Om Parkash & Anr. vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 1211 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                       DECIDED ON : FEBRUARY 10, 2015

+                             CRL.A. 408/2002

(1)    OM PARKASH & ANR.
                                                           ..... Appellants
                              Through : Mr.Pawan Madan, Advocate.

                              versus

       STATE
                                                            ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
                                       Mr.Ram Bhawn Singh, Mr.Sudhir
                                       Singh, Ms.Sushila Devi and
                                       Ms.Ishwanti, Complainants present in
                                       person.
                                       ASI Rajpal Singh, PS Mehrauli.

+                             CRL.A. 423/2002

(2)    MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA & ORS.
                                                             ..... Appellants
                              Through : Mr.N.Hariharan, Sr.Advocate with
                                        Mr.Sanjay Sood and Mr.Vaibhav
                                        Sharma, Advocates.

                              versus

       STATE OF DELHI
                                                           ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.

Crl.A.408/2002 & connected matters                                Page 1 of 7
                                        Mr.Ram Bhawn Singh, Mr.Sudhir
                                       Singh, Ms.Sushila Devi and
                                       Ms.Ishwanti, Complainants present in
                                       person.
                                       ASI Rajpal Singh, PS Mehrauli.

+                             CRL.A. 409/2002

(3)    NARENDER & ANR.
                                                            ..... Appellants
                              Through : Mr.Mahinder Singh, Advocate.

                              versus

       STATE
                                                            ..... Respondent
                              Through : Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP.
                                       Mr.Ram Bhawn Singh, Mr.Sudhir
                                       Singh, Ms.Sushila Devi and
                                       Ms.Ishwanti, Complainants present in
                                       person.
                                       ASI Rajpal Singh, PS Mehrauli.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J. (ORAL)

1. Appellants Mahender Singh Dahiya s/o Dariyao Singh (A-1);

Mahender Singh s/o Kanwal Singh (A-2); Rajroop (A-3) ; Om Parkash

(A-4); Ravinder Kumar (A-5); Narender (A-6) and Depender (A-7) have

filed the above separate appeals to impugn a judgment dated 18.03.2002

of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.638/96 arising

out of FIR No.64/89 under Sections 148/149/308 IPC registered at Police

Station Mehrauli by which they were held guilty for committing offences

under Section 148 IPC and under Section 308 IPC read with Section 149

IPC. By an order dated 17.04.2002, they were sentenced to undergo RI

for three months under Section 148 IPC and RI for one year under Section

308 read with Section 149 IPC. Both the sentences were to operate

concurrently. It is relevant to note that one Ashok Kumar s/o Tolram was

also charge-sheeted along with the appellants, however, he absconded

during trial and was declared Proclaimed Offender as per order dated

23.11.1996.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the

charge-sheet was that on 12.3.1989 at about 12.00 noon, the complainant

Sudhir Singh, his father, brother and sister-in-law were sitting in their

'gher'. About 15/20 persons including the accused came and started

demolishing the wall of their 'gher'. When the complainant and his

relations objected to that, the assailants entered inside the 'gher' and

started beating them with lathis and stones. Some of the assailants were

armed with pistols and guns. They criminally intimidated the complainant

and his relations. It is alleged that accused Mahender Singh took gun

from one of the assailants and fired twice or thrice and the bullet hit right

thigh of his brother. His sister-in-law sustained injuries on her head and

other body parts. His father and another sister-in-law also received

injuries. The complainant sustained stone blow on his face and lathi blow

on his right shoulder. Police arrived at the spot and took the injured to the

hospital. The injured were medically examined. FIR was lodged with the

police. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.

After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all the

appellants and one Ashok Kumar in the court. The prosecution examined

ten witnesses to establish their guilt. In 313 statement, the appellants

denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The

trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and

dissatisfied, the appeals in hand have been instituted.

3. During the pendency of the appeals, Om Prakash s/o Mahipat

Ram (appellant in Crl.A.No.408/2002) (A-4), Mahender Singh Dahiya S/o

Dariyao Singh (A-1) and Rajroop s/o Udai Singh (A-3) (appellants in

Crl.A.No.423/2002) expired. The proceedings against them were dropped

as abated.

4. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the

appellants on instructions stated at Bar that the contesting appellants have

given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. They,

however, prayed to take lenient view as the matter has been settled with

the complainant/victims. To this, learned APP for the State has no

objection.

5. Since the contesting appellants have opted not to challenge

the findings of the Trial Court on conviction and there is ample evidence

to establish their guilt as testified by the injured witnesses coupled with

recovery, their conviction is affirmed.

6. Regarding sentence, it has come on record that the quarrel

had taken place on a trivial issue. Both the parties are related to each

other. During pendency of the appeals, the matter was settled and

compounded. Application was filed to record settlement/compromise.

State was asked to verify if the complainant/victims had arrived at the

settlement willingly without any fear or influence. Report was submitted

by the State to the effect that the compromise was executed with the free

consent of the parties in the month of August, 2014. Statements of

victims were also recorded in that regard. Today also in the court victims

Mr.Ram Bhawn Singh, Mr.Sudhir Singh, Ms.Sushila Devi and

Ms.Ishwanti are present. I have made inquiries from them if they have

settled the dispute with the appellants of their free will and without any

fear or pressure. They have stated that all the disputes have been resolved

with the appellants and they have no objection if lenient view is taken.

7. The occurrence took place on 12.03.1989. The appellants

have suffered the agony of trial/appeal for about 25 years. Three

appellants have since expired. Mahender Singh (A-2) is now aged about

75 years and is handicap. No useful purpose will be served to send the

appellants in detention specially when the complainant/victims have

settled the dispute with them. The appellants are not previous convicts

and are not involved in any other criminal case. They are the first

offenders. They belong to respectable families.

8. Considering the mitigating circumstances, age of the

appellants, their antecedents and the circumstances in which the offence

was committed, it is expedient that the appellants should be released on

Probation of good conduct. Hence, instead of sentencing them at once to

any punishment, they are directed to be released on their furnishing

personal bond in the sum of `25,000/- each with a surety in the like

amount each for a period of two years. They are directed to appear and

receive the sentence when called upon during this period and in the

meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The necessary bonds

shall be furnished by the appellants within one month before the trial

court.

9. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. Copy of

this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.

Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

FEBRUARY 10, 2015 sa