Delhi High Court
Raju @ Nagesh vs State (Nct) Of Delhi on 31 March, 2014
Author: S. P. Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 31st March, 2014
+ CRL.A. 1306/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.2547/2013
NAVEEN KUMAR @ BAWLA
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.B.S.Chowdhary with Mr.Anshul
Baranwal, Advocates.
versus
STATE(NCT) OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Complainant present in person.
+ CRL.A. 1307/2012 & Crl.M.B.No.2546/2013
RAJU @ NAGESH
..... Appellant
Through : Mr.B.S.Chowdhary with Mr.Anshul
Baranwal, Advocates.
versus
STATE (NCT) OF DELHI
..... Respondent
Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP for the State.
Complainant present in person.
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)
1. Naveen Kumar @ Bawla (A-1) and Raju @ Nagesh (A-2)
have filed appeals to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment
dated 17.10.2012 in Sessions Case No.60/09 arising out of a FIR
No.538/08 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, by which they were
held guilty for committing offences under Sections 307/34 IPC;
25/27/54/59 Arms Act. By an order on sentence dated 19.10.2012, they
were awarded RI for ten years with fine `6,000/- each under Section
307/34 IPC; A-1 was further awarded RI for 3 years with fine `3,000/-
under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act.
2. Prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on
18.08.2008 at 25, Foota Road, Near Som Bazar Road, Jain Nagar, Karala,
at about 3.45 p.m, the appellants in furtherance of common intention fired
at complainant-Suresh Pradhan and inflicted injuries to him in an attempt
to murder him while he was going by Wagon-R Car No.DL-9CQS-4962
to his office at Plot No.240, Shop No.2, Jain Nagar, Karala. Daily Dairy
(DD) No.29A (Ex.PW-10/A) was recorded regarding the incident. The
complainant was medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital
after he was admitted by HC Om Prakash, Incharge PCR Van. SI Jaspal
Singh lodged First Information Report after recording complainant's
statement (Ex.PW-3/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the
facts were recorded. On 27.08.08, both the appellants surrendered in the
court and were arrested. A country made was pistol was recovered
pursuant to A-1's disclosure statement. The exhibits were sent to Forensic
Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a
charge-sheet was submitted in the court; they were duly charged; and
brought to trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the
appellants' guilt. In 313 statement, the appellants denied their complicity
in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their
conviction as aforesaid.
3. During the course of arguments, appellants' counsel, on
instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants have given up their challenge
to the findings recorded on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify the
sentence order as the appellants have already remained in custody for
more than five years; they are not previous convicts and are first
offenders. They have compromised/settled the dispute with the
complainant and have paid him `50,000/- as compensation. Learned APP
has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.
4. Since the appellants have opted not to challenge their
conviction, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the complainant
coupled with recovery and supported by medical evidence, the conviction
under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act as recorded by the trial court is
affirmed. A-1's nominal roll dated 28.01.2014 reveals that he has
suffered incarceration for four years, four months and twenty six days
besides remission for six months and twenty five days as on 29.01.2014.
He is not a previous convict and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory.
Sentence order dated 19.10.2012 reveals that he was a student of 10+2 at
the time of registration of the case. His marriage took place on
20.04.2012. He had old parents and two brothers to look after them. A-
2's nominal roll shows that he also suffered incarceration for four years,
five months and seven days besides remission for five months and four
days as on 04.01.2014. He is not involved in any criminal case and has
clean antecedents. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order
dated 19.10.2012 shows that he was aged 23 years and was unmarried at
the time of incident. His engagement took place on 15.09.2012. He was
studying in 10+2. He had to take care of his old parents who suffered
from various ailments. Injuries sustained by the victim were 'grievous' in
nature. He was discharged on the next day from the hospital.
5. The complainant appeared in the court and was duly
identified by the Investigating Officer. He admitted to have settled the
dispute with the appellants and disclosed receipt of `50,000/- as
compensation. He has no grievance to release the appellants for the
period already suffered by them. Considering all these mitigating
circumstances and the fact that the occurrence took place on a trivial issue
without any clear motive, the period already undergone by the appellants
is taken as their substantive sentence. Fine is stated to have been
deposited by them. The amount of `50,000/- paid as compensation to the
complainant is enhanced to `1,00,000/-. A-1 who is the main perpetrator
of the crime shall pay `50,000/- to the complainant more as compensation
by way of Bank draft within fifteen days, receipt of it shall be deposited
with the Investigating Officer.
6. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. All
pending applications also stand disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to
the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.
Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order. The
appellants be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other
case.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
March 31, 2014/sa
