State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Pradeep Kumar @ Puchi
2022 Latest Caselaw 1744 Del

                            *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                            %                                        Decided on: May 27, 2022

                            +                        CRL.L.P. 542/2019
                            STATE OF NCT OF DELHI                                   ..... Petitioner
                                                Represented by:   Ms.Aashaa Tiwari, APP for the State
                                                                  with SI Jai Kishan, P.S.Paschim
                                                                  Vihar West.
                                                     versus
                            PRADEEP KUMAR @ PUCHI                                   ..... Respondent
                                                Represented by:   Mr.B.Badrinath, Advocate
                                                                  (DHCLSC) for the respondent with
                                                                  respondent in person.
                            CORAM:
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
                            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

                            MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 7th June 2019 acquitting the respondent for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, the State seeks leave to appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on the statement of the victim/complainant who in his examination-in-chief recorded on 4th July 2018 stated that on 2nd April 2017 when he had gone to market to purchase sweets and was returning home, at about 3.30 p.m. near Peeragarhi Camp, Paschim Vihar, respondent came in front of him and exhorted 'tu bhaut dada banta hai, aur mere upper chori ka jhuta naam lagata hai, aur tujhe aaj sabak sikhata hu'. It is alleged that thereafter, the respondent took out a

Digitally Signed By:ATISH GOEL Signing Date:31.05.2022 16:07:47 poker (sua) and caused injuries with the same on the neck, back and right hand of the complainant. In the cross examination of the complainant recorded on 13th July 2018, the complainant stated that on 2 nd April 2017, he was working at Yamma Showroom at Meera Bagh and was on leave on that day. He had gone to Satsang at Ranhola on his scooty along with her grandmother at 10 a.m. and returned from the Satsang at 2.50 p.m. Thereafter, he went to take the sweets. The place of incident was crowded and he was attacked from the backside by some unknown person. Public persons gathered there and someone called at his home when his brother Sonu and friend Abhishek came to the spot and took him to the hospital. He further stated that he had compromised the matter with the respondent and thus, has given the said statement in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The MLC of the victim shows one single poker injury on the back of the neck, the width whereof, has not been given and multiple injuries are claimed, however, it is stated that one wound is there on the back side.

3. The only vital portion on which the injury has been inflicted is the back of neck. Neither the dimension of the said injury has been given nor has the effect of the injury has been shown. As per the doctor, the injuries are simple in nature.

4. In view of the nature of injury as also the parts on which they were inflicted and the manner of infliction of the injury, it is evident that though a charge for an offence Section 307 IPC was framed, however, an offence under Section 307 IPC was not made out. The offence allegedly committed by the respondent is an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC which is made out.

Digitally Signed By:ATISH GOEL Signing Date:31.05.2022 16:07:47

5. Further, the disclosure statement Ex.1/D does not state that the respondent had concealed the poker at a particular place and can get the same recovered. It merely states that he has got the same recovered without mentioning the place from where the recovery has been made. It may be further noted that in his statement in the FIR, the victim takes the name of the accused despite the fact that in the MLC, history of alleged sharp weapon injury at Peeragarhi has been got recorded by the victim himself, however, he does not name the respondent as the assailant though he was conscious, oriented and all his vitals were stable.

6. In view of the categorical statement of the victim in his cross examination that he has compromised the matter with the respondent and has given the statement in cross examination after compromise, this Court finds that an offence under Section 324 IPC being a compoundable offence and the parties having settled the matter, no case for grant of leave to appeal to the State is made out.

7. Petition is accordingly dismissed.

8. Copy of this order be forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Law, Govt. of NCT of Delhi.

9. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court.

(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE

(MINI PUSHKARNA) JUDGE MAY 27, 2022/akb

Digitally Signed By:ATISH GOEL Signing Date:31.05.2022 16:07:47