Birender Pal Singh @ Varinder Pal vs State

Hima Kohli, J.—The present application is filed by the Appellant praying inter alia for suspension of sentence passed against the Appellant in a case arising out of FIR No. 249/2003 lodged by the brother of the Appellant, Shri Surender Jit Singh u/s 307 IPC, registered with Police Station: Paschim Vihar, Delhi. Under the impugned judgment dated 22.07.2010 passed by the learned ASJ, it was held that the prosecution was able to prove its case against the Appellant beyond doubt. As a result, he was held guilty and convicted u/s 307 IPC. This was followed by the order on sentence dated 24.07.2010 where under, the Appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years coupled with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of which, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months.

Notice was issued on the present application on 30.07.2010. A status report was filed by the learned APP for the State, opposing the relief sought by the Appellant herein. It is stated that on enquiry conducted, it has been found that the mother of the Appellant is a widow, aged 80 years and has six sons including the Appellant herein and two daughters, all of whom are married. It is stated that the mother can be well looked after by her remaining sons and daughters in the absence of the Appellant. As far as the nominal roll of the Appellant is concerned, a perusal thereof shows that as on 29.09.2010, he had undergone sentence for a period of two months and 12 days. As on date, the said period of conviction undergone is 5 months and 22 days.

Counsel for the Appellant states that there are apparent inconsistencies in the evidence placed on the record, which the learned ASJ had failed to consider while deciding the impugned judgment. He states that in the FIR, it was mentioned that the injuries suffered by the complainant were caused by a knife but the police had shown recovery of a screw driver having blood on its tip from the possession of the accused. He states that this fact goes in favor of the Appellant to show that he has been wrongly convicted by the learned ASJ.

In the impugned judgment, the aforesaid aspect of material discrepancy was noted by the learned ASJ in para 7 and dealt with by observing that as per the complainant, PW-2 and his wife, PW-4, the complainant was either hit by a sharp weapon or a knife and since at that time, his face was pressed towards the ground, he could not identify the weapon. As a result, he thought that it was a knife but actually it was a screw driver. PW-4 also supported the statement made by PW-2 and stated that she could only see the handle of the weapon, which she identified as a knife because of the fact that she was terrified at the time when the incident occurred. The trial court held that a wrong description of the weapon of offence ought not to be fatal to the case. Further, the explanation for the injuries suffered by the victim as sought to be offered by the Appellant is that the injuries were self-inflicted and not caused by him. This aspect was examined by the learned ASJ, who noted that when such a suggestion was put to the doctor, PW-9, he replied that it is not possible for a normal person to inflict injuries on their own chest, like the ones that were found on the complainant''s chest.

Taking a prima-facie view of the present case and having regard to the aforesaid discussion made in this regard by the trial court and considering the fact that the MLC conducted on the victim established that there were stab injuries on the neck, chest and shoulder of the victim, which were grievous in nature, at present, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought in the present application. The application is dismissed.