SUNIL @ TIGAN @ AKHILESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24.1.2001 and order on sentence dated 25.1.2001 passed by the Court of ASJ, Delhi, in case No. 34/95, FIR No. 264/93, under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the, "IPC"), P.S. Samaipur Badli, by virtue of which, the appellant has been awarded sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as, "RI") for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/ - for the offence under Section 307, IPC, and in case of default of the payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year.

(2.) THE necessary facts, as noticed by the court below are that in the night intervening 2nd and 3rd of July, 1993 S.I. Satish Kumar (I.O.) received the copy of the DD entry from the constable Ranjit Singh, acting upon which he proceeded to D -98, Yadav Nagar, Libas Pur, Delhi, the place of incident, and from where he came to know that all the injured persons along with the appellant had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital by a PCR van and an ambulance. Leaving behind constable Ranjit Singh for preserving the spot, S.I. Satish Kumar, himself along with constable Rajinder went to the Hospital. In the hospital the injured persons, namely, Sanjivan, Annu, Radhey Shyam, Vimal Chand, Meera, Ram Singh, Poonam, Sunil Kumar and Deep Chand were found admitted and fit to make a statement. S.I. Satish Kumar recorded the statement of the injured complainant - Meera, that appellant, Sunil @ Tigana, resides in front of her house; about three to four days prior to the date of incident, the appellant had misbehaved with her sister (Annu) at night when she was sleeping and when she raised an alarm, people gathered over there and reprimanded the appellant and then let him go. On the night of 2.7.1993 at about 12:00 a.m., complainant, Meera was not feeling well and was awake. The appellant came, abused her in a filthy language and asked for her sister, Annu. On being asked about the reasons, the appellant started beating the complainant with a "Danda.. The complainant, Meera raised an alarm, as a result of which the family members and neighbours came to the spot. At that time appellant took out a knife, started wielding the same and began causing injuries to all those who came in his contact and were trying to prevent him from causing damage. Annu, the sister of the complainant, Poonam, Sanjivan, Radhey Shyam, Vimal Chand, Ram Singh, Deep Chand were all injured by the appellant with the knife. The appellant tried to escape from the spot, however, he was chased, caught and over -powered. The "Danda. and the knife were also recovered from the spot. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under Section 307, IPC, for causing grievous injuries by a sharp weapon on the person of Sanjivan; dangerous injury by a sharp weapon on the person of Radhey Shyam; simple injuries on the person of Vimal Chand by a sharp weapon; and, simple injury by a blunt weapon on the person of Annu. The appellant was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.

(3.) PER contra learned Counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt. He submits that the presence of the appellant at the spot has not been denied. The "Danda. and the knife were recovered from the spot and besides this, the appellant was also over powered by the neighbours. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the ingredients of Section 307 IPC are made out. The appellant had misbehaved with Annu three/four days prior to the date of the incident and when Annu had raised an alarm, people had gathered over there and reprimanded the appellant. Later on, the appellant yet again visited the house of Meera and Annu. It is thus contended that the appellant had a motive to visit the house of Annu again and this time he was armed with a "Danda. and a knife which would show that the appellant had visited the place of the incident duly armed and with a motive, thus, mens rea is proved. Learned Counsel for the State contends that in fact the trial court has taken a very lenient view in the matter and has only awarded sentence to the appellant for two years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, where in fact nine (9) persons were injured in the incident and out of those nine persons, two (Sanjivan and Radhey Shyam) had suffered grievous and dangerous injuries. Learned APP submits that in the facts of this case it would be relevant to consider whether the appellant, convicted under Section 307, IPC could have been convicted under Section 326, IPC.