Akil & Others vs The State (Nct Of Delhi)
2014 Latest Caselaw 2342 Del

$-
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    DECIDED ON : 8th MAY, 2014

+     CRL.A.1362/2011 & CRL.M.B.Nos. 2442/2013, 669/2013 &
      1047/2013

      AKIL & OTHERS                                   ..... Appellants

                        Through :   Mr.Ajay Verma, Advocate.
                                    Mr.Rohit Kumar, Mr.Amit &
                                    Mr.Arpan, Advocates for A2.


                        versus

      THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI)                        ..... Respondent

Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.

Complainant is present in person.

SI Parveen Kumar, PS Ambedkar Nagar.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Open Court)

1. The appellants, Akil (A-1) and Rajesh @ Gulli (A-2)

question the correctness and legality of a judgment dated 29.09.2011 of

Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 81/10 arising out of FIR No.

212/10 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which they were convicted under Sections

307/34 IPC. By an order dated 01.10.2011, they were awarded RI for

seven years with fine ` 5,000/- each.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-

sheet, was that on 24.07.2010 at around 11.00 or 11.30 P.M. near House

No. A-2/264, Madan Gir, New Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of

common intention inflicted injuries to Mohd.Ubesh by a knife in an

attempt to murder him. Daily Diary (DD) No. 70B (Ex.PW-13/E) was

recorded regarding the incident. ASI Tara Chand along with Const.

Sahdev Singh went to the spot and came to know that the victim had

already been taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS. After recording

complainant's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), he lodged First Information Report

by sending rukka (Ex.PW-4/A). During investigation, statements of the

witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellants were

arrested and pursuant to A-1's disclosure statement, the crime weapon

was recovered from the house of his sister - Nafisa. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they

were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined

fourteen witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the

appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false

implication without examining any witness in defence. The trial resulted

in their conviction as aforesaid.

3. During the course of hearing, Counsel on instructions stated

at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the

Trial Court on conviction and accept it voluntarily. The matter has been

settled with the injured and he has been paid ` 50,000/- as compensation.

He prayed to take lenient view and modify the sentence order. Learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to it.

4. Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings

of the Trial Court on conviction under Sections 307/34 IPC in view of the

cogent and reliable testimony of the victim - PW-2 (Mohd. Ubesh)

corroborated by PW-1 (Fakre Alam) and supplemented by medical

evidence, their conviction stands affirmed.

5. The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for seven years

with fine ` 5,000/- each. The fine has been deposited. A-1's nominal roll

dated 11.02.2014 reveals that he has already undergone two years, six

months and eleven days incarceration besides remission for ten months

and twenty-one days as on 11.02.2014. A-2's nominal roll dated

13.03.2012 reveals that he has already undergone seven months and seven

days incarceration besides remission for two months as on 16.03.2012.

Both the appellants are not involved in any other criminal case and are

first offenders. Their overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order

dated 01.10.2011 records that A-1 has a family consisting of mother, wife

and two and a half year old child. A-2 was a furniture designer and had

responsibility to look after his family consisting of mother, wife and a son

aged about 5 or 6 years. The occurrence took place over a trivial issue all

of a sudden when the complainant refused to pay ` 150/- to A-1 for

purchase of liquor. The injuries sustained by the victim were 'grievous' in

nature and he was discharged from the hospital after about six days. The

parties have settled the dispute and have filed on record the settlement /

compromise deed. The Investigating Officer who is present in the Court

states that he has verified the memorandum of settlement on record which

has been executed between the parties with their free consent without any

fear or pressure. A sum of ` 50,000/- is stated to have been given to the

victim as compensation. The victim present in the Court reveals that the

amount of ` 50,000/- has been taken by him and the matter has been

resolved due to intervention of the relatives and friends. Considering these

developments / circumstances, the period already undergone by the

appellants in this case which is more than three years, is taken as

substantive sentence. Sentence order is modified accordingly.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending

applications also stand disposed of. Trial Court record be sent back

immediately with the copy of the order. A copy of the order be sent to the

Superintendent jail for information.

7. Order dasti.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

MAY 08, 2014 / tr