Delhi High Court
Salim @ Kaliya vs State on 17 July, 2015
Author: Ashutoshkumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 15.07.2015
Date of decision: 17.07.2015
+ CRL.A. 417/2011
MOHD. MEHBOOB ALAM ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Rakhi Dubey, Adv.
versus
STATE (GOVT OF NCT) DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for
the State with SI Vijay Singh,
P.S. Civil Lines
+ CRL.A. 396/2014
SALIM @ KALIYA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Alpana Pandey, Adv.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yogesh Verma, APP for
the State with SI Vijay Singh,
P.S. Civil Lines
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR , J.
1. Both the Appeals have been heard together and a common
judgment is being delivered.
2. The appellants impugn the judgment and order of conviction
dated 16.11.2010/ 24.11.2010 whereby they have been convicted
under section 307/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) and have been
sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years, fine of rupees 10,000/- and in
default SI for one month.
3. The appellants have been charged for attempting to kill Ramesh
Bahadur (PW7) by means of knife. Ramesh Bahadur, injured (PW7)
has deposed that on 20.08.2009 while he was coming to ISBT from
Jahangir Puri on a public conveyance, the appellants met him on the
way as they also boarded the same vehicle from Azad Market. The
appellants are stated to have asked Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) to join
them for drinks. After initial reluctance, PW7 along with the
appellants got down from the bus at the red light of Baraf Khana.
Appellant Mehboob purchased a bottle of liquor for which money was
given by appellant Salim. PW7 admits to have been intoxicated.
Appellant Salim asked PW.7 whether he was willing to work with
him. PW7 refused such a proposal as appellant Salim and his
associate had criminal background.
4. PW 7 has stated that he and Appellant Salim came on the road
with their hand clasped together. It is alleged that at that time,
appellant Mehboob gave a knife blow in his abdomen. The blade
portion of the knife remained inside his stomach whereas the butt of
the knife was left behind in the hand of Appellant Mehboob. The
appellants, ignoring the entreaties of PW 7 of reaching him to the
hospital, ran away from the place of occurrence. PW7 became
unconscious and regained his consciousness in the Trauma Center
where his statement was recorded by the police.
5. Ramesh Bahadur PW7 remained in the hospital for one month.
6. Ruby Kumari (PW1) has deposed that on 20.08.2009 while she
was posted as casualty medical officer in Aruna Asaf Ali Government
Hospital, she examined one unknown patient brought by Constable
Vijay (PW15) with the history of Patient being found on road side
near Ashoka Market. The patient was drowsy and was responding
poorly to the commands. He had a stab injury in his abdomen. After
resuscitation measures, she referred the patient to a surgery specialist
for further management. The MLC (Ex. PW1/A) was proved by PW1.
7. Dr. JK Basu (PW8) CMO, Sushruta Trauma Centre, has proved
the complete case file (Ex. PW8/A) of PW7 which indicated that PW7
was operated by Dr. Mrinal (PW20) and Dr. Gaurav, Senior Residents
of the Hospital.
8. From the testimony of Ruby Kumari, (PW1), Dr. JK Basu
(PW8) and Dr. Mrinal (PW20), it stands established that Ramesh
Bahadur (PW7) suffered serious injuries in his stomach by means of
knife.
9. Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) has categorically deposed about the
appellants being the perpetrators of the crime. He claims to know
them from 6 months prior to the incident.
10. PW7 has denied the suggestion that after coming out from jail
in connection with some case, he stayed at the house of Appellant
Mehboob where some dispute had erupted forcing him to leave the
house.
11. Head Constable Sube Singh (PW13) has testified to the fact that
on pointing out of a secret informer appellant Mebhoob was
apprehended from the first floor of the house in Vijay Colony. At the
same time appellant Salim also came there and he too was arrested
(Arrest memo Ex PW13/A and PW13/B).
12. Rajender Singh, ASI (PW2) has deposed that he was in-charge
of PCR van and on being instructed from the control room, he reached
Aruna Asaf Ali Government Hospital and removed PW7 (Injured) to
Trauma Center.
13. The deposition of witnesses during trial clearly made out a case
against the appellants under Section 307/34 IPC.
14. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr. PC. for short), the appellants denied their
participation in the crime and claimed false implication because of old
enmity.
15. Appellant Salim @ Kalia led a defence witness namely Sh.
Salman (DW1) who has stated before the Trial Court that on the day
of the occurrence the appellant Salim @ Kalia was with him and no
quarrel had taken place. Appellant Salim is stated to be a tea vendor at
Chandni Chowk.
16. There is no gainsaying that the appellants inflicted such bodily
injury on PW7 which they knew that it could cause death and
otherwise also, the injury was sufficient in the ordinary cause of
nature to cause death. The appellants were identified by PW7.
17. Prosecution, through the 20 witnesses examined on their behalf
proved the prosecution case beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. Defending the cases of the appellants, the learned advocates
submitted that the deposition of PW7 was highly redolent with doubts
and suspicion as he had become unconscious and during his
unconsciousness, he was brought to the hospital. No one was found by
the police personnels at the place of occurrence. It has been further
submitted that in the event of the appellant being so well known to
PW7, there was no reason or motive for inflicting such bodily injury
on him. Admittedly the appellants and PW7 consumed liquor together.
The testimony of PW7, it has been argued, does not indicate any
serious fight or dispute so as to lend credence to the prosecution
version that on heated exchange of words, Appellant Mehboob
stabbed PW7 whereas appellant Salim @ Kalia held the hands of
PW.7.
19. It has been submitted that there is no eye witness to the
occurrence and no public person has come forward to support the
prosecution version. The appellants, as submitted by the learned
Advocates, have being convicted on the solitary testimony of PW7.
20. This court finds no reason to disbelieve PW7.
21. Motive does not play any relevant role in a criminal case. The
motive, impelling commission of a crime is perhaps only known to the
perpetrator of the crime. Ramesh Bahadur (PW7) does not appear to
have any motive or reason for falsely implicating the appellants.
Assuming the statements of the appellants under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C. to be ex-facie true, then also there is no reason to falsely
implicate the appellants.
22. The learned Advocates appearing for the appellants have, in the
alternative, argued for modification of the sentence imposed on the
appellants, considering their age, vocation, poor economic background
and they being the bread earners for their respective families, keeping
in mind the reformative aspect of sentencing a convict.
23. As a result of the above noted discussion, this court finds no
fault with the judgment of conviction for the offence under Section
307 with the aid of Section 34 of IPC. The conviction, therefore, is
sustained and affirmed.
24. The appellants, it is stated, have remained in jail for more than 5
years.
25. Considering the mitigating circumstances in favour of the
appellants namely their age at the time of the occurrence, absence of
any preparedness for commission of crime, intoxication, nature of
commission of crime that is lack of depravity and suddenness of fight
over a petty squabble, the sentence imposed upon the appellants is
modified and reduced to the period of custody which they have
already undergone.
26. The appeal is dismissed but with the modification in the
sentence as stated above.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
JULY 17, 2015
ab
