Sushil @ Shintu vs State
2017 Latest Caselaw 6470 Del

$~R-8 (custody)
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                                Date of Decision : November 15, 2017
+                        CRL.A. 174/2011
       SUSHIL @ SHINTU                                   ..... Appellant
                     Through :         Mr.S.K.Sethi, Advoate with
                                       appellant from custody.
                         versus
       STATE                                           ..... Respondent
                         Through:      Ms.Rajni Gupta, APP for the
                                       State with SI Deepak Bhardwaj,
                                       Ps Adarsh Nagar.

PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Sushil @ Shintu assailing the judgment dated 14th January, 2011 and order on sentence dated 24th January, 2011 passed in Session Case No.1170/2009 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 307/324 IPC and sentenced as under:-

(i) Under Section 307 IPC : to undergo RI for four years with fine of `2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for fifteen days.

(ii) Under Section 324 IPC : to undergo RI for one year.

2. The criminal law was set into motion on receipt of DD No.47A at PS Adarsh Nagar regarding stabbing of a person near Indira Nagar Gurudwara, Azadpur. The DD was assigned to SI Dalbir Singh who alongwith Ct.Mukesh and Ct.Tej Pal reached the spot where he came to know that injured has already been removed to Pentamed Hospital.

Since no eye witness was found at the spot, SI Dalbir Singh reached Pentamed Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Ashwani Sharma wherein he was opined to be 'unfit for statement'. Thereafter the police officials returned to the spot and SI Dalbir Singh made endorsement on DD no.47A and got recorded the FIR. Thereafter, SI Dalbir Singh came to know that one of the injured, who received injuries in the incident, was taken to BJRM hospital. He reached BJRM hospital and collected the MLC of injured Sushil (appellant herein) and MLC of injured Kastoori Lal.

3. SI Dalbir Singh recorded the statement of injured/eye witness Kastoori Lal who stated that Sushil had inflicted knife injuries on the neck of Ashwani Kumar and when he (Kastoori Lal) tried to intervene, Sushil gave knife blow on his thigh. Thereafter the public persons gathered there and gave beatings to Sushil. PCR was informed and PCR Van removed the injured to the hospital.

4. SI Dalbir Singh prepared the site plan at the instance of injured Kastoori Lal and also arrested the accused/appellant Sushil.

5. After the discharge of injured Ashwani Kumar from the hospital, his statement was recorded wherein he stated that on 11th May, 2009 at about 8.00 pm he was coming from Azadpur Subzi Mandi on his motorcycle. He reached a Dhaba near Indira Nagar Gurudwara from where he purchased daal. After making payment, when he was about to start his motorcycle, his neighbour Kastoori Lal came there and they started talking. In the meantime, the appellant came there in a druken state and took out the keys from his motorcycle and started abusing them. Thereafter the appellant took a chhuri from

the dhaba and gave knife blows on his neck, thigh and palm. When Kastoori Lal tried to save him, appellant also gave knife blow on his thigh. Public persons gathered there and gave beatings to the appellant. PCR was informed. He also informed his brother who took him to Pentamed Hospital.

6. After the completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the appellant for the offences complained of.

7. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge framed under Section 307/324 IPC and claimed trial. The learned Trial Court after concluding the trial held the appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/324 IPC and sentenced him in the manner aforesaid.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal.

9. Pursuant to the production warrants being issued, today the appellant has been produced from custody.

10. Mr. S.K.Sethi, learned counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submits that the appellant is not challenging his conviction in this case. However, prayer has been made that a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is 32 years old and belongs to the lower strata of society. He has to look after his mother who is suffering from neurological and various other old age ailments. There was none in the family who can take care of his mother or to accompany her to the hospital for providing necessary treatment. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that at the time of incident, the appellant was

about 25-26 years old. He also received injuries in the incident which fact is proved from his MLC. The appellant has also filed handwritten submissions to the above effect and prays for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence.

11. Since the appellant is not challenging his conviction under Section 307/324 IPC, the same is upheld.

12. Now coming to the quantum of sentence, it is proved from the record that the quarrel took place outside a dhaba and the incident was not pre-meditated. The appellant and the injured were strangers, the weapon of offence is a vegetable cutting knife lifted from the dhaba at the time of quarrel. The appellant himself suffered injuries and was removed to BJRM hospital but his injuries have remained unexplained. The substantive sentence awarded to the appellant for committing the offence punishable under Sections 307 IPC is reduced from four years to three years. The sentence of fine of ₹2000/- is maintained.

13. The appeal is allowed modifying the order on sentence to the above extent.

14. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information.

As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the appellant.

CRL.M.B.782/2017 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 15, 2017/'st'