Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3744
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
Abdul Nafis - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
CRL.A. 614 of 2017
Decided On : 25-09-2017
For the Appellant :Mr.M.L.Yadav, Advocate with Sh.Iqbal Miyan – brother of the appellant.
For the Respondent: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the State. Complainant/injured in person.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the court's discretion to modify the quantum of sentence based on the appellant's remorse and agreement to compensate the injured party.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Conviction and Sentence - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the offense punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and the appellant's conviction and sentence under the same. The key legal provisions of Section 307 IPC were interpreted in the context of the appellant's guilt and the quantum of sentence imposed.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution's case involved an incident where the appellant was convicted for committing an offense under Section 307/34 IPC based on an altercation resulting in injuries to the victim. The injured party later agreed to a compensation amount, leading to a plea for a lenient view on the quantum of sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offense punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000. However, the court later modified the sentence to five years considering the appellant's remorse and agreement to compensate the injured party.
Issues: The issues revolved around the appellant's guilt under Section 307/34 IPC, the quantum of sentence, and the agreement for compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the appellant's remorse, the injured party's agreement to compensation, and the interpretation of Section 307 IPC in the context of the case.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent of modifying the order on the sentence, reducing the rigorous imprisonment from ten years to five years, subject to the payment of the balance compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the injured.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
1. The appellant has filed the instant appeal impugning the judgment dated 9th May, 2017 and order on sentence dated 24th May, 2017 whereby he has been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, which shall be paid to the injured/victim, and in case the fine amount is not deposited, to undergo SI for two years.
2. Briefly stating, the case of the prosecution is that on 11th November, 2015 at 10.45 p.m. an information was received at PS Seelam Pur from B-51 Operator, Police Control Room to the effect that ‘E-Block Seelam Pur Thane ke samne park ke kone par yahan ek aadmi ki garden aadhi kati padi hai’ which was recorded vide DD No.33-B. The said DD was marked to SI Rizwan Khan who was informed on phone. SI Rizwan Khan reached the spot along with Ct. Nareshveer and found the injured lying there. The identity of the injured was revealed as Mohsin, S/o Late Sh.Hanif R/o H.No.169, G.No.5, Ambedkar Basti, Maujpur, New Delhi. No eye witness was found at the spot. In the meantime ERV vehicle from the police station also reached there and SI Rizwan Khan took the injured to GTB Hospital. Since the injured was opined ‘unfit for statement’ and no eye witness was available, he collected the MLC of the injured and got the case registered under Section 307 IPC. Crime team was called and spot was got inspected.
3. On 17th November, 2015 SI Rizwan obtained the opinion from the doctor about the condition of the injured who was opined to be fit and conscious. On the same day i.e. on 17th November, 2015 the injured Mohsin made statement to the following effect:-
‘Mera naam Mohsin hai. Mere papa ka naam Mohd. Hanif hai. Makan No.D-169 Maujpur Ambedkar Basti.
Nafis ne phone karke bulaya Mohsin bhai apne paise le jao main seelampur aaya. Nafis ne apne ke paas ek makan mein bitha diya jo ban raha tha aur kaha main paise leke aata hoon. Wo ghar gaya phir do jane aaye mere samne khade ho gaye. Maine kaha lao bhai paise to Nafis ne jeb mein haath diya aur kisi tej dhar wali cheez se meri garden par waar kiya. Dusre ne mere chehre par. Nafis ne to mujhe jaan se maarne ki niyat ki thi. Main wahan se bhaga aur Naqi doctor ki dukan ke paas ja gira. Uske baad mujhe kuch pata nahi.
Nafis patli gali mein rehta hai Seelampur mein D-Block mein aur ek Baawarchi ka bhai hai’
4. The above statement was signed by the injured Mohsin at point-A and by Taseem– brother of the injured at point-B.
5. On the basis of above statement, accused/appellant Abdul Nafis was arrested. During investigation, call detail record of mobile phone numbers of the accused/appellant and that of injured Mohsin were obtained and exhibits were sent to FSL. Since the identity of the associates of accused/appellant Abdul Nafis could not be ascertained, the charge-sheet was filed against appellant Abdul Nafis only for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
6. Appellant Abdul Nafis was charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 15 witness in all. Accused/appellant was also examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating evidence appearing against him wherein he stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. He had purchased an inverter from Mohsin (injured) and payment of inverter had also been made by him. But Mohsin was demanding interest for the said amount which he refused to pay and that is why he had been implicated in this case.
7. The learned Trial Court after concluding the trial held the appellant guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced him in the manner aforesaid.
8. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence by filing this appeal.
9. Pursuant to the production warrants issued, the appellant was produced from custody on 2nd
