JAGBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jagbir Singh (A-1), Daryao Singh (A-2), Raj Singh (A-3), Ramesh Chand (A-4), Sardar Singh (A-5), Inder Singh (A-6), Ajit (A-7), Baljeet (A-8), Daljeet (A-9), Jasmer (A-10), Gulab (A-11), Kartar Singh (A-12), Suraj Mal (A-13) and Jasvir (A-14) were arrested by the police of PS Punjabi Bagh in case FIR No. 717/85 and sent for trial on the allegations that on 29.10.1985 in the morning time at village Pitampura, they formed an unlawful assembly, the object of which was to give beatings to Raghubir Singh, Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender Singh. They all along with their associate Girdhari (since PO) pursuant to the common object of the unlawful assembly inflicted injuries to Raghubir Singh in an attempt to murder him. They also caused injuries to Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender Singh. During the course of investigation, the accused persons were apprehended and arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them for committing offences punishable under Sections 147/148/149/307/323/34 IPC. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to establish their guilt. In 313 statements, the accused persons denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held them guilty for committing offences under Sections 324/34 IPC. It is relevant to note that A-5 and A-7 died during trial and proceedings against them stood abated. By an order on sentence dated 26.05.2000, A-6 and A-11 were released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety each in the like amount. Other convicts were awarded RI for one year with fine Rs. 2,500/-, each. Being aggrieved, the convicts have preferred the appeal. It is further apt to note that during appeal, A-12 expired and the appeal stood abated qua him. It was further reported that A-6 and A-11 who were released on probation also expired. The State did not challenge the judgment.

(2.) During the course of arguments, appellants' counsel on instructions stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge their conviction under Sections 324/34 IPC. He, however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellants' have suffered the agony of trial for more than twenty five years and are not previous convicts. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor has no objection to consider the mitigating circumstances.

(3.) Since the contesting appellants have given up challenge to the findings recorded under Sections 324/34 IPC, their conviction as recorded by the learned Trial Court in the presence of overwhelming evidence is confirmed. The incident is dated 29.10.1985. Apparently, the appellants have suffered ordeal of trial / appeal for more than 27 years. They also remained in custody for some duration at the initial stage of investigation. It is significant to note that cross case vide FIR No. 713/85 under Sections 147/148/149/452/307/34 IPC 'State vs. Ram Niwas etc.' (SC No. 1/91) was registered against eighteen accused persons including the injured in this case and eight individuals sustained injuries in the said FIR. However, the accused persons therein were given benefit of doubt and were acquitted on 20.05.2000. The prosecution did not offer explanation as to how and under what circumstances, the complainant side in the said FIR sustained injuries. Vide order dated 13.08.2013 State was directed to verify antecedents of the appellants. State filed the report only in respect of A-1 which revealed that he was not involved in any other criminal case and had clean antecedents. Despite orders dated 17.09.2013, State failed to furnish antecedents of the other appellants and to produce on record any document to show their involvement in any other criminal case. Interest of justice would be served if the appellants are granted probation and at the same time compensate the injured persons. Appellants' counsel has no objection to pay reasonable compensation to the victims. A-1 was in service with DTC whereas A-10 was employed in Education Department, Govt. of Delhi and A-13 was in service with MCD. Considering all these mitigating circumstances, the appellants are ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/-, each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the direction to appear and receive sentence whenever called upon during the aforesaid period and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The appellants shall pay compensation @ Rs. 25,000/-, each and shall deposit the amount within fifteen days before the Trial Court. Rs. 1 lac shall be paid to the victim Raghubir Singh who sustained grievous injuries. Remaining amount would be disbursed in equal proportions to other victims Ram Narain, Ranbir Singh, Sukhbir Singh and Vijender Singh. If the victims are not available, the amount shall be distributed to their legal heirs.