custody for three days at the initial stage of
investigation. He is not involved in any criminal case and has clean
antecedents. It is stated that he is to take care of his three children namely
Mansa aged 8 years, Varun aged 12 years and Tarun aged 10 years. His
elder brother and father have expired. Similarly A-4's nominal roll dated
06.02.2013 reveals that he remained incarcerated for 22 days during trial.
He has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case.
His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. It is stated that he has three
daughters namely Shivani, Teena, Gungun and one son aged one and a
half year to take care of them. Considering their mitigating
circumstances, A-2 and A-4 are ordered to be released on probation of
good conduct for a period of two years on their furnishing personal bond
in the sum of ` 10,000/- each with one surety each 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 A-2 and A-4 shall
pay compensation @ `25,000/-, each and shall deposit the amount within
fifteen days before the Trial Court. The amount of compensation i.e.
`50,000/- shall be released to the complainant-Rakesh Kumar. If he is
untraceable, the amount will be disbursed to his legal heirs. In case of
non-availability of the victim or his legal hears, the Trial Court will be at
liberty to refund/return the compensation amount of `50,000/- to A-2 and
A-4.
5. So far A-3 is concerned, he deserves no leniency as he was
the main perpetrator of the crime and had inflicted repeated stab blows
with knife (Ex.P-1) on the vital organ of the victim. The motive assigned
to A-3 to inflict injury was that he was defeated by the victim in a
wrestling match a few days prior to the occurrence and nurtured grievance
against him for that defeat. The charges against the appellants were for
committing offence under Section 307 IPC. However, the prosecution
was unable to examine the doctor who opined the nature of injuries as
'dangerous'. For that reason, the nature of injuries were considered as
'simple' and the appellants were convicted under Section 324/34 IPC.
The victim remained in hospital for about 16 days. Knife (Ex.P-1) was
recovered pursuant to A-3's disclosure statement. At the same time,
considering all mitigating circumstances whereby he is to maintain his
two children Varsha aged six years and son Tinku Nath aged 14 years; the
fact that his elder brother and father have expired and he is suffering from
some ailment, the sentence period is reduced to one year. Other terms and
conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed. A-3 shall surrender
before the Trial Court on 17th January, 2014 to serve the remaining period
of his substantive sentence.
6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending
application also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back
immediately with the copy of the order.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
January 10, 2014
sa
