Full Text
Date of
JUDGMENT
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State along with Inspector Surya Prakash, SHO, Aman Vihar.
Through: Mr.Azhar Qayum, Adv.
STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Radhika Kolluru, APP for the State along with Inspector Surya Prakash, SHO, Aman Vihar.
. versus HARI CHAND & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Azhar Qayum, Adv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH G.S.SISTANI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present appeals have been filed by the State against the judgment dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case no.39/12, FIR No.332/12 PS Aman Vihar and the order on sentence dated 11.12.2014, by which the respondents were convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC. The respondents were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the injured/complainant and, in default of payment of compensation all the convicts were to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟); while they were acquitted from charges under 2017:DHC:3082-DB Section 307 IPC. The respondents were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount and an undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called by the court and in the meantime they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.
2. Crl.A. 806/2015 has been filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents under Section 323 IPC, whereas Crl.A. 343/2016 has been filed by the State, by which the respondents were acquitted under Section 307 IPC. Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.
3. The case of the prosecution as noticed by the Trial Court is as under:
4. The learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that taking into consideration the evidence on record, more particularly, the testimony of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13), who has opined that the injury was grievous, a case under Section 307 IPC would be made out and even otherwise punishment awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC is not commensurate to the offence committed.
5. The Trial Court convicted the respondents herein based on the testimonies of the public witnesses Priyanka (PW-1), Hemant (PW-2), Tara (PW-4), Pawan (PW-5) and Dayal Chand (PW-6).
6. We may note that this is an unfortunate matter where the brother-in-law (sister‟s husband) had stabbed his brother-in-law (wife‟s real brother). During the pendency of these matters, the predecessor Bench of this Court had referred the matter for mediation. The mediation was a non-starter. The matter was then taken up in Chamber by this Court. Parties were called and thereafter, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by which the respondents agreed to compensate the victim in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which amount has been paid today towards the medical expenses. The complainant undertakes to the Court that he would withdraw the suit filed by him which is pending in the Rohini Court.
7. The respondents have also expressed deep remorse on the incident and both the parties have agreed to bury the past and move further in life. We understand that between the last date of hearing and today, the parties have also been interacting with each other and pray that the Court should also take a lenient view on the matter.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the matter as well.
9. In our view, the Trial Court has rightly analysed the testimony of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13) and reached a conclusion that the respondents did not have the requisite intention or knowledge as required under Section 307 IPC. The relevant potion of the judgment of the Trial Court is extracted below:
10. In the absence of the requisite knowledge or intention, the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be made out and hence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents under Section 323 IPC. Accordingly, Crl.A. 343/2016 deserves to be dismissed.
11. As noticed hereinabove, during the pendency of these appeals the complainant/victim and the respondents, who are close family members have entered into an amicable settlement. They have decided to bury the past and decide to co-exist peacefully and maintain social and family ties. Accordingly, we find no grounds to interfere in the judgment and orders on conviction passed by the Trial Court.
12. Parties agree that by the settlement arrived at, all the disputes and differences have been resolved and settled. Parties agree to live in peace and harmony.
13. On the last date of hearing, we had also felt that it would be in the fitness of things that the victim be awarded a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme. We had arrived at this figure taking into consideration that the victim had spent a sum of Rs.1,34,000/- on the surgery, besides other medical expenses, apart from the fact that he could not work for approximately six months. Today, we are informed that the DLSA has processed the case for payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant.
14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Original documents/FDRs be returned to the respondents.
15. Further, since the matter before the Rohini Court has been resolved through mediation by this Court, the plaintiff in the Suit/complainant herein would be entitled to refund of court fee. Accordingly, this order shall be brought to the notice of the Trial Court.
16. Accordingly, Crl.A.343/2016 and Cr.A. 806/2015 are dismissed.
17. In view of the above, Crl. M.A. 9947/2015 in Crl.A. 806/2015 also stands disposed of.
18. List the matter on 21.07.2017 for reporting compliance. G.S.SISTANI, J. PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J. MAY 31, 2017 //pst