Delhi High Court
Nisar vs State on 31 January, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 31st January, 2014
+ CRL.A. 255/2012
NISAR ..... Appellant
Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
+ CRL.A. 256/2012
FIROZ ..... Appellant
Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
+ CRL.A. 1061/2012
WAHID ..... Appellant
Through : Mohd.Shamikh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Crl.A.Nos.255/2012 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. The appellants Nisar (A-1), Firoz (A-2) and Wahid (A-3)
impugn a judgment dated 29.11.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in
Sessions Case No. 73/2010 arising out of FIR No.263/08 registered at
Police Station Mayur Vihar by which they were convicted for committing
offences punishable under Section 452/307/34 IPC. By an order on
sentence dated 14.12.2011, they were awarded rigorous imprisonment for
three years with fine `500/- each under Section 452/34 IPC; and rigorous
imprisonment for five years with fine `1000/- each under Section 307
IPC. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that on 15.08.2008 at
about 08.30 P.M. a quarrel took place between the appellants and the
complainant-Taj Khan and the appellants inflicted injuries in furtherance
of common intention to him (Taj Khan) by a knife on his neck in an
attempt to murder him. Abdul Sattar Khan (PW-3) went to the spot on
hearing the commotion and was also given beatings. Both were taken to
Lal Bahadur Shastri hospital for medical examination. After recording
Taj Khan's statement (Ex.PW-2/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First
Information Report. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts
were recorded. The trial resulted in the conviction of the appellants as
aforesaid.
3. Appellants' counsel on instructions fairly stated at Bar that
the injuries inflicted to the complainant by the appellants were not
disputed. He confined his argument to the extent that the offence under
Section 307 IPC was not attracted or proved. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor was also of the view that considering the peculiar
circumstances, there was no cogent evidence to infer commission of
offence under Section 307 IPC. It has come on record that the
complainant and the appellants were known to each other and lived in the
locality as neighbours. It is an admitted position that no quarrel had
taken place earlier with the complainant and there was no history of
hostile relations. The occurrence on 15.08.2008 was sudden and
unexpected. Initial confrontation took place when A-3 under the
influence of liquor abused the complainant without any rhyme or reason.
The complainant objected to the abuses and went to his house. Soon after
that, A-3 accompanied by his relatives Nisar (A-1), Firoz (A-2) went to
his house and A-2 who was armed with a 'churi' inflicted injuries on the
complainant's neck. No life-threatening repeated blows with the 'churi'
were caused to the complainant. None of the appellants caused any harm
to the other family members of the complainant who had arrived at the
spot. The role attributed to A-1 and A-3 is of catching hold of the
complainant. When Taj Khan was taken to Lal Bahadur Shastri hospital,
he was conscious and oriented and was not even admitted for treatment.
He participated in the proceedings conducted by the police on the said
day. The nature of injuries were opined as 'simple caused by sharp
weapon.' The incised wound found on the neck was 'muscle' deep. The
appellants had no criminal background and were not involved in any such
criminal activities. The complainant did not assign any specific motive to
any of the assailants to pick up the quarrel and to inflict injuries. It
appears that due to previous altercation between the complainant and A-3,
when he was allegedly under the influence of liquor, A-1 and A-2 went to
the complainant to settle score. The complainant did not disclose as to
what had forced or prompted A-3 at first instance to hurl abuses at him.
The crime weapon could not be recovered to ascertain its size or
dimensions. PW-2 and PW-3 did not describe the dimension of the
weapon used. From these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the
injury was caused with the avowed object or intention to cause death. It
was a simple case of quarrel/altercation in which the appellants in
furtherance of their common intention voluntarily cause hurt, 'simple in
nature' by a sharp object and the offence falls within the ambit of Section
324 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered from Section 307 to
Section 324 IPC.
4. A-3's nominal roll dated 09.04.2013 reveals that he has
suffered custody in this case for one year, eleven months and two days
besides earning remission for five months and fourteen days as on
13.04.2013. He was enlarged on bail by an order dated 18.04.2013. He
has clean antecedents and is not involved in any criminal case. A-2's
nominal roll dated 09.04.2013 reveals that he has suffered incarceration
one year, five months and twenty six days besides earning remission for
five months and fourteen days as on 13.04.2013. He was also enlarged on
bail by the same order. He was also not a previous convict and has no
criminal case registered against him. A-1's nominal roll dated 09.04.2013
reveals that he has suffered incarceration one year, four months and
twenty five days besides earning remission for five months and fourteen
days as on 13.04.2013. He was also not having any criminal background
and his overall jail conduct was satisfactory. The appellants have offered
to pay a reasonable compensation to the complainant for the injuries
sustained by him. Considering these mitigating circumstances, the period
already undergone by the appellants in custody in this case is taken as
their substantive sentence. The appellants shall, however, pay `50,000/-
as compensation to the complainant and shall deposit it within thirty days
in the trial court. The amount shall be released to the complainant after
notice.
5. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. A copy of
the order be sent to Superintendent Jail for information. Trial Court record
be sent back immediately. Bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JANUARY 31, 2014
sa
