Delhi High Court
Sanjay Kumar vs State on 23 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 23rd January, 2014
+ CRL.A.No.7/2012 & Crl.M.B.95/2014
SANJAY KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.Shailendra Babbar, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Sanjay Kumar (the appellant) has preferred the present
appeal to challenge his conviction under Sections 308/452 IPC by a
judgment dated 12.12.2011 in Sessions Case No.110/09 arising out of FIR
No.467/07 registered at Police Station Bawana. By an order on sentence
dated 15.12.2011, he was awarded Rigorous Imprisonment for five years
with fine `5,000/- under Section 308 IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for
three years with fine `5,000/- under Section 452 IPC.
2. Allegations against the appellant were that on 28.08.2007 at
about 10.45 A.M. at the house of R.K.Verma at Village Pooth Khurd,
Delhi, he committed criminal trespass and inflicted injuries to Kishore.
The police machinery was set into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No.58-
B (Ex.PW7/A) was recorded at 11.15 P.M. at Police Station Bawana
regarding the incident of quarrel. The investigation was assigned to SI Jai
Kumar who lodged First Information Report after recording Kishore's
statement (Ex.PW-3/A) on 29.08.2007. Statements of witnesses
conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of
investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the court against the
accused; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution
examined ten witnesses to prove his guilt. In 313 statement, the accused
denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. After
considering the contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on
record, the Trial Court by the impugned judgment held the appellant
guilty for the offences mentioned previously.
3. During the course of arguments, appellant's counsel confined
his arguments regarding correctness of the conviction under Section 308
IPC and pleaded that ingredients of Section 308 IPC were not attracted.
The court finds substance in the plea of the appellant's counsel. It has
come on record that the appellant and the accused were acquainted with
each other prior to the occurrence and had visiting terms. Complainant in
the cross-examination as PW-3 admitted that Sanjay was known to him
for about six or seven months prior to the incident and had arranged a job
for him. He used to accompany him on his motorcycle. Subsequently, the
complainant suspected the accused to have illicit relations with his wife.
For that reason, on the day of occurrence he declined to have conversation
with him on telephone. It caused annoyance to the appellant and he rushed
to his house with a hockey and inflicted injuries to him. It further reveals
that the victim was taken to Maharishi Balmiki hospital by his wife
Meenu on 28.08.2007 at about 11.20 P.M. He was conscious and oriented
but did not lodge any report with the police. MLC (Ex.PW-2/A) records
that Meenu declined to have any police investigation. Efforts were made
to settle the dispute. When no compromise took place, on 29.08.2007, the
complainant lodged the report with the police. It has further come on
record that injuries sustained by the victim were on his nose and forearms
which were not vital organs of the body. The injured was not admitted in
the hospital and was discharged on the same day after first aid.
Apparently, the injuries sustained by him were not dangerous or sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The appellant had also
sustained injuries and was taken to hospital but the Investigating Officer
did not place on record MLC to ascertain the nature of injuries sustained
by him. Injuries on the accused remained unexplained. The injuries on the
victim were opined 'grievous' caused by blunt object. The victim's wife
did not appear in the witness box to prove allegations of criminal
intimidation. Offence punishable under Section 308 postulates doing of
an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder. In the instant case, the circumstances
referred above are not such that the appellant had any such intention or
knowledge while inflicting injuries with a hockey to the victim and suffice
would it be to say that the appellant voluntarily caused grievous injuries
with blunt object to the victim and the offence committed by him was
covered under Section 325 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered
from Section 308 IPC to Section 325 IPC. Nominal roll dated 20.01.2014
reveals that the appellant has suffered incarceration for two years, one
month and fifteen days besides earning remission for seven months and
fourteen days as on 18.01.2014. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory.
Though he is involved in some other criminal cases but there is nothing on
record to show if he has been convicted in any of these cases. Taking into
consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive
sentence of the appellant is reduced to three years under Section 325 IPC
from Rigorous Imprisonment for five years under Section 308 IPC. Other
terms and conditions of the sentence order are left undisturbed.
4. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Crl.M.B.
No.95/2014 also stands disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back
forthwith.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 23, 2014
sa
