Nem Singh vs State
2015 Latest Caselaw 6644 Del

$-32 & 33

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                  DECIDED ON : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2015

+     CRL.A.1371/2013, CRL.M.B.133/2015, 7436/2015,
      CRL.M.A.Nos.3444/2015, 5964/2015, 6098/2015 & 10290/2015
      NEM SINGH                                         ..... Appellant
                           Through :   Mr.Mir Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.


                           versus
      STATE                                             ..... Respondent
                           Through :   Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
                                       Mr.Kunwar C.M.Khan, Advocate
                                       with Ms.Aasma Chaudhary,
                                       Advocate for the complainant.

AND

+     CRL.A.1372/2013

      NEM SINGH                                         ..... Appellant
                           Through :   Mr.Mir Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.


                           versus
      STATE & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents
                           Through :   Mr.Sanjeev Sabharwal, APP.
                                       Mr.Kunwar C.M.Khan, Advocate
                                       with Ms.Aasma Chaudhary,
                                       Advocate for R2 & R4 to R6.



Crl.A.1371/2013 & connected matter.                            Page 1 of 6
        CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 21.08.2013 of learned

Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.73/2009 arising out of FIR

No.768/2007 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which Nem Singh (the appellant)

was held guilty for committing offence under Section 307 IPC,

Crl.A.1371/2013 has been preferred by him. By an order dated

29.08.2013, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for seven years

with fine `20,000/-.

2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-

sheet were that on 26.10.2007 at 10.03 p.m. an information about a

quarrel was conveyed at PS Ambedkar Nagar vide Daily Diary (DD)

No.25. The investigation was assigned to HC Birbal who along with

Const.Hanuman went to the spot. Victim Kailash had suffered bullet

injury. The investigation was taken over by SI Rajesh Kumar, who after

recording statement of one Harbir Singh lodged First Information Report.

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

appellant - Nem Singh, Ravinder Singh @ Ravi and Sanjay were arrested

during investigation. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet

was filed against all of them in the Court for committing offences under

Sections 307/34 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act. The prosecution examined

fifteen witnesses to prove its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the accused

persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false

implication. The trial resulted in appellant's conviction whereas Ravinder

Singh @ Ravi and Sanjay were acquitted of all the charges. It is relevant

to note that the State did not challenge their acquittal.

It is pertinent to note that cross FIR No.769/2007 was

registered under Sections 323/341/308/34 IPC at PS Ambedkar Nagar

against Kailash Bhardwaj, Vijay Pal @ Dodo, Dev Raj @ Deva, Harbir

Singh @ Monu and Jagbir Singh @ Kalu. Upon completion of

investigation in the said FIR, a charge-sheet was filed against them. By a

judgment dated 21.08.2013 in Sessions Case No.291/2009 arising out of

FIR No.769/2007 PS Ambedkar Nagar, they all, however, were acquitted

of the charges. The appellant - Nem Singh has filed Crl.A.1372/2013

against acquittal which is pending before this Court. It is further informed

that the complainant has filed Crl.A.1636/2013 titled 'Harbir Singh vs.

State' presently pending before Division Bench of this Court for

enhancement of sentence awarded to the appellant.

3. During the course of arguments, the appellant opted to give

up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court whereby he was convicted

under Section 307 IPC. Prayer was made to modify the sentence order by

taking lenient view as the matter has been settled with the victim and the

appellant has agreed to pay `2 lacs as compensation to him for the

expenses incurred for treatment of the injuries sustained by him. Learned

counsel for the complainant, after seeking instructions from the

complainant / victim, stated at Bar that the complainant has no objection

to modify the sentence order in view of the changed circumstances

whereby he has agreed to accept `2 lacs as compensation.

4. Since the appellant has given up challenge to the findings on

conviction, judgment under Section 307 IPC on conviction is affirmed.

Regarding Sentence Order - nominal roll dated 27.02.2015 reveals that the

appellant has already suffered incarceration for two years, one month and

eight days besides remission for six months and twenty days as on

23.02.2015. Nominal roll further reveals that the appellant is a first time

offender and is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail

conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order records that the appellant is the

only bread-earner of his family consisting of his wife and two school

going minor sons. He is to take care of his aged parents. He also sustained

injuries on his body. The complainant has settled the dispute with the

appellant of his free will without any fear or pressure and has agreed to

accept `2 lacs offered by the appellant as compensation. `50,000/- have

been given today in the Court to the victim's counsel. `1.5 lac have been

agreed to be paid to the victim within two weeks. It is agreed that the

appellant would not pursue Crl.A.1372/2013 pending before this Court.

The complainant has also agreed not to pursue the appeal for enhancement

of sentence pending before Division Bench of this Court.

5. In view of the mitigating circumstances, Sentence Order is

modified and the period already undergone by the appellant is taken as

substantive sentence. He shall pay fine of `2,000/- and shall suffer default

sentence SI one month. The appellant shall be at liberty to deposit the fine

`2,000/- in jail.

6. Crl.A.1371/2013 stands disposed of in the above terms.

While maintaining conviction under Section 307 IPC, the sentence order

is modified to the extent that the period already remained in custody shall

be the substantive sentence with fine `2,000/- and default sentence for its

non-payment would be SI for one month.

7. Crl.A.1372/2013 filed by the appellant - Nem Singh is

dismissed for non-prosecution / withdrawn.

8. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required to be

detained in any other criminal case on deposit of fine `2,000/- in Court /

Jail. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back immediately with the copy of

the order. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail immediately.

9. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE

SEPTEMBER 07, 2015 / tr