SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 14103

DELHI HIGH COURT
YOGESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) – Respondent
CRL.A.-452/2009



NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000720

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000721

CRL. A. 451/2009 & 452/2009

Page 1 of 4

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 17.01.2023

Pronounced on: 02.02.2023

+

CRL. A. 451/2009

DINESH KUMAR

...Appellant

Through:

Mr.

Archit

Upadhayay,

Advocate (DHCLSC) and Ms.

Charu Sharma, Advocates.

Versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

...Respondent

Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for State

+

CRL. A. 452/2009

YOGESH KUMAR

...Appellant

Through:

Mr.

Archit

Upadhayay,

Advocate (DHCLSC) and Ms.

Charu Sharma, Advocates.

Versus

STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

...Respondent

Through:

Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar,

APP for State

CORAM:

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SWARANA KANTA SHARMA

JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1.

The present appeals under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) have been filed by appellants against the

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:06.02.2023

18:25:26

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000720

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000721

CRL. A. 451/2009 & 452/2009

Page 2 of 4

judgment dated 23.05.2009 and order on sentence dated 26.05.2009

passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka Courts, New

Delhi in case FIR bearing no. 702/2005, registered at Police Station

Dabri, New Delhi.

2.

The above-captioned appeals were admitted and the sentences

of appellants were suspended vide order dated 05.06.2009 by this

Court.

3.

Briefly stated, the case of prosecution, before the learned Trial

Court, was that on 05.10.2005 at around 9:30 AM, when the

complainant Bhagirath and his son Jaswant were passing by a store in

Sagarpur to catch a bus for Paharganj, Delhi, two persons i.e. the

appellants herein had come on a motorcycle, parked the same in front

of the complainant, and had taken out an iron rod from the

motorcycle and started hitting the complainant on his legs. As a

result, the complainant had fallen down and when his son had made

efforts to save the complainant, he too was hit on the head by the

appellants with iron rod. It was further alleged that after hitting

mercilessly, appellants had left the spot and complainant was brought

to hospital by his son Jaswant. Initially, FIR bearing no. 702/2005

was registered against the appellants and other co-accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 308/34 of IPC. Thereafter, after

completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and Sections

341/323/120B of IPC were added.

4.

The learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 23.05.2009,

convicted the appellants under Sections 325/34 of IPC and sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of

Digitally Signed

By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN

Signing Date:06.02.2023

18:25:26

Signature Not Verified

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000720

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2023/DHC/000721

CRL. A. 451/2009 & 452/2009

Page 3 of 4

Rs. 5,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for three months.

5.

At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants, upon

instructions, submits that the appellants do not propose to assail the

impugned judgment on merits and would like to confine the

submissions in these appeals, to the point of sentence alone. It is

stated that since the incident in the present case is 17 years old, the

sentence of the appellants be reduced to the period already undergone

by them.

6.

This Court has heard the parties and perused the material on

record.

7.

In the present case, the incident had taken place on 05.10.2005

and the appellants were convicted by the learned Trial Court on

23.05.2009, whereby they were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment

for a period of three (03) years along with fine. The fine imposed

upon the appellants had already been deposited by them. As per the

Nominal Roll, both the appellants had remained in Judicial Custody

for about 1 month and 26 days, and their conduct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top