Delhi High Court
Kumar Gaurav & Anr. vs State N.C.T. Of Delhi on 11 September, 2023
$~26
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: September 11, 2023
+ CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 & CRL.M.A. 3420/2023
KUMAR GAURAV & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Shamim A. Khan and Mr. Ashok
Kumar, Advocates with P-2 in person.
versus
STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP for
State with SI Yogesh, P.S. Sultan
Puri.
CORAM:
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present criminal revision petition is filed under section 397
Cr.P.C. to impugn the judgment dated 28.11.2008 passed by the court of Sh.
Sanjeev Aggarwal, ASJ, Rohini Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the
"appellate court") in criminal appeal no. 02/2008 arising out of FIR
bearing no.1106/1997 registered under sections 326/341/34 IPC at P.S.
Sultan Puri.
2. The petitioners were put to trial arising out of FIR bearing
no.1106/1997 registered under sections 326/341/34 IPC at P.S. Sultan Puri
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 1
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
on allegation that on 15.12.1997 at about 3:30 PM, the petitioner in the gali
opposite to H. No. A-55, Shyam Colony, Budh Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi in
furtherance of their common intention, restrained one Ram Swaroop and
voluntarily caused grievous injuries to him using a sharp object. After
compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the charges were framed against the
petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 326/341/34 IPC.
3. The prosecution in support of its case, examined eight witnesses
including complainant/injured Ram Swaroop as PW-2 besides other public
witnesses Sanjay as PW-3 and Maya Devi as PW-8. The prosecution also
examined concerned doctors i.e. Dr. Rati Makar as PW-1 and Dr. Maninder
Kumar Chhabra as PW-5 who opined the injuries received by the PW-2
Ram Swaroop as 'dangerous' through MLC exhibited as PW-1/A. The
prosecution also examined police officials who participated and remained
connected with the Investigating Officer. The PW-2 Ram Swaroop
supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 15.12.1997 at
about 3:30 PM, he was wrongfully restrained by the petitioners. He further
deposed that the petitioner no. 2 Ashok Kumar caught hold of him and the
petitioner no. 1 Kumar Gaurav inflicted injuries using a sharp edged object
like a knife on his back. The PW-2 was taken to DDU Hospital. The PW-3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 2
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
Sanjay and PW-8 Maya Devi also supported the case of the prosecution.
4. The court of Sh. Surinder S. Rathi, MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi
(hereinafter referred to as the "trial court") vide judgment dated 28.06.2007
convicted the petitioners for the offences punishable under sections
326/341/34 IPC. Thereafter, vide order on sentence dated 22.08.2007
passed by the court of Dr. Shahabuddin, MM, Rohini Courts, Delhi, the
petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
three years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence
punishable under section 326 IPC. The petitioners were further convicted to
simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under section
341 IPC. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The
fine is stated to be paid by both the petitioners.
5. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed the appeal bearing CA
no.02/2008, which was decided vide judgment dated 28.11.2008 by the
appellate court. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction of the petitioners
under sections 326/341/34 IPC and reduced the sentence for the offence
punishable under section 326 IPC from 03 years to 02 years and the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 3
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
remaining sentences were maintained by the appellate court.
6. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed the present petition. The perusal
of judgment dated 28.06.2007 passed by the trial court and judgment dated
28.11.2008 passed by the appellate court reflects that the courts below had
rightly appreciated the testimony of the PW-2, who was the injured as well
as the complainant and other eye-witnesses. The courts below have rightly
relied upon their testimonies to convict the petitioners. There is no reason to
interfere in the judgments on conviction granted by the courts below i.e. the
trial court as well as the appellate court.
7. The counsel for the petitioners stated that the alleged incident
happened in the year 1997 and both the petitioners have faced trial for a
considerable period. The antecedents of the petitioners are also clear and
they have not been involved in any other criminal case. The petitioner no. 2
Ashok Kumar has become a senior citizen now. The petitioner no. 1, who is
the son of the petitioner no. 2, is a Computer Teacher in Aligarh and is
married now and has a family. In these circumstances, the counsel for the
petitioners prayed that the sentences of the petitioners be reduced to
imprisonment for the period already undergone.
8. The Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent stated that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 4
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
the injuries inflicted by the petitioners to Ram Swaroop were opined to be
'dangerous' in nature and no leniency can be shown to them under the given
facts and circumstances of the case.
9. The petitioner no. 1 Kumar Gaurav was stated to be aged about 17
years at the time of incident and now he is aged about 42 years. The
petitioner no. 1 is employed as a Computer Teacher in Aligarh and he is
already married. The petitioner no. 1 has to maintain his family and there is
no one to look after the entire family. The petitioner no. 2 is stated to be a
senior citizen now and he is aged about 69 years. The petitioner no. 2 has to
look after his family comprising of his wife, who is aged about 67 years.
The petitioner no. 2 and his wife are suffering from various ailments and
there is no one in the family to look after them. The antecedents of the
petitioner no. 2 are clear. He has never been involved in any other case.
10. As per the nominal roll pertaining to the petitioner no. 1, he remained
in judicial custody for 04 months and 02 days and also earned remission of
one month. The petitioner no. 2 remained in judicial custody for about 04
months and he also earned remission of one month. After considering the
socio-economic position and family responsibilities of the petitioners, their
sentence is reduced to the period already undergone for the offence
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 5
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
punishable under section 326 IPC. The petitioners are directed to pay the
cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each to be deposited in
Aapda Rahat Kosh set up by the Government of Himachal Pradesh bearing
Account no.42088576875, IFSC Code- SBIN0050204 maintained in State
Bank of India, Chhota Shimla Branch within 15 days from today and receipt
thereof be produced within one week thereafter before the concerned trial
court.
11. The present petition stands disposed of along with pending
applications.
12. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial court for information.
(DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2023
N/AM
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CRL.REV.P. 19/2009 Page 6
By:JITENDRA
Signing Date:13.09.2023
14:52:35
