Delhi High Court
Bhagat Singh vs State Nct Of Delhi on 25 August, 2015
Author: S. P. Garg
$-18 to 21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 25th AUGUST, 2015
+ CRL.REV.P. 84/2015
BHAGAT SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through : Mr.Amit Gupta, APP for State with
SI Sahij Pal, PS Paharganj
Mr.Suresh Sharma, Advocate for
the complainant along with
complainant in person.
+ CRL.REV.P. 85/2015
TARA CHAND ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State with SI Sahij Pal,PS Paharganj
Mr.Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the
complainant along with complainant
in person.
Crl.R.P.84/2015 & connected matters Page 1 of 5
+ CRL.REV.P. 89/2015
KISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State with SI Sahij Pal,PS Paharganj
Mr.Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the
complainant along with complainant
in person.
AND
+ CRL.REV.P. 90/2015
RAVI KUMAR @ PAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr.K.Singhal, Advocate.
versus
STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent
Through : Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP for
State with SI Sahij Pal,PS Paharganj
Mr.Suresh Sharma, Advocate for the
complainant along with complainant
in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Crl.R.P.84/2015 & connected matters Page 2 of 5
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
1. Present revision petitions have been preferred by the
petitioners to impugn the legality and correctness of a judgment dated
22.01.2015 in Crl.A. 93/14 by which conviction recorded under Sections
325/341/34 IPC by an order dated 14.10.2014 of learned ACMM was
upheld. The learned ACMM had sentenced the petitioners to undergo SI
for two years with fine `10,000/- each under Section 325/34 IPC and SI
for one month under Section 341/34 IPC. In appeal, the sentence order
was modified and the petitioners were directed to undergo RI for six
months with fine `25,000/- each under Section 325/34 IPC and SI for one
week each under Section 341/34 IPC. Both the substantive sentences were
to operate concurrently. The entire fine was ordered to be released to the
complainant by way of compensation. Aggrieved by the orders, the
petitioners have filed the instant revision petitions.
2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
petitioners, on instructions, stated that the petitioners had opted to accept
findings of the Courts below on conviction. Prayer was, however, made to
release the petitioners on probation.
3. Since, the petitioners have given up challenge to conviction,
findings of the Courts below on conviction are affirmed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly
the petitioners and the victim are closely related to each other and live in
the same vicinity. `1,00,000/- as fine imposed by the Courts below has
since been deposited by the petitioners. The petitioners further
volunteered to pay reasonable compensation to the complainant. The
complainant also expressed his willingness to grant probation to the
petitioners and to award more compensation to him.
5. It is agreed that the amount `1,00,000/- deposited by the
petitioners shall be released to the complainant and they will have no
objection to it. It is further agreed that petitioners shall contribute
`25,000/- each totaling `1,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant within a
month and it shall be deposited in the Trial Court. The said amount of
`1,00,000/- shall also be released to the complainant on notice. It is
informed that the petitioners have remained in custody for about one
month in this case. They are not involved in any other criminal case and
are not previous convicts. Nature of injuries sustained by the victim was
'grievous' in nature. Considering all these circumstances, sentence order
requires modification and it is a fit case to release the petitioners on
probation.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, age of
the petitioners, their antecedents, the circumstances in which the offence
was committed and their offer to pay more compensation to the victim, it
is expedient that the petitioners be released on probation of good conduct.
Instead of sentencing them at once to any punishment, the petitioners are
directed to be released on their entering into a bond in the sum of
`40,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court, to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period
of two years and in the meantime, they shall keep peace and be of good
behavior.
7. The petitioners shall deposit `1,00,000/- in all to be released
to the complainant after notice in the Trial Court within a month. They
will have no objection to the release of `1,00,000/- earlier deposited as
fine payable to the victim as compensation.
8. The revision petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.
9. Trial Court record (if any) along with copy of the order be
sent back immediately.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
AUGUST 25, 2015 / tr
