Delhi High Court
Shahid vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 12 July, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON : 6th JUNE, 2017
DECIDED ON : 12th JULY, 2017
+ CRL.A. 1162/2016 & Crl.M.B.No.682/2017
SHAHID ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Tiwari and Ms. Preeti
Mittal, Advocates.
VERSUS
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Chauhan, APP.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 09.11.2016
of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.15/2015 arising
out of FIR No.117/2011 PS Shahdara by which the appellant - Shahid
was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section
307/34 IPC. By an order dated 11.11.2016, he was sentenced to
undergo RI for ten years with fine ` 10,000/-.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the
charge-sheet was that on the night intervening 08/09.04.2011 at about
12.15 a.m. at House No.180, double storey, second floor, Kabool
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, the appellant sharing common intention with
co-accused Imran (since PO) inflicted injuries to the complainant -
Nazmin by throwing thinner upon her with an intention to commit
murder. The incident was conveyed to the police promptly and DD
No.4A (Ex.PW-12/A) came into existence at 01.18 night at PS
Shahdara. The investigation was assigned to ASI Bhupinder who
along with Const. Mukesh went to the spot. The victim was first taken
to East Delhi Hospital, thereafter, she was shifted to GTB Hospital.
After recording victim's statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating
Officer lodged First Information Report. Victim's statement (Ex.PW-
1/B) was also recorded on 10.04.2011 by the concerned SDM
Mr.Rajeeva Shukla. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent
to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the
witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant was
arrested. Efforts were made to find out co-accused Imran but in vain.
Finally, he was declared Proclaimed Offender. Upon completion of
investigation, the prosecution filed charge-sheet against the appellant
for commission of the offence under Section 307/34 IPC. To establish
its case, the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C.
statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and
pleaded false implication due to property dispute with victim's
parents. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved
and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have
examined the file. Admitted position is that the complainant and the
appellant were acquainted with each other, prior to the incident. They
were closely related to each other. It has further come on record that
the appellant and his family members were residing in the property
owned by the complainant's parents as tenants and civil proceedings
were pending against them for eviction. It has further come on record
that subsequently the proceedings were decided in favour of the
complainant's parents and the premises were vacated by the appellant
and his family members. There used to be frequent quarrels between
the parties before the incident. The complainant's mother had lodged
a complaint with the police about threats extended by the appellant
and his acquaintance.
4. The occurrence took place on the night intervening
08/09.04.2011 at around 12.15 midnight. The incident was conveyed
to the police promptly at 01.18 (night) and DD No.4A (Ex.PW-12/A)
came to be recorded at PS Shahdara. In her complaint (Ex.PW-1/A)
recorded soon after the incident, the complainant gave graphic detail
of the incident and disclosed as to how and in what manner, chemical
was thrown upon her by the co-accused Imran and the appellant threw
a burning match stick on her body as a result of which she sustained
burn injuries. The appellant was specifically named in the FIR and
definite role was assigned to him in the incident. Since the FIR was
lodged without any delay and the appellant's involvement emerged in
the statement (Ex.PW-1/A), there is least possibility of the
complainant, a victim, to fabricate a false story in such a short
interval.
5. In her court statement as PW-1, the complainant -
Nazmin proved the version given to the police without any variation.
She deposed that on 09.04.2011, when she was studying at her house
at second floor, at around 12.15 a.m., someone knocked at the door.
When she opened it, she saw that her maternal uncle Shahid (the
appellant) and his son Imran (since PO) were present at the door.
Imran was having a bottle containing some liquid substance. He
poured the liquid on her and Shahid lit the match-stick and threw it on
her as a result of which her clothes got burned. She raised alarm and
called her mother. The appellant and his associate Imran fled the spot.
She was taken to bathroom and water was poured on her to extinguish
the fire. Police was informed and she was taken to East Delhi
Hospital from where she was shifted to GTB Hospital. She further
disclosed that her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded at GTB
Hospital. SDM also recorded her statement (Ex.PW-1/B) on
10.04.2011. In the cross-examination, she admitted that a dispute
existed between the appellant and his mother regarding ownership of
the house No.180, Kabool Nagar and quarrels had taken place often in
that regard. She denied the suggestion that the injuries were self-
inflicted as she was rebuked by her family members for 'outing' with
Shoeb.
6. On scanning the entire testimony of the complainant, it
stands established that it was the appellant who had accompanied his
son Imran at odd hours to inflict injuries on the complainant by
throwing a chemical (thinner) on her body. Material facts disclosed
by the complainant remained unchallenged and un-rebutted in the
cross-examination. No ulterior motive was assigned to the child
witness, a student of 10th class aged around 15 years, to falsely
implicate the appellant for the grievous injuries suffered by her.
Nothing has come on record to show that the victim had any affairs
with Sohaib or that she was scolded by her parents for an excursion
with him that day. Complainant was quick to disclose that Sohaib was
her brother and she had no affairs / friendship with him. Apparently,
feeble attempt was made by the appellant to shift the blame upon
victim's parents. Nothing has come on record to show that injuries
suffered by the victim were self-inflicted. No such suggestion was put
to PW-10 (Dr.R.Mukunth) and PW-13 (Dr.Nihar Ranjan Mohaptra) in
the cross-examination.
7. PW-2 (Smt.Reshma) and PW-3 (Chand Khan) - victim's
parents and PW-4 (Sher Afzal) - victim's brother have fully
corroborated her version without any variation. Presence of the
complainant and her family members at the house was quite natural
and probable.
8. Complainant's ocular testimony has been corroborated by
medical evidence. She was medically examined by Dr.K.Kalaivanan
vide MLC (Ex.PW-10/A). In the alleged history recorded therein it is
mentioned that a substance was poured on the complainant by an
individual known to her. The victim who had sustained grievous
injuries is not expected to let the real culprit to go scot free and to
implicate the appellant and his son at her parents' behest as alleged.
Unsuspectingly, she had opened the door of the house when it was
knocked at by the appellant and his associate at around 12.15 a.m.
Even PW-2 (Reshma) was able to recognise and identify the assailants
while fleeing the spot.
9. It has further come on record that the appellant had filed
a petition (Crl.M.C. 3491/2014) for quashing of the FIR in question on
the basis of settlement. The appellant had agreed to pay `1 lac to the
complainant as compensation. The complainant had excused the
appellant for the crime due to his detention for a period of two years
and on his undertaking not to ever quarrel with her or harass the
complainant or her parents in future.
10. No valid reason exists to discard the statement of the
complainant and her family members. The appellant tried to put
blame without any foundation upon victim's parents when she was
allegedly beaten for her outing with Sohaib.
11. The impugned judgment has discussed all the relevant
aspects and warrants no intervention. Conviction under Section
307/34 IPC is affirmed.
12. Regarding sentence, the appellant was ordered to undergo
RI for ten years with fine `10,000/-. Nominal roll dated 25.02.2017
records that the appellant has undergone three years, nine months and
ten days incarceration besides remission for one month and twenty-
three days as on 22.02.2017. It further reveals that he is not a previous
convict and is not involved in any other criminal case. His overall jail
conduct is satisfactory; he is aged around 61 years and is suffering
from various ailments including psychiatric problem. Certain medical
documents have been placed on record showing the appellant getting
treatment at GB Pant Institute and IBHAS. Other mitigating
circumstance to modify the sentence order is that the matter has been
settled by the complainant with the appellant and a compensation of
`1 lac has been accepted by her. The parties are closely related to
each other and the bone of contention i.e. occupation of the tenanted
premises since has come to an end. Sentence order records that `3
lacs have already been given by District Legal Services Authority,
Shahdara, as compensation to the complainant.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the
Sentence Order is modified and the appellant is sentenced to undergo
RI for seven years with fine `10,000/-; default sentence being SI for
fifteen days. The period already undergone by the appellant in this
case shall be counted and set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
14. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
15. Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of
the order. Intimation be sent to the Superintendent Jail.
16. Pending application also stands disposed of.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
JULY 12, 2017 / tr
