LALIT RAI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellants to assail the judgment dated 12th October, 2010 and order on sentence dated 18th October 2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted for committing an offence punishable under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in case of default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) At the very outset, Mr. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that he was not challenging the conviction of the appellants but would confine his arguments so as to challenge the order on sentence.

(3.) Addressing arguments to challenge the order on sentence, Mr. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence of life imprisonment as awarded by learned trial court is highly excessive and disproportionate to the nature of injuries suffered by the victim. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the learned trial court did not appreciate that both the appellants had also received injuries at the hands of the victim as per MLCs placed on record by the prosecution. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial court also did not appreciate the fact that cross case vide FIR No. 20/08, under Section 324/34 of IPC was also registered against the victim Umed Kumar and his brother with the Police Station Nabi Karim. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that so far as appellant No.1 Lalit Rai is concerned, he had received lacerated wound over scalp which was stitched by six stitches while appellant No.2 Dharam Pal had received number of injuries on his person. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that neither the prosecution has produced the doctor, who had conducted the MLC of the victim nor the prosecution has produced the weapon of offence before the doctor to take his opinion as to whether the victim could suffer such injuries by the use of such recovered weapon. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that as per the MLC report of the victim, proved on record as Ex. PW-3/A, he had received injuries in his right lower abdomen which is 4.9 centimetres deep lacerated wound by sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that no evidence was placed on record to prove as to how long did the victim remained in the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the prosecution has also failed to establish as to what kind of surgery was performed on the victim and how long did he remain in hospital after the performance of the alleged surgery.