Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1082 (DEL)

Naveen Kumar @ Bawla v. State (Nct) of Delhi

2014-03-31

S.P.GARG

body2014
Judgment S.P. Garg, J. (Oral) 1. Naveen Kumar @ Bawla (A-1) and Raju @ Nagesh (A-2) have filed appeals to challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 17.10.2012 in Sessions Case No.60/09 arising out of a FIR No.538/08 registered at Police Station Sultanpuri, by which they were held guilty for committing offences under Sections 307/34 IPC; 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. By an order on sentence dated 19.10.2012, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs.6,000/- each under Section 307/34 IPC; A-1 was further awarded RI for 3 years with fine Rs.3,000/-under Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act. 2. Prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 18.08.2008 at 25, Foota Road, Near Som Bazar Road, Jain Nagar, Karala, at about 3.45 p.m, the appellants in furtherance of common intention fired at complainant-Suresh Pradhan and inflicted injuries to him in an attempt to murder him while he was going by Wagon-R Car No.DL-9CQS-4962 to his office at Plot No.240, Shop No.2, Jain Nagar, Karala. Daily Dairy (DD) No.29A (Ex.PW-10/A) was recorded regarding the incident. The complainant was medically examined at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial hospital after he was admitted by HC Om Prakash, Incharge PCR Van. SI Jaspal Singh lodged First Information Report after recording complainant’s statement (Ex.PW-3/A). Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On 27.08.08, both the appellants surrendered in the court and were arrested. A country made was pistol was recovered pursuant to A-1’s disclosure statement. The exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the court; they were duly charged; and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses to prove the appellants’ guilt. In 313 statement, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. 3. During the course of arguments, appellants’ counsel, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants have given up their challenge to the findings recorded on conviction. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have already remained in custody for more than five years; they are not previous convicts and are first offenders. They have compromised/settled the dispute with the complainant and have paid him Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Learned APP has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances. 4. He, however, prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have already remained in custody for more than five years; they are not previous convicts and are first offenders. They have compromised/settled the dispute with the complainant and have paid him Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Learned APP has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances. 4. Since the appellants have opted not to challenge their conviction, in view of the overwhelming evidence of the complainant coupled with recovery and supported by medical evidence, the conviction under Section 307 IPC and 25 Arms Act as recorded by the trial court is affirmed. A-1’s nominal roll dated 28.01.2014 reveals that he has suffered incarceration for four years, four months and twenty six days besides remission for six months and twenty five days as on 29.01.2014. He is not a previous convict and his overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order dated 19.10.2012 reveals that he was a student of 10+2 at the time of registration of the case. His marriage took place on 20.04.2012. He had old parents and two brothers to look after them. A- 2’s nominal roll shows that he also suffered incarceration for four years, five months and seven days besides remission for five months and four days as on 04.01.2014. He is not involved in any criminal case and has clean antecedents. His overall jail conduct is satisfactory. Sentence order dated 19.10.2012 shows that he was aged 23 years and was unmarried at the time of incident. His engagement took place on 15.09.2012. He was studying in 10+2. He had to take care of his old parents who suffered from various ailments. Injuries sustained by the victim were ‘grievous’ in nature. He was discharged on the next day from the hospital. 5. The complainant appeared in the court and was duly identified by the Investigating Officer. He admitted to have settled the dispute with the appellants and disclosed receipt of Rs.50,000/-as compensation. He has no grievance to release the appellants for the period already suffered by them. Considering all these mitigating circumstances and the fact that the occurrence took place on a trivial issue without any clear motive, the period already undergone by the appellants is taken as their substantive sentence. Fine is stated to have been deposited by them. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid as compensation to the complainant is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Considering all these mitigating circumstances and the fact that the occurrence took place on a trivial issue without any clear motive, the period already undergone by the appellants is taken as their substantive sentence. Fine is stated to have been deposited by them. The amount of Rs.50,000/- paid as compensation to the complainant is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. A-1 who is the main perpetrator of the crime shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant more as compensation by way of Bank draft within fifteen days, receipt of it shall be deposited with the Investigating Officer. 6. The appeals stand disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action. Trial court record be sent back along with a copy of this order. The appellants be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.