CRL.A./488/2016 of WASIM Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+CRL.A. 488/2016

WASIM

..... Appellant

Through Mr Harsh Prabhakar, Advocate(DHCLSC)

versus

STATE..... RespondentThrough Ms Meenakshi Chauhan, APP for State.SI Shailendra, P.S. Ghazipur present.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUO R R%17.01.2020

1.The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning judgmentdated 03.03.2016 passed by the ASJ-03(east), Karkardooma Courts, Delhiwhereby he was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 ofthe Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to undergoten years of rigorous imprisonment and was imposed fine of ₹50,000/- and in default of payment of such fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonmentfor period of one year.

2.The appellant was prosecuted pursuant to registration of an FIR (FIRbearing no. 240/2013 under Section 307 of the IPC registered with PSGazipur). It was alleged that the petitioner had attacked the prosecutrix(named withheld to avoid any ignominy) as she had not acceded to his

pressure to marry her and her marriage has been fixed with another boy. Shealleged that she was sweeping her house on 06.06.2013 and no one waspresent in the house. The petitioner had come to the house at about 11:00 amand had quarrelled with her for not agreeing to marry him. He had,thereafter, attacked her with an iron chopper and had delivered two blows onher head. She had raised an alarm and the appellant had left the spot leavingbehind the weapon.

3.The prosecutrix was medically examined and the evidence indicatesthat she had received an insertion incised wound on her head extending rightup to the right side of her nose. The said wound measured 10cms x 1cm. Shewas also inflicted an incised wound on vertex and back of the headmeasuring 6cms x 0.5 cm. The injuries inflicted on the prosecutrix weregrievous. During the investigation, the iron chopper used to commit theoffence was recovered.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant fairly concedes thatthe evidence obtaining in this case clearly establishes that the appellant hadcommitted the offence for which he was charged. He has restricted hisarguments to seek reduction in the sentence awarded to the appellant, asawarded to the appellant by the order on sentence dated 14.06.2016.

5.The nominal roll furnished by the authorities indicates that as on28.12.2019, the appellant has undergone the custody of six years, fourmonths and fifteen days. During the said period, he has also earnedremission of one year, three months and twenty-two days. As of that date,the appellant is required to serve for two years, three months and twenty-three days. The nominal roll also indicates that his conduct in the jail has

been satisfactory.

6.There is little doubt that the offence committed by the appellant is agrave offence. In terms of Section 307 of the IPC, the offender is liable to besentenced to life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for aterm that may extend to ten years. Considering the consequences which theinjury inflicted by the appellant would have had on the life of the victim; thesentence awarded by the Trial Court cannot be stated to be disproportionate.It is commensurate with the offence for which the petitioner has beenconvicted.

7.Having stated the above, this Court is of the view that there are certainmitigating factors which warrant consideration. The first and foremost factoris the age of the appellant. The current nominal roll indicates the appellant’sage to be twenty-six years. Thus, at the time of committing of the offence,the petitioner would be under twenty years of age. The appellant has noprior criminal involvement.

8.In addition to the above mitigating circumstances, the appellant isalso suffering from varicose veins and the medical report enclosed alongwith the nominal roll indicates that he was operated for the same in themonth of February, 2019. There has been recurrence of the said conditionand for which he is undergoing treatment at the All India Institute ofMedical Sciences.

9.Considering the mitigating circumstances, this Court is of the viewthat the sentence awarded to the petitioner ought be reduced to eight and ahalf years. This would entail the appellant undergoing actual custody forabout seven years. It is so directed.

10.It is clarified that this Court is not interfering with the fine imposed onthe appellant and he would be required to pay fine of ₹50,000/- and in default of the same, to serve rigorous imprisonment for further period ofone year, as sentenced.

11.The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

JANUARY 17, 2020pkv/RK

VIBHU BAKHRU, J