Samay Singh v. State NCT of Delhi

ORDER o/"

08.07.2013 The above-captionedtwo petitionsarise out of commonjudgmentoi 16*'' March, 2012, passedby the learnedMetropolitanMagistrateand order of 18'"February,2013 passedby the AppellateCourtupholdmgpetitioners' convictionin FIRNo.316/96underSection326/323/34IPC registeredat PS Vikaspuri, Delhi. Vide order of 18"' February, 2013 the substantive sentence imposed upon petitionerswas reduced from one year SI to six Crl.Rev.P. Nos.136&182 Page1 months SI while sentenceof fme of?5,000/-with defaultclause had been maintained. Learnedcounselfor petitionersdoes not assail the impugned judgment on merits but submits that nature of offence committed by petitionersdoes not fall underSection326 IPG as it has not been opinedby any medicalexpertthat injuriescausedto the injuredwere endangeringlife. Itis submittedon behalfofpetitionersthatpetitioner-OmPrakashis aged 65 years and petitioner-^amaySingh is aged 55 years and they have already remainedbehindbars in this casefor aboutone month,havefacedthe agony ofthese proceedingssince June, 1996 and are leadingretiredlife and they are not involved in any other case and so, it is a fit case for grant of probationto petitioners. LearnedAdditionalPublicProsecutorfor Statesupportsthe impugned judgment and submits that benefit of probation cannot be extended to petitionersas theyare convictedunderSection326 IPG, whichis punishable •for life imprisonment. Upon hearingand on perusalof impugnedjudgmentand the material on record,I find that convictionofpetitionersunder Section326 IPG is not sustainablefor the reasonthatthereis no opinionby any medicalexpertthat the injur^causedto the injuredSuratSinghendangeredhis life. However, in view of the depositionof PW-1 Jitender,I find that the petitionersare liableto be convictedfor the offenceunder Section325/323/34IPG as it is not borne out from the record that injured Surat Singh had remained hospitalizeddue to grievous injuries suffered by him. Accordingly,the convictionofpetitionersis alteredfrom Section326 ofIPG to Section325 of IPG read with Sections323 and 34 IPG. However, on the quantumof sentence, I find that the courts below have not extended the benefit,of Crl.Rev.P. Nos.136&182 of2013 . ^ probationto petitionersin view of their convictionfor the offence under Section 326 IPC, and rightly so. However, since.the conviction of petitionersnow stands altered from Section 326 of IPC to 325 of IPC, therefore,thereis no barto grantprobationtopetitioners. Accordingly, both these petitions are disposed of while granting benefitofprobationto petitioners,who shallappearbeforethe trialcourton 22"'^ July, 2013 to furnishthe probationbond in the sum of^10,000/-each for maintaininggood behaviourfor aperiodof one year with one suretyof like anibunt"to the satisfaction of trial court. The fine deposited by petitioners is converted to cost of proceedings and compensation of ?10,000/-eachshallbe depositedby petitionersbeforethe trialcourton 22" July, 2013. Compensationof^10,000/-each so depositedby petitionersbe releasedby trial courtto the injuredPW-1 -Jitender. Upon completionof period of probation.ProbationOfficer shall submit the report to the trial court. In casepetitionersdo not maintaingood conductduringthe periodof probation then they shall be liable to undergo the substantivesentence alreadyawarded. Trialcourtbe apprisedofthis orderforthwith. Boththe petitionsstanddisposedofaccordingly. I: Dasti. JULY 08, 2013 vn Crl.Rev.P. Nos. 136 &182 of 2013 (SUNIL GAUR) Judge Page 3

$-9 & 10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI (i) + CRL.REV.P.136/2013 SAMAYSINGH Petitioner Through: Mr. JoginderKumar&Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates versus STATENCT OF DELHI Respondent Through: Mr. MukeshGupta,AdditionalPubhc Prosecutor for State (ii) + CRL.REV.P.182/2013 OM PRAKASH Petitioner Through; Mr. JoginderKumar&Mr. Jayant Tewari, Advocates versus STATE Respondent Through; Mr. MukeshGupta,AdditionalPublic Prosecutor for State CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICESUNILGAUR