1 IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGEVIICUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTHEAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI : [CASE NUMBER] [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. 1. [ENTITY] S/o Rajuddin, R/o H.No. 15B, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi. 2. [ENTITY] S/o Rajuddin, R/o H.No. 15B, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi. FIR No. 440/08 PS Seelampur U/[SECTION] [ACT]. Date of Institution : 22.09.09 Date of reserving the Judgement : 15.09.2010 Date of pronouncement : 16.09.2010 J U D G E M E N T :
Prosecution case emanates from the fact that on 28.10.08 [CASE NUMBER] was assigned to [ENTITY] SI. He along with Constable [ENTITY] went to H.No. 17B, Shastri Park, Delhi, where injured [ENTITY] met them. [ENTITY] SI recorded his statement, wherein he detailed that his daughter [ENTITY], aged about 10 years, went to fetch water from a public hydrant. One lady by the name of [ENTITY] was washing her clothes there at the public hydrant. She denied his daughter to access the hydrant. His daughter returned while weeping and told him about the matter. He asked [ENTITY] as to why she denied access to public hydrant. At that juncture, she started abusing him in filthiest language. At about 12.30pm, [ENTITY], son of [ENTITY], came and wielded a sword blow on his head. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY], brother of [ENTITY], also caught hold of him. Both the brothers wielded sword blows on his head. [ENTITY] a bystander caught hold of [ENTITY], while 2 [ENTITY] managed his escape good from the spot. Someone informed the police. Police reached at the spot. [ENTITY] was removed to GTB Hospital. His statement was recorded by police, which became bedrock of the case. During the course of investigation, both accused persons were arrested. Investigation culminated into a charge sheet against them.
2. Charge for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused persons, to which charge they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate the charge, prosecution has examined [ENTITY] (PW1), [ENTITY] (PW2), Constable [ENTITY] (PW3), [ENTITY] SI (PW4), [ENTITY], HC (PW5), Dr. [ENTITY] (PW6) and [ENTITY] ASI (PW7) in the case.
4. [ENTITY] (PW1) is the injured and complainant in the case.
[ENTITY] (PW2) is eyewitness of the incident.
Constable [ENTITY] (PW3) joined investigation of the case on 28.10.08 with ASI [ENTITY]. He detailed those investigative steps, which took place in his presence.
[ENTITY] SI (PW4) conducted investigation of the case. He deposed that on 28.10.08, a call was received by him vide DD No.6A regarding a quarrel. He along with Constable [ENTITY] went at B17, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi. They found injured [ENTITY] was bleeding from his head. Accused [ENTITY] was also present there, who was overpowered by one [ENTITY]. PCR officials were also there. He recorded statement of [ENTITY] Ex.PW1/A. Later on, he directed Constable [ENTITY] to remain at the spot and safeguard the site. Custody of accused [ENTITY] and the sword was given to Constable [ENTITY] and went to 3 GTB Hospital. He collected MLC of [ENTITY]. Thereafter, he recorded tehrir and gave it to Constable [ENTITY] for getting the case registered. After registration of FIR, he prepared site plan Ex.PW4/A at the instance of [ENTITY]. He als prepares sketch of sword Ex.PW4/B. He also prepared arrest memo, personal search memo and seizure memo in the case. On 31.10.08, he again joined investigation along with Constable [ENTITY] and went at B15, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi at the house of accused [ENTITY] to arrest him. At the pointing of [ENTITY], accused [ENTITY] was arrested. His arrest and personal search memos were also prepared. Thereafter, they came back to PS and put [ENTITY] behind the lock up.
[ENTITY], Head Constable (PW5) recorded FIR and proved photocopy of the same as Ex.PW5/A. Dr. [ENTITY] (PW6) proved MLC of [ENTITY] as Ex.PW6/A, which was prepared by Dr. [ENTITY].
[ENTITY] ASI (PW7) was posted at PCR Van, Baker55, on 28.10.08. At about 1pm, he received a call regarding a quarrel at Gali No.1, BBlock, Shastri Park. On reaching there, he found [ENTITY] was present there in an injured condition. He took him to GTB Hospital and admitted him there.
5. In order to afford an opportunity to explain circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused persons, they were examined under [SECTION] [ACT] They had denied all the allegations levelled against them. Their case has been of denial simplicitor. They claimed themselves to be innocent. However, they projected that they had not caused any injury to victimn or any sword was recovered from their possession.
6. I have heard Sh. [ENTITY], ld. Prosecutor, for the [ENTITY] and Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate for the accused persons, and have also 4 perused the record.
7. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused that no reliance can be placed on the testimony of [ENTITY], inasmuch as, although in the initial complaint made by him, he stated that he was caught hold of by [ENTITY] and was wielded sword blow on his head by [ENTITY]. However, when he appeared in the witness box, he deposed that [ENTITY] caught hold of him and [ENTITY] wielded sword blow on his head. Further more, according to him, the incident had taken place at about 8.30am. However, as per MLC he was examined at 2pm. According to police officials, they reached the place of incident after 12 noon, on receipt of call of quarrel. As such there is long gap between the time as mentioned by the injured in MLC and testimony of witnesses. Moreover, according to prosecution, the quarrel had started on fetching water from government water tap between [ENTITY], daughter of injured, and [ENTITY], mother of accused persons. However, daughter of complainant has not been examined as the witness. No reliance can be placed on the testimony of PW2 [ENTITY], inasmuch as, in his crossexamination he has deposed that injuries were already caused on [ENTITY], when he reached at the spot. As such he is not the eyewitness of the incident. Moreover, at the fag end of his cross examination, he has deposed that he has come to depose at the instance of [ENTITY] and he was told by the latter as to what has to be deposed. Moreover, intention to kill is not proved, inasmuch as, injured was discharged from the hospital on the same day and injuries has been opined to be simple. In fact, the case was initially registered under [SECTION] [ACT]. It was only when weapon of offence, that is, sword was shown to be recovered, then [SECTION] [ACT] was added. Under these 5 circumstances, it was submitted that prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt, as such accused are entitled to be acquitted.
8. Per contra, it was submitted by ld. Prosecutor that injured and the accused are not on inimical terms and in fact it has come in the testimony of the witnesses that injured is in fact related to the accused persons, besides being neighbour. That being so, there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused in this case. The injuries on [ENTITY] has been proved from his testimony, coupled with medical evidence. Although, it was suggested to [ENTITY] that he sustained injuries due to fall on the road, but no such suggestion was given to the doctor, when he appeared in the witness box. As regards variation as to who caught hold of the injured and who inflicted sword blow on the injured, it was submitted that attention of the witness was not drawn to his complaint. Therefore, such plea cannot be taken for the first time during the course of arguments. Moreover, both accused persons in furtherance of their common intention has caused injuries on the person of injured. Therefore the discrepancy, if any, is very minor. As regards [ENTITY] is concerned, it was submitted that this witness was examined on 16.12.09 and thereafter was recalled for crossexamination after six months. During this period, possibility of his being won over by the accused cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there is no suggestion to the witness that he had not seen actual incident. As regards [ENTITY] is concerned, she is not an eyewitness to the incident as such her nonexamination is not fatal. As such, it was submitted that prosecution has been able to bring home guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. They are liable to be convicted for the charge.
9. I have given my considerable thoughts to respective submissions of the ld. Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
10. The star witness of the prosecution is PW1 [ENTITY]. This witness has unfolded that his daughter [ENTITY], aged about 1213 years, went to fetch water from a nearby Govt. water tap. His daughter was not allowed to take water from that water tap by Smt. [ENTITY], mother of accused. At that time, Smt. [ENTITY] was washing clothes at that water tap. His daughter came to him and stated that [ENTITY] is not allowing her to take water from that water tap. Thereafter, he went there and asked Smt. [ENTITY] as to why she did not allow his daughter to take water from that water tap. Smt. [ENTITY] abused him and asked him to go from there and stated that she will not allow them to fetch water from there. He stated to Smt. [ENTITY] that it was a government water tap and why she should not allow them to fetch water from there. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY], son of Smt. [ENTITY] came from behind and caught hold of him and [ENTITY] wielded sword on his head and due to the same, he became unconscious. He regained his consciounsness after sometime. [ENTITY] was overpowered by the public persons at the spot itself and other accused managed to escape from there. Someone informed the PCR. PCR came there and he was taken to GTB Hospital, where he was provided medical treatment. His statement was recorded by the police official. The same is Ex.PW1/A. He had shown the place of occurrence to the police official. Accused [ENTITY] was arrested by the police officials and the sword was also taken from him, firstly by the PCR official and thereafter the local police official. Second accused [ENTITY] was arrested after four days from the date of occurrence. He was medically examined at the GTB Hospital on the very same day, when he 7 received injuries.
11. PW2 [ENTITY] deposed that on 28.10.08 at about 12.30 noon, he was present at the roof of his house. He heard noises coming from the place where Govt. water tap was installed. He went there and he saw that [ENTITY] was abusing [ENTITY]. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], both sons of [ENTITY] came there. [ENTITY] was haiving one sword in his hand and other person, namely, [ENTITY] was empty hand. [ENTITY] caught hold of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] wielded sword on the head of [ENTITY], due to which he received injuries. He intervened and caught [ENTITY] along with [ENTITY] and the other person [ENTITY] ran away from there. He telephonically informed the police at 100 number. Police officials came there. He produced accused [ENTITY] along with sword before the police official. Police official kept that sword in a cloth pulanda and sealed it. Accused [ENTITY] was arrested in his presence by the police officials. The place of occurrence was shown to police officials. He also identified sword Ex.P1 to be the same, which was used by [ENTITY] while inflicting injuries on the head of [ENTITY].
12. A perusal of testimony [ENTITY] goes to show that this witness was crossexamined at great length by ld. Defence counsel. However, nothing material could be elicited to discredit his testimony. As regards his sustaining injuries on his head from sword is concerned, it has come on record that somebody had informed the PCR van. On receipt of information regarding quarrel at Gali No.1, BBlock, Shastri Park, Delhi, ASI [ENTITY] (PW7) reached the spot. He found [ENTITY] in injured condition and removed him to GTB Hospital. At the hospital, Dr. [ENTITY] examined [ENTITY] and prepared his MLC Ex.PW6/A and found 8 following injuries : (1) Sharp deep cut wound inverted semi circle as shown in the MLC on the head.
(2) Bruise on right arm.
(3) Abrasion on left elbow.
13. A bare suggestion was given to [ENTITY] that injuries were sustained by him due to fall on the road, which was denied by him. However, no such suggestion was given to the doctor, when he appeared in the witness box. No question was put to him whether injuries found on the person of [ENTITY] were possible by fall on the road. In fact, even the accused have not taken any such plea when their statements under [SECTION] [ACT] was recorded. Under these circumstances, factum of [ENTITY] having sustained injuries on his head due to sword blow stands proved.
14. Coming to the question as to who caused these injuries on the person of [ENTITY], as seen above [ENTITY] has categorically deposed that when his daughter informed him that when Smt. [ENTITY], mother of accused, did not permit her to take water from government water tap, he went there and inquired from her as to why she is not allowing his daughter to take water from water tap. Thereupon, [ENTITY] abused him and an altercation took place between him and Smt. [ENTITY] regarding fetching of water from government water tap. During this period, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], who were sons of [ENTITY] came to the spot. [ENTITY] was armed with sword. One of them caught hold of [ENTITY], while other wielded sword on his head, as a result of which he sustained injuries. It is true that minor discrepancy has appeared in the testimony of complainant 9 as to the role of each of the accused, inasmuch as, in his complaint Ex.PW1/A, he had stated to the police that [ENTITY] came armed with sword and hit him on his head, while his brother [ENTITY] caught hold of him and both brothers gave sword blows on his head, as a result of which he sustained injuries. However, when he appeared in the witness box, he deposed otherwise that he was caught hold by [ENTITY], while [ENTITY] wielded sword blows on his head. However, this discrepancy is not very fatal, keeping in view the fact that complaint was made on 28.10.08 while witnesses came to appear on 15.12.09, therefore due to lapse of time, such discrepancy might have appeared. But the fact remains that except for assigning role to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], the witness does not state that initially he might have given the name of some other person and now in his deposition before the Court, he has given name of the accused persons.
15. Moreover, it has come in his testimony that no quarrel had taken place between him and Smt. [ENTITY] prior to the occurrence, besides the fact that Smt. [ENTITY] is her neighbour. She is also related to him. According to him, although he is not on visiting terms with accused persons, but whenever they used to meet him in the street, they used to respect each other by doing duasalam. Meaning thereby, relations between the parties were not strained. Keeping in view the fact that [ENTITY] sustained injuries in the incident, his presence at the time of incident cannot be disputed. As observed by Hon'ble High Court in 2010 VII AD (Delhi) 307, Zahid and another (Mohd) vs. [ENTITY], the injured is the best witness of the incident, for which injuries were caused to him, and therefore his testimony is entitled to great weight. The presence of such a 10 witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted. It is not likely that he would spare the real assailant and implicate an innocent person. Being the victim of crime, he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprit does not go scot free. In Mer Dhana Side vs. [ENTITY] of Gujarat, AIR 1985 SC 386, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it would require very convincing submissions to discard the evidence of the injured witnesses whose injuries would at least permit a reasonable inference that they were present at the time of occurrence. Undoubtedly, this is subject to the requirement that there must be evidence to show that these witnesses received injuries in the same occurrence. In Machhi Singh vs. [ENTITY] of Punjab, 1983 Cr.L.J. 1457 one witness [ENTITY] himself had sustained injuries in the course of incident in question. It was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that it was difficult to believe that he would implicate the persons other than the real culprits and that the evidence of that witness alone was sufficient to bring home the guilt of the appellants, even if one were to exclude from consideration the evidence of other PWs. Identical view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a number of other cases, including Makan Jivan and Ors vs. [ENTITY] of Gujarat: AIR 1971 SC 1797; Mori Lal and Anr. vs. [ENTITY] of UP, AIR 1970 SC 1969; and Jamuna Chaudhary and Ors vs. [ENTITY] of Bihar, AIR 1974 SC 1822.
In view of these authoritative pronouncements, presence of injured at the time of incident and his sustaining injuries stands established.
16. As regards the accused persons being assailant of the crime, in their statement recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT], accused persons have taken plea that due to inimical relations with complainant party, they have been 11 falsely implicated in this case. However, it is a very vague plea and no such inimical relations with complainant party has been proved by them. On the other hand, [ENTITY] has categorically denied that there was no altercation between him and Smt. [ENTITY], two or three days before the date of occurrence. Rather, according to him, [ENTITY] is his relative and even though parties do not visit each other house but whenever they met anywhere they pay due respect to each other by doing dua salam. That being so, no animosity has been proved by the accused persons for which reason the injured would spare the real culprit and would implicate the accused persons with whom he has no axe to grind.
17. As regards the submission that [ENTITY] is not eyewitness of the incident, inasmuch as, in crossexamination, he has deposed that when he reached the spot, injuries were already caused to [ENTITY]. Here again, it may be mentioned that this witness was examined on 16.12.09 and at that time he had clearly deposed that he was present at his house. On hearing the noise coming from place where government water tap was installed, he went there and saw [ENTITY] abusing [ENTITY]. Thereafter, her sons, namely, [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] came. [ENTITY] was armed with a sword, while [ENTITY] caught hold of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] wielded sword blow on the head of [ENTITY] due to which he received injuries. He caught hold of [ENTITY] with sword, while other accused [ENTITY] ran away from there. He informed police at 100 number, who came there. He produced [ENTITY] along with sword before police. His testimony finds corroboration from Constable [ENTITY] (PW3) and SI [ENTITY], both of them have deposed that on receipt of [CASE NUMBER] regarding quarrel, they reached B 17, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi, where they found injured bleeding from 12 his head. [ENTITY] was having sword in his hand and he was overpowered by [ENTITY]. PCR officials reached there at the spot and injured was sent to GTB Hospital. Police officials arrested accused [ENTITY] and also took into possession sword vide memo Ex.PW3/A. This witness was examined on 16.12.09, at that time despite opportunity he was not cross examined by accused persons. It was thereafter that application was moved for recalling this witness for the purpose of crossexamination and then he appeared on 05.06.2010. At that time, he deposed that by the time he reached spot, injuries were already caused on [ENTITY] and that he had come to depose at the instance of [ENTITY] and was told by [ENTITY] as to what is to be stated. Possibility of the witness having been won over by this time by the accused persons cannot be ruled out.
18. Moreover, even if it is assumed for the sake of arguments that by the time this witness reached the spot, injuries were already caused to [ENTITY], as seen above, [ENTITY], who was injured in the incident, was the best witness and has succinctly stated about the manner in which injuries were caused on his person by both the accused persons. As such, conviction can be based on his solitary testimony and that did not require any corroboration.
19. As regards the submission that [ENTITY], daughter of [ENTITY], was not examined by the prosecution, it may be mentioned that as per [SECTION] of the [ACT], it is quality of the evidence, which matters and not quantity. Moreover, it is not the case of prosecution that when actual incident had taken place, [ENTITY] was present at the spot. In fact, initially dispute had taken place between [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY], mother of accused over fetching water from government tap. Thereafter, 13 when Smt. [ENTITY] did not allow [ENTITY] to take water from the tap, she went back to her house and informed her father [ENTITY] that [ENTITY] is not allowing her to take water from water tap. Thereafter, [ENTITY] went there, made inquiries and incident in question took place. Nothing has come on record to show that at the time of actual incident, [ENTITY] was present at the spot or not. That being so, if she had not witnessed the incident, in order to prove earlier cause of quarrel between her and Smt. [ENTITY], if she has not been examined by the prosecution that does not cast any dent on the prosecution story.
20. Result of the aforesaid discussion is that prosecution has been able to established beyond reasonable doubt from ocular testimony of PW1 [ENTITY], PW2 [ENTITY], coupled with medical evidence that [ENTITY] was wielded sword blows on his head, as a result of which he sustained injuries. The weapon of offence, that is, sword was recovered from possession of accused [ENTITY] and the witnesses have identified sword to be the same weapon of offence, with which injuries were caused on the head of [ENTITY]. Common intention of both accused is manifest from the fact that both came together, while accused [ENTITY] caught hold of injured, [ENTITY] gave sword blow on his head.
21. In the factual scenario noted above, it has to be seen whether [SECTION] [ACT] has application. The said provision reads as follows : "307. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by 14 such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
22. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from other circumstances, and may even, in some cases, be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. If the injury inflicted has been with the avowed object or intention to cause death, the ritual nature, extent or character of the injury or whether such injury is sufficient to actually causing death are really factors which are wholly irrelevant for adjudging the culpability under [SECTION] [ACT]. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done 15 with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
This position was highlighted in : (1) [ENTITY] of Maharasthra V. Balram Bama Patil, (1983) 2 SCC 28 : 1983 SCC (Cri.) 320.
(2) R. Prakash V. [ENTITY] of Karnatka, (2004) 9 SCC 27 : 2004 SCC(Cri.) 1408.
(3) Giri Shankar Vs. [ENTITY] of U.P., (2004) 3 SCC 793. (4) Vasant Vithu Jadhav Vs. [ENTITY] of Maharashtra, (2004) 9 SCC 31. (5) Bappa Vs. [ENTITY] of Maharasthra, (2004) 6 SCC 485. (6) Hari Mohan Mandal Vs. [ENTITY] of Jharkhand, (2004) 12 SCC 220. (7) Bipin Beher Vs. [ENTITY] of M.P., (2006) 8 SCC 799.
23. In Sarju Prasad v. [ENTITY] of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 843 : (1965) 1 Cri.L.J. 766, it was observed in para 6 that mere fact that injury actually inflicted by the accused did not cut any vital organ of the victim, is not by itself sufficient to take the act out of the purview of [SECTION] [ACT].
24. Turning to the case in hand, perusal of evidence led by prosecution goes to show that the requisite intention to cause death by [ENTITY] is lacking in the instant case, inasmuch as, [ENTITY] himself has deposed in his crossexamination that he cannot tell regarding the intention of the accused persons at the time of inflicting injuries on his person. In fact, the entire incident had taken place on spur of moment on a trivial issue, inasmuch as, altercation took place between [ENTITY] and mother of accused persons over fetching water from water tap. There upon accused persons reached the spot and wielded sword on the head of injured. Although injuries were caused on the vital part of the body, that 16 is, head but that it is not sufficient to infer that accused persons intended to cause death of [ENTITY], inasmuch as, injured was discharged from the hospital in the evening on same day. As per MLC injuries have been opined to be simple. No declaratory statement was made by any of the accused persons, which could show their intention to kill their victim. As such no offence under [SECTION] [ACT] is proved against the accused persons.
25. However, it is well settled legal position that if an accused is charged of a major offence, but is not found guilty thereunder, he can be convicted of minor offence, if the facts established indicate that such minor offence has been committed. Reference in this regard may be made to the decision of hon'ble Apex Court in [ENTITY] of Maharashtra Vs. Rajendra Jawanmal Gandhi, (1997) 8 SCC 386; and Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs. [ENTITY] of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 560.
26. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samnsaheb M. Multtani Vs. [ENTITY] of Karnatka, (2001) 2 SCC 577 had an occasion to deal with [SECTION] of the [ACT] The Court came to the conclusion that when an accused is charged with a major offence and if the ingredients of major offence are not proved, the accused can be convicted for minor offence, if ingredients of minor offence are available. The Court observed as follows in relevant para:
"16. What is meant by ' a minor offence' for the purpose of [SECTION] of the Code? Although the said expression is not defined in the Code, it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely that the prescribed punishment is less than the major offence. The two illustrations provided in the section would bring the above point home 17 well. Only if the two offences are cognate offences, wherein the main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lesser sentence can be regarded as minor offence visavis the other offence."
27. In view of the discussions made above, although prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused persons for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT], however, there is ample evidence on record to hold the accused persons guilty for offence punishable under [SECTION] [ACT]. Consequently, they are convicted for the said offence.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) th
On this 15 day of September, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.
18 IN THE COURT OF MS. [ENTITY] : DISTRICT JUDGEVIICUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : NORTHEAST DISTRICT :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI :
[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs.
1. [ENTITY] S/o Rajuddin, R/o H.No. 15B, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi.
2. [ENTITY] S/o Rajuddin, R/o H.No. 15B, Gali No.1, Shastri Park, Delhi.
PS Seelampur U/[SECTION] [ACT].
Date of Institution : 22.09.09 Date of reserving the Judgement : 16.09.2010 Date of pronouncement : 20.09.2010 J U D G E M E N T : Leniency in punishment has been claimed by Ms. [ENTITY], Advocate, on behalf of the convict persons, pleading that they are young boys having clean antecedents. They are not previous convict nor facing any trial. Convict [ENTITY] is still unmarried, while convict [ENTITY] has been recently got married and has a son aged about one and half months. As such, it is pleaded that convict persons may be awarded benefit of [ACT].
2. On 28.10.08, [ENTITY], daughter of [ENTITY], aged about 1213 years, went to fetch water from a nearby Govt. water tap. His daughter was not allowed to take water from that water tap by Smt. [ENTITY], mother of convict persons. At that time, Smt. [ENTITY] was washing clothes at that water tap. His daughter came to him and stated that [ENTITY] is not allowing her to take water from that water tap. Thereafter, he went there and asked 19 Smt. [ENTITY] as to why she did not allow his daughter to take water from that water tap. Smt. [ENTITY] abused him and asked him to go from there and stated that she will not allow them to fetch water from there. He stated to Smt. [ENTITY] that it was a government water tap and why she should not allow them to fetch water from there. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY], son of Smt. [ENTITY] came from behind and caught hold of him and [ENTITY] wielded sword on his head and due to the same, he became unconscious. He was landed in hospital.
3. From the facts and circumstances detailed above, coupled with the mitigating factors surrounding the convict persons, I deem it a fit case where awarding benefit of [ACT] would meet ends of justice. As such, convict persons are released on probation for a period of one year, on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety each of like amount, with an undertaking to be of good behaviour for the aforesaid period, failing which they would come and receive the sentence. They are further directed to pay a sum Rs.5,000/ each as compensation to the injured.
4. A copy of judgement and order on sentence be supplied to the convict persons free of cost.
Announced in the Open Court ([ENTITY]) th
On this 20 day of September, 2010. District JudgeVII/NEcumASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.