Prem Nath @ Munna vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 5537 Del

$~14

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    Date of decision: 07th November, 2014
+       CRL.A. 766/2012 & Crl. MB 10041/2014

        PREM NATH @ MUNNA                                  ..... Appellant
                     Through:            Ms Sunita Arora with Mr. Krishan
                                         Kumar, Advocates.
                           versus

        STATE                                                ..... Respondent

                           Through:      Ms. Jasbir Kaur, Additional Public
                                         Prosecutor for the State along with SI
                                         Vijay Kumar, Police Station Pandav
                                         Nagar.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

: SUNITA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellant Prem [email protected] Munna impugns the judgment dated 30.03.2014

and order on sentence dated 31.03.2014 in Sessions Case No.27/2011 arising out

of FIR No.390/1991, P.S. Trilokpuri whereby he was convicted for offence

punishable u/s 186/307/34 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of

3 months for offence punishable u/s 186/34 IPC and was also awarded RI for a

period of 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- for offence punishable u/s 307/34 IPC,

in default to further undergo SI for 6 months. Both the sentences were to run

concurrently. The convict was granted benefit of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. Prosecution case lies in a narrow compass. On 07.07.1991, at about

2.30/3 a.m., Constable Ram Lal(PW2) and Constable Zia Lal (PW14) during

patrolling reached Pocket-5, Mayur Vihar, Phase-I where one tent was to be

affixed. The appellant along with his co-accused Mohan Lal(PO) and two other

assailants(not arrested) came and one of them was carrying a bag on his

shoulder. When they were stopped and asked as to from where they were

coming from at such odd hours, Prem Nath and his co-accused Mohan Lal fired

at the stomach of both the Constables, as a result of which they sustained

injuries. Complainant Israr Khan, brother of the tent owner and who was known

to Constable Ram Lal from earlier, witnessed the incident and removed the

injured to hospital. During the course of investigation, accused Prem Nath and

Mohan Lal were arrested.

3. Charge for offence u/s 186/307/34 IPC were framed against the accused

persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After certain

witnesses were examined by the prosecution, accused Mohan Lal stopped

appearing in the Court, as such after initiating proceedings against him, he was

declared Proclaimed Offender. Proceedings continued qua the present appellant.

4. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined as many as 25

witnesses. The case of accused was one of denial simplictor. Vide impugned

judgment, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offence u/s

186/307/34 IPC by observing that case of prosecution stands established from

the testimony of the two injured witnesses, duly corroborated by complainant

Ishrar Khan. Further the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses find

substantial corroboration from the medical evidence which prove that injured Jai

Lal and Ram Lal had received clean and circular gun shots of 1/2x1/2 cm in

diameter and nature of injuries were opined to be grievous. The blood stained

clothes i.e. shirt and banian of injured persons were also seized and as per the

expert report Ex.PW23/A and Ex. PW 23/B, human blood of `B'group was

detected on shirts and banians of injured persons. The revolver and cartridges

recovered from the spot was sent to CFSL. As per report Ex.PW24/A, .32"

bullets sent for examination was fired from .32"revolver and live cartridges sent

for examination could be fired from the revolver sent to CFSL. It was also

observed that hole in front portion of the shirt and corresponding hole on the

banian had been caused by the passage of .32" bullets of parcels sent from

examination. From the testimony of ballistic expert and his report, it was duly

proved that injured received one gun shot injury fired from the revolver used by

accused Mohan Lal which hit the stomach of Constable Ram Lal and Constable

Zia Lal. Identity of the appellant was also duly established as he was duly

identified by the injured. His presence at the spot at the time of incident was

also established from the fact that live cartridges were recovered from the spot.

It was also proved that both Constable Ram Lal and Constable Zia Lal were

public servants and were discharging their public functions at the time of the

incident and it was their legal duty to inquire from the accused persons as to

from where they were coming from at odd hours of night. It was also proved

that they were obstructed by accused Prem Nath, his co-accused Mohan Lal and

other accused in discharge of their public functions. An attempt to commit

murder of the injured persons was committed by the accused. As such the

appellant was rightly convicted by the learned Trial Court.

5. At the time of hearing argument, the appellant was produced in judicial

custody. On instructions from the accused, learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant on merits of

the case and rightly so, in view of the discussion made above. The only plea

taken by learned counsel for the accused is that the maximum punishment

awarded to the appellant was 5 years. The appellant has already undergone more

than 4-1/2 years sentence, as such he be sentenced to the period already

undergone.

6. Learned APP for the State, however, referred to the antecedents of the

appellant for submitting that he was involved in 5 cases, out of which he was

convicted in two cases and in one case he was discharged. As per the status

report, the fate of two other cases is not known.

7. As per the nominal roll dated 11.07.2014, the appellant has already

undergone a period of 3 years and 8 months and 18 days besides earning

remission for 8 months and 8 days. The unexpired portion of sentence was 7

months 4 days, meaning thereby that now the unexpired portion is approximately

3 months.

8. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, the

substantive sentence of the appellant is modified to the period already

undergone. As regards the quantum of fine, it is submitted by counsel for the

appellant that the appellant belongs to a poor strata of society and is not

financially sound enough to deposit the fine. He even could not engage any

advocate of his own and as such had to be provided legal assistance through

Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee. In this background, the amount of

fine is reduced to Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for 3 months. With this

modification, the appeal as well as the pending applications, if any, stands

disposed of.

Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back. Copy

of the judgment be also sent to Superintendent Jail for information and necessary

action.

(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 07, 2014 as