Delhi High Court
Abdul Nafis vs State on 25 September, 2017
$~R-10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : September 25,2017
+ CRL.A. 614/2017
ABDUL NAFIS ..... Appellant
Through : Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate with
Sh.Iqbal Miyan - brother of the
appellant.
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State.
Complainant/injured in person.
PRATIBHA RANI, J. (Oral)
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal impugning the
judgment dated 9th May, 2017 and order on sentence dated 24th May,
2017 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for
ten years and to pay a fine of ₹50,000/-, which shall be paid to the
injured/victim, and in case the fine amount is not deposited, to
undergo SI for two years.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on 11th
November, 2015 at 10.45 p.m. an information was received at PS
Seelam Pur from B-51 Operator, Police Control Room to the effect
that 'E-Block Seelam Pur Thane ke samne park ke kone par yahan ek
aadmi ki garden aadhi kati padi hai' which was recorded vide DD
No.33-B. The said DD was marked to SI Rizwan Khan who was
informed on phone. SI Rizwan Khan reached the spot alongwith
Ct.Nareshveer and found the injured lying there. The identity of the
injured was revealed as Mohsin, S/o Late Sh.Hanif R/o H.No.169,
G.No.5, Ambedkar Basti, Maujpur, New Delhi. No eye witness was
found at the spot. In the meantime ERV vehicle from the police station
also reached there and SI Rizwan Khan took the injured to GTB
Hospital. Since the injured was opined 'unfit for statement' and no
eye witness was available, he collected the MLC of the injured and got
the case registered under Section 307 IPC. Crime team was called and
spot was got inspected.
3. On 17th November, 2015 SI Rizwan obtained the opinion from
the doctor about the condition of the injured who was opined to be fit
and conscious. On the same day i.e. on 17th November, 2015 the
injured Mohsin made statement to the following effect:-
'Mera naam Mohsin hai. Mere papa ka naam Mohd. Hanif hai.
Makan No.D-169 Maujpur Ambedkar Basti.
Nafis ne phone karke bulaya Mohsin bhai apne paise le jao
main seelampur aaya. Nafis ne apne ke paas ek makan mein
bitha diya jo ban raha tha aur kaha main paise leke aata hoon.
Wo ghar gaya phir do jane aaye mere samne khade ho gaye.
Maine kaha lao bhai paise to Nafis ne jeb mein haath diya aur
kisi tej dhar wali cheez se meri garden par waar kiya. Dusre
ne mere chehre par. Nafis ne to mujhe jaan se maarne ki niyat
ki thi. Main wahan se bhaga aur Naqi doctor ki dukan ke paas
ja gira. Uske baad mujhe kuch pata nahi.
Nafis patli gali mein rehta hai Seelampur mein D-Block mein
aur ek Baawarchi ka bhai hai'
4. The above statement was signed by the injured Mohsin at
point-A and by Taseem - brother of the injured at point-B.
5. On the basis of above statement, accused/appellant Abdul Nafis
was arrested. During investigation, call detail record of mobile phone
numbers of the accused/appellant and that of injured Mohsin were
obtained and exhibits were sent to FSL. Since the identity of the
associates of accused/appellant Abdul Nafis could not be ascertained,
the chargesheet was filed against appellant Abdul Nafis only for
committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
6. Appellant Abdul Nafis was charged for committing the offence
punishable under Section 307/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 15
witness in all. Accused/appellant was also examined under Section
313 CrPC to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him
wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He
had purchased an inverter from Mohsin (injured) and payment of
inverter had also been made by him. But Mohsin was demanding
interest for the said amount which he refused to pay and that is why he
had been implicated in this case.
7. The learned Trial Court after concluding the trial held the
appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section
307/34 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 issued, the appellant was
produced from custody on 2nd August, 2017. Mr.M.L.Yadav, learned
counsel for the appellant, on instructions, submitted 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. The appellant submitted that the incident took place in the
heat of moment for which he is regretting. He being the first offender
seeks pardon from the injured and also ready to compensate him.
10. On 21st September, 2017 the brother of the appellant as well as
injured Mohsin were present in the Court. After some deliberations,
the parties jointly submitted in writing that appellant through his
family (brothers) is ready to pay `1.5 lakhs (in three equal
installments) to the injured towards compensation which includes fine
of ₹50,000/- imposed by the learned Trial Court and was payable to
the injured as compensation.
11. Today Sh.Iqbal Miyan - brother of the appellant has handed
over to the injured/complainant Mohsin `50,000/- (first installment) in
cash which is accepted by him. The brother of the appellant also
assured the injured to pay the remaining amount of ₹1 lacs to the
injured in two installments i.e. ₹50,000/- on 27th November, 2017 and
₹50,000/- on 22nd December, 2017.
12. The injured/complainant has submitted that though he has
received grievous injuries in this incident and he remained
hospitalized for about nine days but since appellant is remorseful for
his acts and also compensating him by agreeing to pay ₹1.5 lacs, a
lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence awarded to the
appellant.
13. Mr.M.L.Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant is a young boy aged about 24 years and has clean
antecedents. He further submits that in view of submissions made by
the injured, a lenient view may be taken on the quantum of sentence.
14. Taking into consideration that the appellant is not challenging
his conviction about the injuries caused on vital parts which as per
him was done in the heat of moment and that the appellant has agreed
to compensate the injured/complainant for the injuries received by him
in this incident, it would meet the ends of justice if the sentence of
rigorous imprisonment for ten years awarded to the appellant for
committing the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is reduced
to five years.
15. Accordingly, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant
for committing the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the
substantive sentence awarded to him is reduced to five years which
shall be subject to payment of balance compensation of ₹1 lakh to the
injured against receipt, copy of which shall be placed on record by
learned counsel for the appellant within two weeks after 22nd
December, 2017 on which date the last installment of compensation
shall be paid to the injured.
16. The appeal is allowed only to the extent of modification of
order on sentence to the above extent.
17. TCR be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
18. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent
for information.
19. As prayed, copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel
for the appellant.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
SEPTEMBER 25, 2017/'st'
