ASLAM Vs. STATE N.C.T. OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 who are the sons of late Chatre along with Chatre were convicted for offences under Section 307 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC in case FIR No.479/1996 P.S. Narela by the impugned judgment and have been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years Crl. A. 435/2001 Page 2 of 7

(2.) and also a fine of '2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months. 2. Briefly the prosecution case is that on 12th November, 1996 DD No.8A was received at P.S. Narela with regard to an injured being sent to Shiv Jivoday Janta Hospital, Narela. On the doctor opining the injured to be fit for statement, a case was registered on the statement of injured Rajesh Kumar who stated that he was driving a three wheeler scooter on 12th November, 1996 at about 10.30 a.m. and when he reached Ramdev Marg, Chatre and his sons Bhiku, Azam Ali and Aslam stopped his scooter and objected to the injured taking passengers on their number and that they would set him right. Thereafter, Aslam caught hold of the injured and dragged him out of the three wheeler scooter, Chatre caught hold of him. Aslam and Bhiku gave lathi blows to him on his leg and back side. Azam Ali who was having sword in his hand inflicted the same on his head. In view of the statement of the injured and on receipt of the result of the MLC wherein the doctor opined it to be a grievous injury on the scalp, the Appellants were arrested. On the disclosure of Aslam a lathi about 5 feet in length was recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellants contends that the MLC of the injured is from a private hospital and thus the same cannot be believed. The Appellant No.4 that is the deceased Chatre had also received injuries and his Crl. A. 435/2001 Page 3 of 7 MLC was prepared from a Government hospital and in this regard they have examined DW1 and DW2 to prove the MLC of Appellant No.2. In the absence of explanation of injuries to the Appellant No.4 Chatre (since dead), the statement of the injured is not credit worthy and no reliance can be placed upon it. The weapon of offence that is the sword has not been recovered. The statement of the alleged eye witness Harpal Singh was recorded after about three months and thus he is a planted witness. Moreover, there are major contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 and hence the Appellants deserve to be acquitted. The complainant and the Appellants are three wheeler drivers and even as per the prosecution case, the incident had taken place in view of the sudden quarrel as the complainant took the passengers out of turn. Even if the case of the prosecution is to be believed at best an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC is made out and since the Appellants are not involved in any other case so they should be let out on probation.