Full Text
Translation output
$-9 & 10 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (i) + CRL.REV.P. 136/2013
SAMAY SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joginder Kumar &Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates
SAMAY SINGH Petitioner
Through: Mr. Joginder Kumar &Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE NCT OF DELHI Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Pubhc Prosecutor for State
(ii) + CRL.REV.P. 182/2013 OM PRAKASH Petitioner
Through; Mr. Joginder Kumar &Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Pubhc Prosecutor for State
(ii) + CRL.REV.P. 182/2013 OM PRAKASH Petitioner
Through; Mr. Joginder Kumar &Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates
VERSUS
STATE Respondent
Through ; Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State
Through ; Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Additional Public
Prosecutor for State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER o/„ 08.07.2013
The above-captioned two petitions arise out of common
ORDER o/„ 08.07.2013
The above-captioned two petitions arise out of common
JUDGMENT
oi
16*'' March, 2012, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and order of 18'" February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Court upholdmg petitioners' conviction in FIR No.316/96 under Section 326/323/34 IPC registered at PS
Vikaspuri, Delhi. Vide order of 18"' February, 2013 the substantive sentence imposed upon petitioners was reduced from one year SI to six
Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136 &182 Page 1 2013:DHC:8489 months SI while sentence of fme of?5,000/- with default clause had been maintained. Learned counsel for petitioners does not assail the impugned judgment on merits but submits that nature of offence committed by petitioners does not fall under Section 326 IPG as it has not been opined by any medical expert that injuries caused to the injured were endangering life.
Itis submitted on behalfofpetitioners that petitioner-Om Prakash is aged 65 years and petitioner-^amay Singh is aged 55 years and they have already remained behind bars in this case for about one month, have faced the agony of these proceedings since June, 1996 and are leading retired life and they are not involved in any other case and so, it is a fit case for grant of probation to petitioners.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State supports the impugned judgment and submits that benefit of probation cannot be extended to petitioners as they are convicted under Section 326 IPG, which is punishable
•for life imprisonment.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment and the material on record, I find that conviction ofpetitioners under Section 326 IPG is not sustainable for the reason that there is no opinion by any medical expert that the injur^ caused to the injured Surat Singh endangered his life. However, in view of the deposition of PW-1 Jitender, I find that the petitioners are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 325/323/34 IPG as it is not borne out from the record that injured Surat Singh had remained hospitalized due to grievous injuries suffered by him. Accordingly, the conviction of petitioners is altered from Section 326 ofIPG to Section 325 of IPG read with Sections 323 and 34 IPG. However, on the quantum of sentence, I find that the courts below have not extended the benefit,of
Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136&182 of2013 . ^ probation to petitioners in view of their conviction for the offence under
Section 326 IPC, and rightly so. However, since.the conviction of petitioners now stands altered from Section 326 of IPC to 325 of IPC, therefore, there is no bar to grant probation topetitioners.
Accordingly, both these petitions are disposed of while granting benefit ofprobation to petitioners, who shall appear before the trial court on
22"'^ July, 2013 to furnish the probation bond in the sum of ^10,000/- each for maintaining good behaviour for aperiod of one year with one surety of like anibunt" to the satisfaction of trial court. The fine deposited by petitioners is converted to cost of proceedings and compensation of
?10,000/- each shall be deposited by petitioners before the trial court on 22"
July, 2013. Compensation of^10,000/- each so deposited by petitioners be released by trial court to the injured PW-1 -Jitender. Upon completion of period of probation. Probation Officer shall submit the report to the trial court. In case petitioners do not maintain good conduct during the period of probation then they shall be liable to undergo the substantive sentence already awarded. Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
Both the petitions stand disposed ofaccordingly.
I:
Dasti.
JULY 08, 2013 vn Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136 &182 of 2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3
16*'' March, 2012, passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and order of 18'" February, 2013 passed by the Appellate Court upholdmg petitioners' conviction in FIR No.316/96 under Section 326/323/34 IPC registered at PS
Vikaspuri, Delhi. Vide order of 18"' February, 2013 the substantive sentence imposed upon petitioners was reduced from one year SI to six
Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136 &182 Page 1 2013:DHC:8489 months SI while sentence of fme of?5,000/- with default clause had been maintained. Learned counsel for petitioners does not assail the impugned judgment on merits but submits that nature of offence committed by petitioners does not fall under Section 326 IPG as it has not been opined by any medical expert that injuries caused to the injured were endangering life.
Itis submitted on behalfofpetitioners that petitioner-Om Prakash is aged 65 years and petitioner-^amay Singh is aged 55 years and they have already remained behind bars in this case for about one month, have faced the agony of these proceedings since June, 1996 and are leading retired life and they are not involved in any other case and so, it is a fit case for grant of probation to petitioners.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State supports the impugned judgment and submits that benefit of probation cannot be extended to petitioners as they are convicted under Section 326 IPG, which is punishable
•for life imprisonment.
Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned judgment and the material on record, I find that conviction ofpetitioners under Section 326 IPG is not sustainable for the reason that there is no opinion by any medical expert that the injur^ caused to the injured Surat Singh endangered his life. However, in view of the deposition of PW-1 Jitender, I find that the petitioners are liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 325/323/34 IPG as it is not borne out from the record that injured Surat Singh had remained hospitalized due to grievous injuries suffered by him. Accordingly, the conviction of petitioners is altered from Section 326 ofIPG to Section 325 of IPG read with Sections 323 and 34 IPG. However, on the quantum of sentence, I find that the courts below have not extended the benefit,of
Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136&182 of2013 . ^ probation to petitioners in view of their conviction for the offence under
Section 326 IPC, and rightly so. However, since.the conviction of petitioners now stands altered from Section 326 of IPC to 325 of IPC, therefore, there is no bar to grant probation topetitioners.
Accordingly, both these petitions are disposed of while granting benefit ofprobation to petitioners, who shall appear before the trial court on
22"'^ July, 2013 to furnish the probation bond in the sum of ^10,000/- each for maintaining good behaviour for aperiod of one year with one surety of like anibunt" to the satisfaction of trial court. The fine deposited by petitioners is converted to cost of proceedings and compensation of
?10,000/- each shall be deposited by petitioners before the trial court on 22"
July, 2013. Compensation of^10,000/- each so deposited by petitioners be released by trial court to the injured PW-1 -Jitender. Upon completion of period of probation. Probation Officer shall submit the report to the trial court. In case petitioners do not maintain good conduct during the period of probation then they shall be liable to undergo the substantive sentence already awarded. Trial court be apprised ofthis order forthwith.
Both the petitions stand disposed ofaccordingly.
I:
Dasti.
JULY 08, 2013 vn Crl.Rev. P. Nos. 136 &182 of 2013
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge Page 3