Delhi High Court
[email protected] vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 13 March, 2015
Author: Vipin Sanghi
$~12.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Date of Decision: 13.03.2015
% CRL.A. 179/2015
SAFIQ @ SIPLIAN ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Birendra Kumar Jha &
Mr.Manish Kumar, Advocates.
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP along
with SI Sumer Chand, PS-Nabi
Karim, for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
VIPIN SANGHI, J. (OPEN COURT)
1. The present appeal assails the judgment dated 17.11.2014 passed by
Ms. Hemani Malhotra, Additional Sessions Judge-05 (Central), Tis Hazari
Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.61/2014 arising out of First Information
Report (FIR) No.116/2010 registered at Police Station Nabi Karim under
Sections 307/ 324 I.P.C. titled State Vs. Shafiq @ Siplian; and the order on
sentence dated 19.11.2014.
2. By the aforesaid judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section
307 I.P.C., and, thereafter, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment
(RI) for a period of four years.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the injured Niyaz is engaged in the
business of manufacturing belts at A-375, Amar Puri. The appellant Shafiq
was working in the factory of the injured/ complainant. Khalikul, brother of
the appellant, who was a habitual drunkard, was also working in the factory
of Niyaz. On 11.09.2010, injured Niyaz terminated the services of Khalikul,
due to which appellant Shafiq was annoyed with the complainant. On
14.09.2010, at about 11:30 p.m., the appellant Shafiq after consuming
alcohol came to the complainant and demanded Rs.500/- to consume more
alcohol. Niyaz asked the appellant to go to sleep and promised to give
Rs.500/- in the morning. On refusal to give money, appellant Shafiq broke
two tube lights and picked up a scissor lying on the ground and stabbed the
complainant on his abdomen. On hearing the commotion, Badrujawa,
cousin of appellant Shafiq came to the spot, slapped him, snatched the
scissor from him and threw it on the table. Upon seeing the blood oozing
out from the injuries suffered by the injured, the appellant Shafiq fled from
the spot. The injured was, thereafter, removed to Lady Hardinge Medical
College (LHMC) for his medical treatment with the assistance of his
employee, Mohd. Shamsher, who had also witnessed the incident. The
injured was given treatment at LHMC and discharged on the same day. The
first information statement of the injured was recorded on the following day.
The appellant was, thereafter, apprehended.
4. The prosecution examined the injured/ complainant as PW-1, and the
eye-witness Shamsher as PW-2. They fully supported the case of the
prosecution, and apart from trivial and immaterial discrepancies, their
testimonies could not be shaken in their cross-examination.
5. The prosecution also examined the doctors, who attended to the
injured and conducted investigation. The MLC recorded the injury on the
injured as 'simple'. The patient was conscious oriented. His vitals were
stable. There was a stab wound over the upper abdomen on the right side.
The injured was relieved from the hospital after treatment and asked to
report for follow-up after a week. As per the findings of the CT Scan,
"there was an irregular linear tract suggestive of stab injury within the
subcutaneous tissue in the anterior abdominal wall with bulky appearing
underlying rectus muscle. The visualized liver spleen, kidney, pancreas and
bowel loops appear unremarkable".
6. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the offence
under Section 307 I.P.C. was not made out in the facts & circumstances of
the case since, even according to the prosecution, the incident took place at
the spur of the moment while the appellant was in an intoxicated state, and
there was no prior design or pre-meditation to cause the death of the injured.
He was not carrying any weapon and the injury was caused by picking up
the scissor, which was picked up from within the factory premises. The
injury was also not inflicted with the intensity so as to cause any grievous
hurt, and the injury was found to be 'simple'.
7. The aforesaid circumstance, in my view, rule out any prior pre-
meditation or design on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the
injured. It cannot be said that the appellant had the intention to murder the
injured. In view of the aforesaid, in my view, the conviction of the appellant
under Section 307 I.P.C. is not made out. However, considering the
circumstances, it is evident that the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. is
clearly made out in the facts of this case. Learned counsel for the appellant
has also not contested this position.
8. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant is converted to one under
Section 324 I.P.C. The appellant has already undergone nearly one year and
two months incarceration. Since the appellant is a young man with a family
to support, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone. The
appellant be released forthwith, unless he is required to be detained in any
other case.
9. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
MARCH 13, 2015
B.S. Rohella
