Crl.A. No. 53/2005 Page 1 of 4 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Crl. A. No. 53/2005 Date of Order: 22nd January 2010 # GULFAM @ GUDDU ..... Appellant ! Through: Mr. C.P. Nanda, Adv. versus $ THE STATE ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Jaideep Malik, APP. * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No : V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral) 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2004 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2004, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 325 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo SI for six months in default. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that on 25th October, 2000 at about 11.05 P.M. when the injured Yashpal was Crl.A. No. 53/2005 Page 2 of 4 coming to his house, the appellant caused injury to him at A- Block, Kamal Vihar, Main Road. 3. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of its case. The injured came in the witness box as PW-6 and stated that on25th October, 2000, at 11.05 P.M. he was coming back to his house, the accused person met him. They started abusing him and caught hold of him and the appellant Gulfam @ Guddu hit him in the abdomen with a pointed object and also hit on his forehead and forearm. 4. The MLC of the injured, who was examined in Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, shows that he suffered the following injuries: (i) Incise wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. at epijastium. (ii) Incise wound 3 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. deep in right lower chest wall. (iii) Incise wound 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep in left occipital region. (iv) Incise wound 2.5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m. bone deep on right forehead. (v) Incise wound right forearm 5 c.m. x 5 c.m. Crl.A. No. 53/2005 Page 3 of 4 5. In the statements under Sections 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegation made against him. 6. Out of the persons arrayed at trial, two accused, namely, Sultan and Md.Shakil were acquitted, whereas the appellant Gulfam and one Shan Mohd. were convicted. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant states that considering the evidence which had been produced during the trial, he does not dispute the conviction of the appellant on merits and only seeks benefit of probation considering the fact that he has already spent about three months in custody and has also paid fine which was imposed upon him. 8. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, including that this incident took place about ten years ago and the appellant has already spent some time in custody, the appellant is given benefit of probation and is directed to be released on his furnishing a bond of peace and good conduct in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for period of one year, to the satisfaction of the trial court. During the period of bond, the appellant shall keep peace and good conduct and shall refrain from committing any crime. He shall appear, as and when directed, to receive the sentence imposed Crl.A. No. 53/2005 Page 4 of 4 on him. The appellant is granted four weeks time to furnish the bond. The appeal shall stand disposed of. A copy of this order be sent to the trial court for information and necessary action. V.K. JAIN (JUDGE) JANUARY 22, 2010 RS