Delhi High Court
Sukhbir vs State (Govt. Of Nct) Of Delhi on 11 March, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 4th MARCH, 2014
DECIDED ON : 11th MARCH, 2014
+ CRL.A. 677/ 2012
SUKHBIR ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
VERSUS
STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Laxman Singh, Satish, Sukhbir and Sudhir were suspects in
case FIR No. 171/99 PS Jahangir Puri. Allegations against them were that
on the night intervening 30/31.03.1999 at about 12.00 (night) near jhuggi
No. 493, H-2 Block, Shah Alam Bagh, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, they in
furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Nathu in an attempt
to murder him. Daily Diary (DD) No. 103B (Ex.Mark 'A') was recorded
at 12.10 (night) at PS Jahangir Puri on getting information of the incident.
PW-1 (SI Chandan Singh) from PCR went to the spot and shifted the
injured to Hindu Rao hospital. Since no eye witness was available, the
Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after making
endorsement (Ex.PW-6/A) on Daily Diary (DD) No. 103B. During
investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were
recorded. The injured was discharged from the hospital on 08.04.1999. In
his statement he implicated Sukhbir, Laxman, Satish and Sudhir. Nature
of injuries was ascertained as 'dangerous'. Laxman and Satish were
apprehended; arrested and a charge-sheet was filed against them in which,
Sukhbir and Sudhir were shown Proclaimed Offenders. In Sessions Case
No. 132/2000, both Satish and Laxman Singh were held guilty by a
judgment dated 22.01.2004 for committing offence under Section 307/34
IPC. By an order on sentence dated 23.01.2004, they were awarded RI for
two years with fine ` 1,000/- each. They challenged conviction in
Crl.A.No. 91/2004. It appears that subsequently, they did not pursue the
appeal. By an order dated 10.02.2010, the appeal was dismissed for non-
prosecution. They served the sentence awarded to them.
2. Since the appellant - Sukhbir was Proclaimed Offender, on
13.04.2007, he was arrested under Section 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C. vide arrest
memo (Ex.PW-6/A). Supplementary charge-sheet was submitted against
him. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to establish his guilt. In
313 statement, he denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false
implication. The Trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2011
in Sessions Case No. 63/2008, convicted him under Section 307/34 IPC.
He was awarded RI for five years with fine ` 5,000/- by an order on
sentence dated 11.08.2011.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Crucial witnesses are PW-4 (Nathu) and PW-8 (Sher
Singh Chauhan). PW-4 (Nathu) categorically deposed that on
30/31.03.1999 at about 11.30 P.M. when he was coming back to his house
from his place of work and reached in front of jhuggi No. 493, he was
caught hold by Satish, Sudhir and Laxman. The appellant Sukhbir took
out a long knife from his pant and inflicted knife blows on the left side of
the chest and face. He fell down and became unconscious. He identified
bloodstained shirt (Ex.P1). PW-8 (Sher Singh Chauhan), a neighbour,
fully corroborated the version given by the injured witness and attributed
specific role to the appellant Sukhbir whereby he inflicted multiple stab
wounds on the various body organs of the victim Nathu. All these accused
persons were acquainted with the victim and the independent witness prior
to the incident as they lived in the same locality. There was no past history
of animosity among them except petty quarrels on trivial issues. Both
these witnesses were cross-examined at length. However, their cogent and
natural version could not be shattered. No ulterior motive was assigned to
these witnesses to falsely implicate the appellants and to spare the real
offenders. In the absence of prior ill-will or enmity, the victim and the
independent witness from the neighbourhood were not expected to rope in
an innocent and to let the real offender go scot free. Medical evidence is
in consonance with ocular evidence. The prosecution examined PW-3
(D.K.Sharma), Record Clerk, who produced MLC (Ex.PW-1/A). PW-5
(Dr.R.N.Sahai) identified signatures of Dr.O.P.Mahajan on MLC (Ex.PW-
1/A) whereby nature of injuries was opined as 'dangerous'. PW-7
(Dr.Amrendra Pathak) also identified signatures of Dr. V.P.Singh. MLC
(Ex.PW-1/A) records that the patient was taken to Hindu Rao hospital by
PCR at 00.35 hours. Multiple incised wounds noted in the MLC (Ex.PW-
1/A) were found on his body. He was unfit for statement. Appellant's
counsel could not point out any vital discrepancy in the eye witness
account to demolish the prosecution case. The prosecution had examined
Dr.V.P.Singh earlier in Sessions Case No. 132/2000 and he proved the
MLC (Ex.PW-1/A) prepared by him in which he had given the nature of
injuries as 'dangerous'. Specific role was assigned to the appellant for
inflicting injuries by a knife on various body parts of the injured. The
injuries were caused repeatedly with a sharp weapon on vital organs.
Apparently, these were inflicted with the avowed object and intention to
cause death. The appellant did not give plausible explanation to the
incriminating circumstances. In 313 statement, he failed to offer
reasonable explanation for his presence along with his associates at odd
hours. Since the appellant was the main perpetrator of the crime, he was
awarded RI for five years. The role attributed to Laxman Singh and Satish
was only that of catching hold of the victim. Apparently, the Trial Court
in previous trial awarded RI for two years each to them. The appellant
escaped apprehension and arrest and could be arrested only in 2007. He
was declared Proclaimed Offender and was charge-sheeted subsequently.
When PW-4 (Nathu) was under examination on 29.10.2010, the appellant
Sukhbir who was on bail threatened him and was taken to custody after
cancellation of bail bonds. This shows the violent nature and conduct of
the appellant who had the audacity to threaten the witness under
examination in the Court itself. He deserves no leniency.
4. The appeal is un-merited and is dismissed. Trial Court record
be sent back immediately.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
MARCH 11, 2014/tr
