Delhi High Court
State vs Jaipal Singh & Ors. on 5 July, 2018
$~R10
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 158/2003
STATE ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Hirein Sharma, APP for the
State.
versus
JAIPAL SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. R.P. Luthra, Advocate with
Mr. Sourabh Luthra, Advocate.
CORAM:
JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
JUDGMENT
05.07.2018
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1.This is an appeal filed by the State against the judgment dated 5th
October, 2001 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.73/1998 arising out
of FIR No.195/1998 registered at Police Station ('PS') Gokal Puri.
2. The State is in appeal to the extent that by the impugned judgment,
the Trial Court has sentenced the three respondents for the offence
punishable under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injuries to the
deceased Collector Singh and simple injuries to his son Yogesh (PW-
3) in an incident that occurred on 28th March, 1998 at Rama Garden
Delhi. According to the State, three respondents ought to have been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with
Section 34 IPC with which they were charged and as far as the death
of Shri Collector Singh is concerned.
3. There were two eye witnesses to the incident i.e. the injured eye
witness Yogesh (PW-3) and his wife Reena (PW-2).
4. As far as the incident itself is concerned, both witnesses were
consistent that at around 8 pm on 28th March 1998, Respondent No.2
Anuj Singh (A-2) had come to purchase a bundle of beedi. When PW-
3 told him that the cost of the beedi was Rs. 3, a verbal altercation
ensued with A-2 stating that it cost only Rs.2.50. According to PW3,
A2 then started assaulting him and as a result PW-3 raised an alarm
asking his father to save him.
5. The deceased then emerged from his house and in the meanwhile
A-2 went into the neighbouring house of the absconding accused Ram
Kishore (who incidentally remained absconding throughout the trial
and was declared proclaimed offender). From the house of A2
emerged A1 and A3 (Respondents No.1 and 3 respectively) and all
four of them started giving lathi blows to the father of PW-3 i.e. Shri
Collector Singh (deceased). The incident took place on 28 th March,
1998 and Shri Collector Singh succumbed to the injuries on 31st
March, 1998.
6. The Trial Court has in the impugned judgment accepted the
evidence of PW 2 and PW-3 but concluded that none of the accused
had intention to cause the death of Shri Collector Singh or of his son
Yogesh. The trial Court, therefore, convicted the three accused as far
as the death of Shri Collector Singh is concerned for the offence
punishable under Section 326 IPC.
7. Having heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel for the
accused and having perused the entire trial court record, this Court is
unable to be persuaded hold that the trial Court has committed any
grave illegality in coming to the above conclusion.
8. It may have been debatable, given the blunt force injuries on the
head of the deceased, that the offence could be one punishable under
Section 304 Part II IPC. However, at this distance in time i.e. more
than 20 years after the incident and particularly given that by the time
the trial concluded and the order on sentence was passed the three
accused had already undergone more than 3½ years of imprisonment
and were in fact was sentenced for the offence punishable under
Section 326 IPC to the period already undergone, the Court is not
inclined to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence awarded
by the Trial Court.
9. Consequently, the Court is of the view that the impugned judgment
and the order on sentence of the Trial Court does not require
interference. The bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by the
Respondents stand discharged. The original documents, if any,
furnished by them for that purpose be returned to them by the Registry
forthwith.
10. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JULY 03, 2018
dkb
