Delhi High Court
Rajesh Sahni vs State (Nct Delhi) on 5 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: February 05, 2019
+ CRL.A. 863/2018 and CRL.M.(BAIL) 1327/2018
RAJESH SAHNI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Raman Kumar and Mr.
Birendra Kumar, Advocates
Versus
STATE (NCT DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Neelam Sharma, Additional
Public Prosecutor for State with SI
S.K. Jha
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
Vide impugned judgment of 20th July, 2018, appellant has been
held guilty for the offences under Sections 186/353/333 of IPC and vide
impugned order of 23rd July, 2018 appellant has been sentenced to
rigorous imprisonment for one month and fine of ₹1,000/- with default
clause for offence under Section 186 of IPC and for the offence under
Section 353 of IPC, appellant has been sentenced to rigorous
imprisonment for one year and fine of ₹5,000/- with default clause.
For the offence under Section 333 of IPC, appellant has been
further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of
₹20,000/- with default clause. All the sentences are to run concurrently.
The facts as noticed by the trial court in the impugned judgment
are as under:-
"On 22.01.2011 at about 8:15 a.m., PW-1, an employee of
Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) was driving the DTC bus no.
DL 1PC 9616 (the bus) on the route no. 879. While returning from
Janakpuri to Shahbad Dairy, when the bus reached at Madhuban
Chowk, PW1 blew the horn to turn the bus towards the left side
towards Rithala as Gramin Sewa tempos were standing but the
same did not move. That time, the bus touched one Gramin Sewa
tempo no. DL 2W 3742 (the said tempo) of which the accused no. 1
was the driver and the accused no. 2 was the conductor. On that,
both the accused got agitated and inflicted injuries upon PW-1".
On the basis of the evidence led, trial court has convicted and
sentenced appellant as noticed hereinabove.
Learned counsel for appellant assails the impugned judgment and
the order on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant no.2. It is submitted that
trial court has failed to consider that appellant was also injured in this
incident and appellant was not having any iron rod with him and as per
the prosecution, the iron rod was brought by co-accused Pawan and that
the incident in question has not taken place as depicted by the prosecution
and so benefit of doubt ought to be given to appellant.
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State
supports the impugned judgment and the order and submits that
conviction and sentence awarded to appellant is justified.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment, order and the
evidence on record, I find that the conviction of appellant for the
aforesaid offences borne out from the evidence on record.On the quantum
of sentence, I find that the grievous injury sustained by injured was
fracture on the second metacarpal bone in right hand and considering the
fact that appellant is not a previous convict and has wife and three minor
children to support, I find that the substantive sentence awarded to
appellant needs to be modified.
Considering that this is a case of road rage in which both sides
were injured, it is deemed appropriate to reduce the substantive sentence
awarded to appellant from five years to one year for the offence under
Section 333 of IPC while maintaining the sentence of fine. It is so done,
as appellant is not a previous convict and his conduct in jail is satisfactory
as per the nominal roll on record. However, sentence awarded to
appellant for other offences is found to be appropriate. This appeal is
partly allowed to the extent indicated.
The appeal and application are accordingly disposed of as such.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 05, 2019
p'ma
