SONU CHOUDARY Vs. STATE OF NCT DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal arises out of the impugned order dtd. 21/2/2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2023, whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the judgment of conviction dtd. 30/11/2022 and order on sentence dtd. 4/2/2023 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-FTC-02 (South East), Saket Courts, Delhi ("Trial Court"). Vide the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Ss. 324 and 452 of the IPC, and was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 324 IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months, and was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 for the offence under Sec. 452 IPC, in default thereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in short was that on 6/10/2014, the appellant-accused had gone to the restaurant namely, Baithak Restaurant, run by the injured Rajat Dhyani (PW-1). He asked for a jug of water to consume alcohol. When the said Rajat refused to give water, the appellant - accused took out a blade and inflicted injuries on the thigh, shoulder and back of the said Rajat. When the said Rajat called his friend Imran Khan (PW-3), he tried to intervene, however, the appellant caused injury on stomach with the blade to Imran also. On receiving the information about the incident (DD No.3A), the Investigating Officer found the two injured persons, and the appellant was apprehended on the spot.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash for the appellant that the entire conviction of the appellant is based on the solitary evidence of PW1- Rajat Dhyani, as the PW3 -Imran Khan, though was allegedly injured, had not supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, no case for house trespass was made out and the injuries allegedly caused by the appellant were also simple in nature. He further submitted that the appellant has already undergone two years of imprisonment.