Delhi High Court
State (Govt Of Nct Of Delhi) vs Hari Chand & Ors on 31 May, 2017
$~SB-1 & 2
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Judgment: 31st May, 2017
+ CRL.A. 806/2015
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State
along with Inspector Surya Prakash,
SHO, Aman Vihar.
versus
HARI CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Azhar Qayum, Adv.
+ CRL.A. 343/2016
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State
along with Inspector Surya Prakash,
SHO, Aman Vihar.
. versus
HARI CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Azhar Qayum, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeals have been filed by the State against the judgment
dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case
no.39/12, FIR No.332/12 PS Aman Vihar and the order on sentence dated
11.12.2014, by which the respondents were convicted under Sections
323/34 IPC. The respondents were directed to pay compensation in the
sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the injured/complainant and, in default of
payment of compensation all the convicts were to undergo simple
imprisonment for 10 days each under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 („IPC‟); while they were acquitted from charges under
Section 307 IPC. The respondents were ordered to be released on
probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their
furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety
each in the like amount and an undertaking to appear and receive sentence
as and when called by the court and in the meantime they shall keep peace
and be of good behaviour.
2. Crl.A. 806/2015 has been filed by the State seeking enhancement of the
sentence awarded to the respondents under Section 323 IPC, whereas
Crl.A. 343/2016 has been filed by the State, by which the respondents
were acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Both the appeals are being
disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under:
"1. Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of
the statement of complainant Priyanka W/o Hemant. According
to the complainant on 27-10-11, she was present at her house
alongwith her family. She received a call from her sister-in-law
(Nanad) who informed that her husband Hari Chand was beating
her. Hearing this, complainant, her husband Hemant, Kanta (her
mausi), Tara (mother), Pawan (Devar) and one Dayal Chand
Sahani (friend of her devar Pawan) reached at the house of
Mamta at about 8:30 p.m to resolve the quarrel.
2. According to the complainant on reaching at the house of
Mamta, her husband Hemant asked Mamta about the reason of
quarrel. Mamta started weeping and while weeping she started
disclosing facts to Hemant. On this Hemant got angry and heated
arguments started between Hemant on one side and Mamta's
husband Harichand, her devar Manoj and her sister-in-law (Sali)
Rukmani on the other side.
3. According to the complainant, Hari Chand said to her
husband Hemant that his sister always harass him and that you
all had made his life hell and exhorted that "Aaj Me Sara Kissa
Khatam Kar Deta Hu, Aaj Me Tumhe Jinda Nahi Chhodunga
and asked his brother Manoj to bring a knife. In the meantime
quarrel started between Hemant, Harichand and Rukmani.
According to the complainant, Rukmani caught hold the hand of
Hemant from the left side and in the meantime Manoj brought a
knife from the house and handed over the same to Hari Chand
and then Manoj caught hold the hand of Hemant from right side
and then Hari Chand gave a knife blow in the stomach of
Hemant. According to the complainant her husband Hemant
started crying with pain and the incident occurred so fast that
they could not get a chance to save Hemant. According to the
complainant she made a call to the police and they removed
Hemant to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in a private vehicle.
4. F.I.R. bearing No. 332/12, was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar
and investigation went underway. During the course of
investigation accused persons were arrested. After completion of
investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was
filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after
completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of
sessions for trial.
5. On 14-08-2012, a charge U/s 307/34 IPC was framed against
the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the
prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses."
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that taking into
consideration the evidence on record, more particularly, the testimony of
Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13), who has opined that the injury was
grievous, a case under Section 307 IPC would be made out and even
otherwise punishment awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under
Section 323/34 IPC is not commensurate to the offence committed.
5. The Trial Court convicted the respondents herein based on the testimonies
of the public witnesses Priyanka (PW-1), Hemant (PW-2), Tara (PW-4),
Pawan (PW-5) and Dayal Chand (PW-6).
6. We may note that this is an unfortunate matter where the brother-in-law
(sister‟s husband) had stabbed his brother-in-law (wife‟s real brother).
During the pendency of these matters, the predecessor Bench of this Court
had referred the matter for mediation. The mediation was a non-starter.
The matter was then taken up in Chamber by this Court. Parties were
called and thereafter, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement
by which the respondents agreed to compensate the victim in the sum of
Rs.50,000/-, which amount has been paid today towards the medical
expenses. The complainant undertakes to the Court that he would
withdraw the suit filed by him which is pending in the Rohini Court.
7. The respondents have also expressed deep remorse on the incident and
both the parties have agreed to bury the past and move further in life. We
understand that between the last date of hearing and today, the parties
have also been interacting with each other and pray that the Court should
also take a lenient view on the matter.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the
matter as well.
9. In our view, the Trial Court has rightly analysed the testimony of Dr.
Manoj Dhingra (PW-13) and reached a conclusion that the respondents
did not have the requisite intention or knowledge as required under
Section 307 IPC. The relevant potion of the judgment of the Trial Court
is extracted below:
"45. Dr. Manoj Dhingra who has been examined as PW 13 has
opined the injury as "grievous". The injured was also admitted
in Jaipur Golden Hospital. The perusal of the MLC Ex. PW 13/A
would show that the injured had one penetrating wound, left
lower margin of the chest was 2 c.m., depth could not be
ascertained. Since no depth of the wound has been given in the
MLC the inference is that the wound was superficial and not
deep which indicates that the blow to the injured was not given
with much force. Had the blow been given with substantial force
the wound would not have been superficial and it must have been
a deep wound. In the present case the weapon of offence has not
been produced so it is not known what precisely was the weapon
used and what was its shape and size. So it is difficult to say that
the accused caused the injuries to the injured with such intention
or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by their act
injured Hemant would have died they all would have been guilty
of murder. It is pertinent to mention here that only one injury has
been inflicted and had the accused any intention to kill Hemant,
injury would have been repeated. So it cannot be said that the
accused had the requisite intention as required U/s 307 IPC.
Therefore the accused persons are liable to be held guilty and
convicted U/s 323 IPC. Reliance can be placed upon Rajbir
Singh Vs. State CRL.A. 752/2010 decided on 03-04-2014 by the
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi."
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. In the absence of the requisite knowledge or intention, the offence under
Section 307 IPC cannot be made out and hence, the Trial Court has
rightly convicted the respondents under Section 323 IPC. Accordingly,
Crl.A. 343/2016 deserves to be dismissed.
11. As noticed hereinabove, during the pendency of these appeals the
complainant/victim and the respondents, who are close family members
have entered into an amicable settlement. They have decided to bury the
past and decide to co-exist peacefully and maintain social and family ties.
Accordingly, we find no grounds to interfere in the judgment and orders
on conviction passed by the Trial Court.
12. Parties agree that by the settlement arrived at, all the disputes and
differences have been resolved and settled. Parties agree to live in peace
and harmony.
13. On the last date of hearing, we had also felt that it would be in the fitness
of things that the victim be awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-
under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme. We had arrived at this
figure taking into consideration that the victim had spent a sum of
Rs.1,34,000/- on the surgery, besides other medical expenses, apart from
the fact that he could not work for approximately six months. Today, we
are informed that the DLSA has processed the case for payment of
Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Original documents/FDRs be returned to the
respondents.
15. Further, since the matter before the Rohini Court has been resolved
through mediation by this Court, the plaintiff in the Suit/complainant
herein would be entitled to refund of court fee. Accordingly, this order
shall be brought to the notice of the Trial Court.
16. Accordingly, Crl.A.343/2016 and Cr.A. 806/2015 are dismissed.
17. In view of the above, Crl. M.A. 9947/2015 in Crl.A. 806/2015 also stands
disposed of.
18. List the matter on 21.07.2017 for reporting compliance.
G.S.SISTANI, J.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
MAY 31, 2017
//pst
