Inderjeet vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 2457 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                 RESERVED ON : April 04, 2014
                                 DECIDED ON : May 15, 2014

+                         CRL.A. 158/2011

       INDERJEET                                           ..... Appellant

                          Through :       Mr.Devi Sahai, Advocate.

                          Versus

       STATE                                               ..... Respondent

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

        CORAM:
        MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. The appellant-Inderjeet challenges the legality and

correctness of a judgment dated 20.01.2011 of learned Addl.Sessions

Judge in Sessions Case No.4/08 arising out of FIR No.288/04 registered at

Police Station S.P.Badli by which he was held guilty under Section 308

IPC. By an order dated 25.01.2011, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for three and a half years.

2. Allegations against the appellant, as reflected in the charge-

sheet, were that on 25.05.2004 at about 08.45 pm, at Main Road, Near

Mandir, Sector-18, Rohini, Delhi, he inflicted injuries to Rajender Singh

by sariya in an attempt to commit culpable homicide. Daily Diary No.

27-A (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at 09.45 pm at Police Station S.P.Badli

on getting information about admission of injured Rajender Singh at Babu

Jagjivan Ram hospital by his wife Balvinder Kaur. The investigation was

marked to SI Dhananjay Gupta who with Ct.Narender went to the

hospital. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after

recording complainant-Rajender Singh's statement (Ex.PW-2/A). The

complainant gave detailed account of the incident and implicated Inderjeet

for causing multiple injuries to him by saria. Since the First Information

was lodged in promptitude, there was no possibility of the complainant to

fabricate or manipulate the incident and to falsely name Inderjeet to be the

author of the injuries caused to him. MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) records the

arrival time of the patient at Babu Jagjivan Ram hospital at 9.30 p.m.

Name of his wife Balvinder Kaur appears in the MLC. He was brought to

the hospital by Gopal Singh. Various injuries were found on his body.

PW-5 (Dr.Sanjay Kumar) proved the MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) by which the

patient was examined by Dr.K.L.Sarvangy, Dr.Mahesh Kumar and

Dr.Nitin Puri and following injuries were found on the body :-

              (i)    Soft tissue injury over left forearm.

              (ii)   Abrasion over mid forearm dorsal aspect.

               (iii)   Abrasion over the both eyes.

              (iv)    Linear horizontal bruise with abrasion present over left

                      hypochondrium.

              (v)     Abdomen tense, tender in left hypochondrium, gauding

                      present in left hypochondrium.

3. The patient was referred to Trauma Centre for ultrasound and

further management. The prosecution examined PW-10 (Dr.Deepak

Kumar Singh), Chief Medical Officer, Shaushruta Taruma Centre who

deposed that the patient was admitted on 26.05.2004 after being referred

from BJRM hospital. He remained under treatment in the Trauma Centre

and was discharged on 02.06.2004. He proved the medical documents

(Ex.PW-10/A) regarding the treatment given to the victim. As per the

medical documents, the injured was treated for perforation of intestines

and the patient was operated for exploratory lapratomy at 04.00 a.m. on

26.05.2004 itself. He further deposed that the injuries were life

threatening and had medical aid not been provided to him, these could

have been fatal. Nature of injuries was opined 'dangerous' by Dr.Choden,

Sr.Resident, General Surgery. In fact, injuries suffered by the victim are

not under challenge. Specific suggestion was put to PW-2 (Rajender) in

the cross-examination that during grappling between him and the

appellant, he (the victim) fell down and sustained injuries. The witness

volunteered to add that he was hit by a 'saria' by the accused. The

complainant denied the suggestion that he had abused the appellant before

the appellant attacked him. Defence pleaded by the appellant that the

victim sustained injuries due to fall inspires no confidence. No such

suggestion was put to the doctors in the cross-examination if the injuries

suffered by the victim were possible due to fall.

4. While appearing as PW-2, Rajender proved the version given

to the police at the first instance without any variation. He attributed

specific motive to the accused to pick-up quarrel with him due to inability

of his brother-in-law to return `500/-. When he advised the appellant to

demand money from the person to whom he had given, he got enraged

and inflicted two saria blows on his abdomen resulting rupture of veins.

He remained confined in the hospital for 26 days for treatment. In the

cross-examination, no discrepancy could be elicited to disbelieve the

version narrated by him. The facts narrated in the examination-in-chief

remained unchallenged and uncontroverted. No motive was assigned to

the victim for falsely implicating the accused with whom he was well

acquainted before the incident and both of them used to work in a garage

as mechanics.

5. All the relevant contentions of the appellant have been

considered by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment with reasons and

no deviation is called for. The findings of the Trial Court are based upon

fair appraisal of the evidence. Non-recovery of the crime weapon is not

fatal. PW-6 (Smt.Gyan Kaur) and PW-7 (Gopal Singh) have corroborated

the version on material aspects.

6. The appellant was convicted under Section 308 IPC. Both

the appellant and the victim are known to each other and worked at the

same place as mechanics. There is no past history of hostile relations

between the two. The quarrel had taken place all of a sudden without any

prior planning at the spur of the moment. In a heat of passion, the

appellant took out a 'saria' available at his shop and inflicted injuries on

the victim's abdomen. The victim was suffering from diabetes and was

chronic alcoholic. It appears that the said habits/disease aggravated the

injuries sustained by the victim. PW-6 (Gian Kuar) revealed that victim's

kidney was removed subsequently and he expired on 26.08.2009. There is

no evidence on record if his death on 26.08.2009 had any nexus with the

injuries caused to the victim. The doctor who gave the nature of injuries

as 'dangerous' was not examined. The appellant had not anticipated the

arrival of the victim at the spot. Apparently, the injuries caused to the

victim were not with the avowed intention/knowledge to cause his death.

It was a case of voluntarily causing injuries in the quarrel and the offence

proved is under Section 325 IPC. The conviction is accordingly altered

from Section 308 IPC to Section 325 IPC.

7. The appellant was sentence to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for three and a half years. Sentence order dated 25.01.2011

records that he was the only bread winner of his family, having 7 children,

four daughters and three sons, and all of them were unmarried. Nominal

roll dated 26.05.2004 reveals that he remained in custody for four months

and twenty nine days besides earning remission for one month and fifteen

days. He was not involved in any criminal case and was first offender.

His overall jail conduct was satisfactory. After he was enlarged on bail,

he did not indulge in any other criminal activity. He has suffered agony of

trial/appeal for about ten years. Considering these circumstances, the

sentence order is modified and the substantive sentence of the appellant is

reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. He shall, however,

deposit `30,000/- to be paid as compensation within five days before the

Trial Court. The compensation will be released to the victim's wife (if

available) and in her absence, to victim's children in equal proportions.

8. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. The

appellant shall surrender before the Trial Court on 20.05.2014 to serve the

remaining period of sentence. The Registry shall transmit the Trial Court

records forthwith along with the copy of this order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE May 15, 2014 sa