Satish v. State

SUNITA GUPTA, J DECEMBER 11, 2014/as

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 11th December, 2014 + CRL.A.633/2013 & Crl. MB. 2241/2013, Crl. MA.2623/2014 & Crl. MB. 1407/2013 SATISH ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Arun Aggarwal, Advocate Versus STATE ..... Respondent Through: Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State along with SI Mousam Chani, PS Mayur Vihar % CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA : SUNITA GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.05.2013 and order on sentence dated 10.05.2013 in Sessions Case No.31/12 arising out of FIR No. 323/10 whereby the appellant was convicted u/s 307/452 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 5 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 307 IPC in default to undergo 6 months SI and 3 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- u/s 452 IPC in default to undergo 6 months SI, present appeal has been preferred. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant under instructions from the appellant submitted that he does not challenge the conviction of the appellant for offence u/s 307/452 IPC. However, he prayed for a liberal view in the quantum of sentence on the ground that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of approximately 8 months; parties are closely related to each other. With the intervention of close relatives an amicable settlement has been arrived at between the parties; the injured have been duly compensated by paying a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-; a sum of Rs. one lakh is already lying deposited with the Registrar General of this Court which may be disbursed to the injured; fine has already been deposited. Reliance was placed on Basara and Ors. v. State and Anr. pronounced by a single Bench of this court on 03.09.2007. 3. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, on the other hand, submitted that keeping in view the fact that injuries were inflicted on a vital part of the body i.e. neck, hence no leniency is warranted. 4. The conviction of the appellant was rightly not challenged by learned counsel for the appellant inasmuch as the prosecution case lies in a narrow compass. The appellant is mausa of injured Kapil. Earlier he used to reside with his family in the house of complainant – Kapil as tenant. Few days prior to the incident, there was an altercation between kapil and son of the accused on the issue of sitting on the roof. Satish vacated the house on 19.07.2010. On 01.08.2010 at about 8.30 p.m, father-in-law Kamal Kumar, mother-in-law Urmila Devi and brother-in-law Shubham had come to his house. Suddenly accused Satish forcibly entered the house with a sword in his hand. He was under the influence of liquor and attacked them with sword due to which Kapil sustained injuries on his neck and Shubham received injuries on both his hands. On hearing the noise, neighbours collected at the spot. Accused was overpowered and sword was snatched from his possession. The injured were rushed to LBS hospital by PCR van. During the course of investigation, accused was arrested and charge sheet was submitted against him u/s 307/458/506 IPC and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act. 5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined ten witnesses. After meticulously examining the evidence led by the prosecution and the defence taken by the accused vide impugned judgment dated 06.05.2013, the appellant was convicted u/s 452/307 IPC and sentenced separately. The case of the prosecution stands substantiated from the testimony of the injured witnesses which find due corroboration from PW4 Urmila Devi, PW5 Kamal and the medical evidence. Hence, no interference is called for in the conviction order. 6. A joint application was filed by the appellant and the complainant/injured Kapil Beniwal and Shubham for disposal of the appeal consequent to the settlement arrived at between the parties. In Basara and Ors.(supra), the FIR was registered against the petitioner u/s 307/34 IPC and the proceedings were pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge when