Delhi High Court
Baljit Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 26 July, 2018
$~R18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.A. 399/2003
BALJIT SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sacchin Puri, Sr. Advocate
along with Mr. Varun Tyagi,
Mr. Bharat Gupta and Mr.
Kamil Khan, Advs.
versus
THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, APP
for the State.
CORAM: JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR
JUSTICE VINOD GOEL
JUDGMENT
26.07.2018
Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:
1. This appeal by Baljit Singh is directed against the judgment dated
17th April, 2003 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Delhi convicting him for the offence under Section 325/34 IPC for
having caused grievous injuries to Dinesh Kumar (PW-7) and under
Section 323/34 IPC for having caused simple injuries to Pradeep
Kumar (PW-3) and Sheela (PW-4). The appeal is also directed against
the order on sentence dated 21st April, 2003 whereby for the offence
under Section 325/34 IPC, the Appellant was sentenced to Rigorous
Imprisonment (RI) for 3 years along with a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in
default to undergo Simple Imprisonment (SI) for three months. For the
offence under Section 323/34, he was sentenced to RI for one year.
The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. At the outset it requires to be noticed that the present Appellant has
already served out his entire sentence. Nevertheless, the present appeal
is being pursued as the conviction is detrimental to the interests of the
Appellant.
3. It should further be noticed at the very outset that the Appellant was
sent for trial along with three other co-accused namely Raj Singh son
of Ram Swaroop, Raghbir Singh son of Raj Singh and Gulab Singh
son of Ram Swaroop. Furthermore, other co-accused viz., Omprakash,
Sunil Kumar, Sat Narayan and Surender Kumar were declared
Proclaimed Offenders (POs).
4. The present Appellant was charged with three offences the first of
which was that along with his co-accused he committed the murder of
Ramesh Kumar (deceased) thereby committing an offence under
Section 302/34 IPC; secondly, that he voluntarily caused grievous hurt
to Mahavir (PW-6) and Dinesh (PW-7) thereby committing an offence
under Section 325/34 IPC and thirdly, that he voluntarily caused
simple hurt to Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) and Sheela (PW-4) thereby
committing an offence under Section 323/34 IPC.
5. As far as the present Appellant is concerned, he was acquitted for
the offence under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of Ramesh
Kumar. He was also acquitted of the offence under Section 325/34
IPC for causing grievous injuries to Mahavir Singh (PW-6).
6. The prosecution relied on the eye witness testimonies of PWs 3, 4, 6
and 7 to prove the charges against the present Appellant. With the help
of Mr. Sachhin Puri, learned senior counsel appearing for the
Appellant and Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State, the
Court has perused the testimonies of the aforesaid injured eye
witnesses.
7. As far as Pradeep Kumar (PW-3) is concerned, whilst he stated in
his cross examination that Ramesh (the deceased) had been assaulted
by Omprakash and Raghbir, according to him, Dinesh (PW-7) was
assaulted by the present Appellant and Surender. As regards the
assault on his own person, PW-3 stated that "I was assaulted by Raj
Singh and Satya Narain". He further added "Gulab had hit my Bhabhi
Sheela." Consequently, as far as PW-3 is concerned, he was not
assaulted by the present Appellant.
8. However, the statement of PW-3 that the present Appellant had
assaulted Dinesh along with Surender (PO) is not corroborated by
Dinesh himself who was examined as PW-7. According to PW-7,
while he saw the Appellant along with certain co-accused assaulting
Ramesh, he was prevented from saving Ramesh by the other co-
accused. Although he said that he himself was assaulted, he did not
name the present Appellant as one of those who assaulted him. He
only mentioned that the present Appellant "had a danda". Therefore,
the evidence of PW-3 in regard to the assault on PW-7 is not
corroborated by PW-7 himself.
9. Coming next to the evidence of Sheela (PW-4), she categorically
stated in her cross examination that she was hit by "Gulab and Sat
Narayan." She does not mention that she was assaulted by the present
Appellant.
10. Mahavir Singh (PW-6), in his cross examination he states that he
saw the present Appellant along with certain other co-accused assault
Ramesh but as far as the assault on Ramesh or PW-6 is concerned, the
trial Court itself has acquitted the present Appellant. Further the
Appellant has been acquitted of the offence of assaulting PW-6.
11. Learned APP for the State pointed out the observations of the trial
Court as regards invoking Section 34 IPC is concerned. The Court is
of the view that the trial Court has mentioned Section 34 IPC in the
context of the attack on the deceased and PW-6 by the other co-
accused. In fact, the trial Court has acquitted the present Appellant
with regard to the aforementioned assaults.
12. As a result, there is no evidence to prove the guilt of the Appellant
for his role in causing injuries to Dinesh (PW-7), Pradeep (PW-3) or
Sheela (PW-4). Consequently, the Court sets aside the judgment of
conviction dated 17th April, 2003 and acquits the present Appellant for
the offences under Section 325/34 and 323/34 IPC. The consequent
order on sentence dated 21st April, 2003 for the aforementioned
offences qua the present Appellant is also set aside.
13. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The bail bonds and surety
bonds furnished by the Appellant stand discharged. He will fulfill the
requirements of Section 437A Cr PC to the satisfaction of the trial
Court at the earliest. The trial Court record (TCR) be returned together
with a certified copy of the judgment.
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
VINOD GOEL, J.
JULY 26, 2018
shailendra/sandeep
