Delhi High Court
Shahid vs State on 16 November, 2017
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 855/2017 & CRL.M. (BAIL) 1604/2017
Date of decision: 16.11.2017
SHAHID ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Vikas Padora with Mr.
Dipanshu Chugh, Advocate.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP for State.
SI Ashish Kumar, PS
Bhajanpura, Delhi.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This appeal has been heard on merits.
2. Shahid, the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of
the IPC by judgment dated 23.12.2016 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, North East Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in
SC No. 47 (1)/2016 arising out of the FIR no. 427/2016 which was
instituted for the offence under Section 307 of IPC.
3. By order dated 26.12.2016, the appellant has been sentenced to
undergo RI for 2 years, to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of
payment of fine, to further suffer SI for 3 months.
4. The appellant is alleged to have made attempts to commit
murder of his wife, Mehnaj, by inflicting injuries on her neck and
hand by a razor. The injured is stated to have received lacerated
wounds on her left forearm and on her left ear.
5. The wife of the appellant, namely, Mehnaj, who has been
examined as PW-1, gave her statement before the police alleging that
she was married to the appellant in accordance with Muslim Religious
Rites. The appellant, according to PW-1, was in the habit of drinking
recklessly and assaulting her. Fed up by all this, PW-1 had left his
company and had come to her parent's house at Noor-E-Ilahi. On the
day of the occurrence, it was alleged by PW-1 that he came to the
house of her parents and inflicted razor injuries on her left hand and
left ear and thereafter, ran away. The neighbours, after hearing her
cries, assembled and called the police.
6. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section
307 of the IPC; whereupon, cognizance was taken; charges were
framed; and the case was tried.
7. The Trial Court, after examining 10 witnesses on behalf of the
prosecution and none on behalf of the defence, convicted the appellant
under Section 324 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2
years, to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to
further suffer SI for 3 months.
8. Mehnaj, PW-1, who is the wife of the appellant and an injured,
has supported the prosecution version of her having been hit by a
razor.
9. HC Raj Kumar (PW-7), had investigated the case in the first
instance and had recorded the statement of PW-1 and had prepared
ruqqa which is Ex. PW7/A. SI Prem Pal Singh (PW-10), is the
Investigation Officer, who had arrested the appellant and had
interrogated him.
10. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C had
a different story to narrate. He had stated before the Trial Court that
over petty issues, PW-1 fought with him and had, in the past,
threatened to implicate him in false cases. The appellant has denied to
have made any attempts to eliminate his wife/ PW-1.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that
PW-1 could not state about the nature of the weapon used. The
occurrence is said to have taken place in the house of PW-1, whereas
neither of the parents of PW-1 were examined at the trial nor any
plausible explanation was offered for their non-examination.
12. It was further submitted that the Investigation Officer had not
seized the clothes of PW-1 and had also not collected the blood from
the place of the occurrence. Lastly, it was argued that Ex. P1, the
weapon of assault, could not be matched with the injuries suffered by
PW-1. Dr. Adiba (PW-3), has deposed before the Trial Court that the
nature of weapon used for causing injuries was a blunt weapon. The
doctor who had given an opinion regarding the nature of injuries has
also not been examined.
13. However, from the records, it appears that PW-1, who is the
wife of the appellant had given birth to two children from the wedlock
with the appellant. This fact is not denied.
14. From the statement made by the appellant under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C., it stands established that PW-1 was not staying with the
appellant but with her parents. This can only be, if the relationship
between the appellant and his wife was not cordial. Though, there has
not been any cross-examination on this aspect of the matter, but what
remains, completely substantiated is that the victim was staying away
from the appellant.
15. From the deposition of PW-1, it is very clear that the appellant
entered in the room of PW-1 after breaking its latch and had hit her
with a razor which he was carrying in his trouser. There was another
attempt to hurt PW-1 and that resulted in injuries on the left hand of
PW-1. Nothing has been brought on record to suggest that PW-1 had
made any wrong statement before the Court.
16. Similarly, Nasir (PW-2), who is one of the neighbours of PW-
1, has testified to the effect that an occurrence of the kind as was
reported by PW-1, had taken place on 08.06.2016 at about 8.42 PM.
Thus, finding that there was no delay in reporting the case and the
correctness of the allegation in as much as PW-1 was injured for
which she was treated, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under
Section 324 of the IPC.
17. While convicting the appellant, the trial court took note of Ex.
PW4/A which is DD no. 94B, which was recorded on 08.06.2016 at
9.00 PM indicating that a woman was hit and injured by a blade
(razor) by one person and the aforesaid person has been apprehended.
HC Madan Mohan, who has been examined as PW-5 had also testified
to the effect that PW-1 was injured over her left hand and left ear.
Since, the injury suffered by PW-1 were stated to be lacerated, the
Trial Court rightly did not record conviction under Section 307 of IPC.
More so, when Dr. Adiba had clearly stated that such injury suffered
by PW-1 could not have been self inflicted.
18. This court therefore, finds no fault with the judgment of
conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the IPC.
19. However, taking into account the circumstances in which the
occurrence took place, viz, differences between the husband and the
wife and the wife not staying with the appellant but with her parents as
well as the fact that the appellant was present in the house, in company
of the injured only, when there was nobody else and the appellant did
not make any attempts to inflict further damage on PW-1, this court is
of the view that interest of justice would be sub-served in modifying
the sentence imposed upon the appellant to a period of custody which
the appellant has already undergone.
20. This court has been informed that the appellant has remained in
jail for about one year and nine months.
21. The appeal is, therefore, is dismissed. However, the sentence
imposed upon the appellant is modified as stated above.
22. The appellant has been produced from custody on production
warrant. The appellant shall be sent back to jail. Thereafter, he shall
be released from jail, if not wanted in any other case.
23. A copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent of the
concerned jail for compliance.
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
NOVEMBER 16, 2017 /NC
