DAYA NAND CHANDELA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of instant application under Sec. 389(1) read with Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 'Cr.P.C.'), the applicant/appellant is seeking suspension of order of conviction dtd. 3/6/2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Rohini Court, Delhi (hereinafter 'learned Trial Court') in SC No. 181/2006 arising out of FIR bearing no. 969/2003, registered at Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi for offences punishable under Sec. 452/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that on 11/12/2008, at about 4:10 pm, Police Station Tilak Nagar, Delhi had received information regarding an attack on the residence of a Member of the Legislative Assembly ('MLA'). In response, DD no. 13-A Ex. PW-15/A had been recorded, and ASI Ishaq Mohd. had been assigned to the said case. After that, alongside Constable Sunil, ASI Ishaq Mohd. had proceeded to the place of the incident, where they had discovered that the injured/victims had already been taken to DDU Hospital, Delhi. Upon arrival at the hospital, one Sudesh Chandela i.e., PW-2 complainant/victim/injured had informed both police officials that they had loaned a sum of Rs.50,000.00 to an individual named Sufi, who had subsequently absconded without repayment. The complainant/victim had rented the said jhuggi of Sufi. Thereafter, the neighbours of the complainant/victim had informed him and his companions that one Manoj i.e., the co-accused herein had come and he had put a lock on the said jhuggi which had prompted the complainant Sudesh Chandela and his other companion to go to Dayanand Chandela's residence i.e., the present applicant/appellant as co-accused Manoj was his associate. Both of them had then confronted the accused persons regarding the lock, who had explained to them that they also had financial claims against Sufi and since he had not been paying the said amount, they had locked his jhuggi. During the said conversation, both the parties had heated arguments. Thereafter, the present applicant/appellant i.e., Dayanand Chandela had arrived at the scene in a car and had taken out a sword. Co-accused i.e Nawab had been armed with a sword, while other co-accused persons Manoj and Meghraj had appeared with sticks in hand. Thereafter, as per the allegations Dayanand Chandela had incited violence by shouting 'Maro salo Ko'. Upon seeing the situation escalate, Sudesh Chandela and his other companions had fled towards the house of the complainant for safety. However, the present applicant/appellant i.e., Dayanand Chandela, along with three other co-accused had followed them into their house and thereafter Dayanand Chandela had struck Sudesh Chandela/injured/victim with a sword blow, which Sudesh had somehow managed to block with his right hand. Further, as per the allegations, co-accused Nawab had also attacked him with a sword, while co-accused Manoj and Meghraj had assaulted the complainant/victim/injured with sticks. Furthermore, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused persons had also targeted Sudesh's father Harpal i.e., PW-4, his uncle Ram Gopal i.e., PW-3, and his brother Ravinder i.e., PW-1, who had intervened to protect the complainant/injured/victim i.e., Sudesh Chandela. Thereafter, the present FIR had been registered. After conclusion of trial, the accused persons namely Nawab, Manoj, Megh Raj and the present applicant Dayanand Chandela were convicted vide judgment dtd. 3/6/2010 by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant is seeking the relief qua suspension of order of conviction dtd. 3/6/2010 on the grounds that the present applicant, aged about 70 years, is a distinguished public figure with a long-standing record of dedicated political services rendered to the State of Delhi and at present, the applicant wishes to contest the Lok Sabha Elections 2024 to be held in Delhi on 25/5/2024, and the last date for filing of nomination for contesting Lok Sabha Elections in Delhi is 6/5/2024. It is further submitted that the present applicant has deep roots in the society and has clean antecedents and has never been convicted in any other case besides the one which is subject matter of the present appeal.