Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 141 (DEL)

LAIK RAM v. STATE OF DELHI

2002-01-31

R.S.SODHI

body2002
R. S. SODHI ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4. 4. 1998 of the additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 215 of 1994 holding the appellant guilty under Section 323 IPC. The learned Judge vide separate order dated 27. 4. 1998 gave the appellant benefit of Probation of Offenders Act on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,000. 00 with one surety of the like amount within fifteen days. The learned Judge also directed the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000. 00 as costs of litigation and Rs. 15,000. 00 each as damages to the victim. ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are as follows: "this case arises out of FIR No. 171/91 registered by police station Samaipur badali, under Section 308/34 IPC, against accused Laik Ram, Satpal, Ram Singh remu and Ajit Singh, who had been sent-up to face trial by the said police station by filing a challan in the Court of Id. MM, on the allegations that on 9. 6. 91 Sl Tejpal singh alongwith Constable Dhanpat Singh had gone to village Khera Kala for investigation in respect of DD No. 11-A dated 9. 6. 96 registered by the said police station, when at about 1 PM, they heard that a quarrel had taken place in the village. On hearing this, Sl Tejpal Singh and constable Dhanpat Singh went towards the spot, where they found Laxman Singh lying in injured condition in the gali in front of his house. He was removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by constable Dhanpat. No one came forward to give statement at the spot, therefore, SI Tejpal Singh went to Hindu rao Hospital on 10. 6. 91 and found injured lying admitted on bed No. 32 Ward No. 4. Injured was unfit for statement. No one else was present there, who could have given any statement. From oral enquiry, it was revealed that injured Laxman was assaulted by Laik Ram, Satpal, Ram Singh and Ajit Singh. However, no one was willing to give written statement to this effect, therefore, rukka (EX. PW11/a) was written by the IO on the basis of enquiries made by him and same was sent for registration of FIR and pursuant whereof FIR (Ex. PW6/a) was registered against the accused persons under Section 308/34 IPC. However, no one was willing to give written statement to this effect, therefore, rukka (EX. PW11/a) was written by the IO on the basis of enquiries made by him and same was sent for registration of FIR and pursuant whereof FIR (Ex. PW6/a) was registered against the accused persons under Section 308/34 IPC. Site plan (Ex. PW 11/b) was prepared. Statement of laxman Singh (injured), Satish Kumar, Baldev Singh and Maman Singh (eye witness) was recorded. Satish Kumar is the son of injured. Baldev Singh and Maman singh are resident of the same village. All these witnesses and injured stated that accused Ajit and Satpal caught hold of Laxman and Laik Ram and Ram Singh, who were having lathies in their hands gave lathi blows to Laxman. Accused Satpal and accused Laik Ram were arrested vide jamatalasi Ex. PW5/d and Ex. PW5/c respectively on 12. 6. 1991. Accused Laik Ram made a disclosure statement (Ex. PW5/b) that he can get lathi recovered from his house. Thereafter, he led Sl Tejpal Singh and constable Hari Parkash to his house and from the northern comer of a room of his house, lifted a lathi and handed over it to the Sl. Lathi was measure as 4ft 91/2 inch and there were 6/ 1/4 roots in it. Ex. P-1 lathi was taken into possession vide memo (Ex. PW5/a ). MLC (Ex. PW7/a) was obtained. Later on accused Ram Singh and Ajit Singh were arrested formally on 17. 6. 1991 vide jamatalasi (Ex. PW11/c) and (Ex. PW11/d ). Learned MM took cognizance of the challan vide order dated 6. 8. 1992 and committed the case to Sessions Court since offence under Section 308/34 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. My learned predecessor framed charges under Section 308/34 IPC against all accused persons on 11. 1. 1995 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thus, trial commenced. " ( 3 ) THE prosecution, in order to establish its case, examined as many as 11 witnesses. Of these, PW-1, Laxman Singh, and PW-3, Maman Singh are the star witnesses. PW-1 has deposed that when he was leading his buffalos to water, the accused, Laik Ram, was sitting outside his house. Laik Ram asked PW-1 as to whether he was willing to withdraw his case to which PW-1 refused. Of these, PW-1, Laxman Singh, and PW-3, Maman Singh are the star witnesses. PW-1 has deposed that when he was leading his buffalos to water, the accused, Laik Ram, was sitting outside his house. Laik Ram asked PW-1 as to whether he was willing to withdraw his case to which PW-1 refused. Hearing this, Satpal and Ajit Singh caught hold of him while Ram Singh and Laik Ram gave lathi blows on his head. On receipt of the blows he lost consciousness and was removed to hospital where he remained hospitalised for two days. PW-3, has corroborated the version of PW-1 on all material aspects. Their statement further gets impetus from the medical evidence. ( 4 ) UPON a reappraisal of the material placed on record I find that the prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused. Further, I have also carefully analysed the judgment under challenge and I find that the reasoning of the learned Judge in appreciating the evidence and material placed before him suffers from no infirmity. I, therefore, affirm the same. On the question of sentence, it was argued by learned counsel that the order placing the appellant on probation is dated 27. 4. 1998 and since then the appellant has exhibited exemplary behaviour and no useful purpose would be served in requiring him to furnish a fresh bond at this stage, after he has maintained good behaviour since his sentence was suspended vide order dated 14. 5. 1998. ( 5 ) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that no grave prejudice is going to be caused to the appellant if he is required to furnish a bond for good behaviour for the period mentioned in the order of sentence. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of sentence and affirm the same. ( 6 ) CRIMINAL Appeal No. 211 of 1998 is dismissed.