Full Judgment Text
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: August 23, 2017
% Judgment Delivered on: August 29, 2017
+ CRL.A. 840/2001
JASBIR SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anurag Abhishek, Advocate
Versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State with SI Sanjay Singh, PS
Ambedkar Nagar
AND
+ CRL.A. 398/2002
JAGJIT SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anurag Abhishek, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State with SI Sanjay Singh, PS
Ambedkar Nagar.
AND
+ CRL.A. 399/2002
VIRENDRA SINGH ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.Anurag Abhishek, Advocate
Versus
STATE ..... Respondent
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 1 of 18
Through: Ms.Kusum Dhalla, APP for the
State with SI Sanjay Singh, PS
Ambedkar Nagar
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
JUDGMENT
1. Feeling aggrieved by their conviction and sentence awarded
th
vide judgment dated 19 October, 2001 and order on sentence dated
rd
23 October, 2001 passed in Sessions Case No.292/1996, the
appellants Jasbir Singh, Jagjit Singh and Virender Singh have filed
these three appeals, which are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
th
2. Vide impugned judgment dated 19 October, 2011, the
appellants have been held guilty under Section 307/34 IPC. Vide
rd
order on sentence dated 23 October, 2001, they have been sentenced
to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and
in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for one month.
th
3. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 24 January, 1990
PW-1 Sh.Pradeep Parwa, S/o Sh.Sudhir Ranjan Parwa, resident of
E-II, 256 Madangir, New Delhi visited the police station and informed
about the quarrel going on with his brother Akhtar Siddiqui near E-II,
288-89, Madangir, which was recorded vide DD No.8 Ex.PW3/A.
4. ASI Chandan Singh (PW-5) along with HC Hukum Singh
(PW-7) left for the spot. On reaching there he found scooter No.DIU
755 was parked near lavatories, lot of blood was found at the spot and
broken hockey stick, one bamboo stick and one cap were also lying
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 2 of 18
there. Injured had already been removed to AIIMS. Head Constable
Hukam Singh was left to guard the spot and he reached AIIMS where
injured Irshad Akhtar (PW-2) was found admitted. He was opined to
be unfit for the statement.
5. In the hospital he met the complainant Shabnam Akhtar (PW-
4), wife of the injured who made statement exhibit PW-4/A on the
basis of which FIR No.35/90 under Sections 307/506/34 IPC,
Ex.PW-3/B was registered. During treatment of PW-2 several efforts
were made to record his statement but he was not found fit for
statement. Even after he was shifted to Mool Chand Khairati Ram
Hospital, he remained unfit for statement.
th
6. On 14 February, 1990, the injured was declared fit for
statement and thereafter his statement was recorded. Exhibits were
sent to CFSL and after completion of investigation all the appellants
were sent to face trial.
7. During investigation appellant Jagjit Singh @ Bali was arrested
on the basis of secret information and the appellants, Jasbir Singh and
nd
Virender surrendered in the Court on 2 February, 1990. They were
made to join the investigation and efforts, which proved unsuccessful,
were made to get the knife recovered.
8. During trial all the convicts pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of its case. In the
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the convicts claimed their
false implication as the injured was a cheat. Since he was facing trial
in many cheating cases and Raja Ram, the leader of that area and Tej
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 3 of 18
Singh, father of the convict Jasbir wanted him to leave that colony.
They preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
9. Learned Trial Court vide impugned judgment held the convicts
guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC for the
following reasons:-
(i) The nature of the injuries suffered by the complainant was
opined to be dangerous and the weapons of offence used to cause such
injuries were knife, hockey sticks and bamboo sticks.
(ii) The statement of the injured is inspiring confidence, hence,
merely because the complainant Shabnam Akhtar (PW-4) and the
informant Pradeep (PW-1) have turned hostile, is no reason to
disbelieve the testimony of the injured.
(iii) Non-joining of the public witnesses, who gathered there at the
time of occurrence, is not sufficient to disbelieve the testimony of the
injured.
th
(iv) The occurrence has taken place in the afternoon on 24 January,
1990 and time of admission of the injured in AIIMS is 3:30 p.m.
(v) Involvement of the injured in cheating cases is no ground for
false implication of the convicts when no enmity has been shown
between the convicts and the injured.
(vi) Inability of the injured (PW-2) to recollect as to who caused the
first injury or who caused the last injury, is not enough to discard his
testimony.
10. The appellants are challenging their conviction and order on
sentence inter alia on the following grounds:
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 4 of 18
(i) The two prosecution eye-witnesses namely informant Pradeep
(PW-1) and the complainant Shabnam Akhtar (PW-4) who is wife of
the injured PW-2, though examined as eye-witnesses have not deposed
anything incriminating against the convicts and have not identified
them to be the assailants.
(ii) During his examination, as PW-2 Sh.Irshad Akhtar – the injured
failed to identify the convict Virender Singh.
(iii) Two other persons named by the injured Irshad Akhtar (PW-2)
were Raja Ram and Tej Singh, father of the appellant Jasbir Singh but
they have not been chargesheeted which renders the testimony of the
injured not credit worthy.
(iv) The appellants were not subjected to Test Identification Parade.
(v) There are material discrepancies in the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses which have not been considered by the learned
Trial Court to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
(vi) Prosecution failed to prove any motive for the appellants to
commit the crime.
(vii) The sentence awarded to the appellants is harsh. Since they
have faced the agony of trial for about 11 years and had no criminal
antecedents a lenient view could have been taken by the learned Trial
Court.
(viii) This appeal is also pending for almost 15 years and the
appellants have not been involved in any other case.
11. I have heard Mr.Anurag Abhishek, Advocate for the appellants,
Ms.Kusum Dhala, APP for the State and also carefully considered the
evidence, the circumstances and the probabilities of the case.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 5 of 18
12. Perusal of the LCR discloses that criminal law was set into
motion when information was received vide DD No.8A Ex.PW-3/A at
PS Ambedkar Nagar from PW-1 Pradeep, son of Sh.Sudhir Ranjan
Parwa, resident of E-II, 256 Dr.Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi, aged
about 21 years. The informant reported about the quarrel between his
brother Akhtar Siddiqui and many other persons near E-II/288-89 near
State Bank. On receipt of the said information ASI Chandan Singh
along with HC Hukam Singh was sent to the spot to attend the call.
ASI Chandan Singh has been examined as PW-5 and HC Hukam
Singh (ASI at the date of his examination) has been examined as
PW-7 by the prosecution. PW-5 ASI Chandan Singh and PW-7 HC
Hukam Singh who first visited the spot had proved the following
facts:
(i) On reaching the spot scooter of the injured, DIU 755, was found
parked.
(ii) Blood was lying near the scooter and one black cap, pieces of
broken hockey sticks, one bamboo stick (danda) having blood stains
were lying there.
(iii) Since injured had already been removed to the hospital (AIIMS)
leaving PW-7 HC Hukam Singh to guard the spot, PW-5 HC ASI
Chandan Singh visited the Hospital. However, the doctor declared
him unfit for statement.
(iv) PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar, wife of the injured was present in the
hospital and on the basis of her statement Ex.PW-4/A, FIR 35/90
under Section 307/506/34 IPC, Ex.PW-3/B was registered.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 6 of 18
(v) The articles lying at the spot and the articles handed over by the
hospital were seized and deposited in the malkhana.
(vi) PW-9 Dr.R.Srinivas, Senior Resident, AIIMS had stated that the
MLC No.5842 Ex.PW-9/A in respect of Irshad Akhtar was prepared
by Dr.R.Mittal who had left the hospital and his present whereabouts
were not known. As per the MLC the nature of the injuries were
opined to be dangerous with blunt and sharp edged weapons.
PW-8 J.K.Ahuja, Record Clerk, Mool Chand Khairati Ram Hospital
had been examined to identify the handwriting and signature of
Dr.M.K.Gupta, Dr.Sanskriti Bangia working under Dr.K.K.Joshi in
respect of the endorsement made by them on the application PW-8/A.
These endorsements pertain to the patient being found unfit for
statement. These endorsements have been made on the application
filed by PW-5 ASI Chandan Singh to seek permission to record the
statement of the injured. However, injured was opined to be unfit for
th th
statement on 25 January, 1990 at 7:30 PM and 26 January, 1990 at
7:00 PM.
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANTS
13. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that in this
case the appellants are not disputing the occurrence or the nature of
injury suffered by PW-2 Irshad Akhtar. The appellants are disputing
their involvement in this occurrence. PW-1 Pradeep - brother and
PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar – wife of the injured, who are the
eye-witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have
not identified them to be the assailants.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 7 of 18
14. Learned Trial Court could not have given undue weightage to
the statement of the injured witness as he has admitted in his cross-
examination that he is facing trial in four-five cases of cheating. Thus
the antecedents of the injured are not clean. The appellants have been
falsely implicated in this case as one Raja Ram who is admittedly the
leader of the area and Tej Singh, father of the appellant Jasbir Singh
wanted him to leave that area because of his involvement in cheating
cases. Due to this reason the appellants have been falsely implicated
by him to settle his score against them. It has also been contended that
knife was not recovered in this case.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that despite
crowd being gathered, no independent public witness has come
forward to prove that the injuries suffered by PW-2 Irshad Akhtar
have been caused by the appellants. Further the injured claimed that
he remained unconscious for about 10-15 days. He was initially taken
to AIIMS then how and by whom he was got shifted to Mool Chand
Khairati Ram Hospital, has remained unexplained. He has been
shifted to a private hospital just to remain hospitalized for a longer
duration so as to prove on record that the nature of injuries suffered by
him were dangerous and life threatening to ensure that the appellants
are convicted for a graver offence. It has also been contended that the
appellants had no motive to give beating to the injured. It has been
contended that when the brother and wife of the appellant have
preferred not to support the prosecution case, they should have been
acquitted in this case.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 8 of 18
16. Learned APP for the State submits that the statement of the
injured is sufficient to upheld the order of conviction as no motive has
been attributed for their false implication.
17. No doubt PW-1 Pradeep and PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar have not
supported the case of the prosecution but merely because they have
been declared hostile does not have the effect of effacing their
testimony. So far as hostile witnesses i.e. PW-1 Pradeep and PW-4
Shabnam Akhtar are concerned, the Court can rely upon that portion
of the evidence which appears to be reliable. Just because some of the
prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, prosecution case cannot be
discarded for that sole reason.
18. In a three Judge Bench judgment reported as Bhagwan Singh vs.
State of Haryana (1976) 1 SCC 389, the witness Jagat Singh was
declared hospital. The appellant was convicted under Section 165 A
of Indian Penal Code. It was contended that the whole case is
destroyed since the witness was declared as hostile. In the aforesaid
decision the Court held that there is no legal bar to base a conviction
upon his testimony if corroborated by other reliable evidence.
19. The legal position is well settled that evidence of hostile witness
cannot be rejected into merely because prosecution choose to treat him
hostile and cross-examined him and that evidence of such hostile
witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off record altogether
and same can be accepted to extent their version is found to be
dependable on careful scrutiny thereof. [Ref. Khujji @ Surendra
Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853].
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 9 of 18
20. The testimony of PW-1 Pradeep and PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar to
the extent they support the prosecution case can be considered by the
Court while trying to ascertain as to whether the statement of the
injured is credit worthy. DD No.8A Ex.PW-3/A has been recorded at
th
3:00 PM on 24 January, 1990. The time of incident is same as the
injured has been admitted to the hospital (AIIMS) at 3:30 PM. The
informant (PW-1) personally visited the police station and only then
PW-5 ASI Chandan Singh and PW-7 HC Hukam Singh left for the
spot. Scene of crime is not disputed. So even if PW-1 Pradeep has
preferred not to support the prosecution case regarding the incident, he
has nowhere stated that he did not visit the police station to report
about the incident recorded vide DD Ex.PW3/A. Although in DD
No.8A Ex.PW-3/A the information Pradeep referred to the injured
(PW-2 Irshad Akhtar) as his brother (Bhai), from their name and
parentage it is clear that PW-1 Pradeep and PW-2 Irshad Akhtar, the
injured are from different religion. May be because of brotherhood
feeling, PW-1 Pradeep referred the injured as his brother ( bhai ). So
merely because PW-1 Pradeep, informant has preferred to turn hostile,
is no reason to discard the testimony of PW-2 Irshad Akhtar, the
injured.
21. PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar is second wife of the injured and on the
basis of the statement made by her Ex.PW-3/B the FIR No.35/90 was
registered. Although in her statement Ex.PW-4/A she had given vivid
description of the incident, specifying the role of each convict by
name, during trial, she stated that she reached the spot on getting the
information from a child about some quarrel with her husband and
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 10 of 18
when she reached the spot she saw her husband lying on the road. She
did not identify any of the convicts causing injury to her husband or
any prior acquaintance with them.
22. PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar in her cross-examination has admitted
the following facts:
(i) It was her second marriage with the injured Irshad Akhtar
(PW-2) and first wife of the injured is also living in the same colony at
some distance.
(ii) Her husband was present with her when Bhagwan Dass (not
examined) came to her house to inform that his first wife Shama
Akhtar was calling him at her residence.
(iii) She does not dispute her signature on the complaint PW-4/A but
stated that she did not know what was written on that.
23. PW-5 ASI Chandan Singh had specifically stated that when he
reached the spot no eye-witness was present. In the hospital injured
was declared unfit for statement and his wife PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar
was present who made the statement Ex.PW-4/A. PW-5 ASI Chandan
Singh had no reason to falsely implicate any of the convicts. PW-5
ASI Chandan Singh, who sent the rukka from the hospital, had no
personal knowledge about the facts mentioned in the complaint
Ex.PW4/A. PW-4 Shabnam Akhtar did not dispute her presence in
the hospital and her signature on the complaint Ex.PW4/A. At no
point of time, she brought it to the notice of the higher police
authorities or the Court that the appellants were not named by her as
the assailants.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 11 of 18
24. In the complaint Ex.PW-4/A the complainant had given not
only the names but even their nick names and addresses when she was
present in the hospital and at that time she had no reason to name the
appellants to be the assailants nor the IO had any reason to make her
name the convicts to be the persons responsible for such condition of
her husband.
25. Now the question arises as to whether the statement of injured is
sufficient to base the conviction though the police witnesses, who are
closely connected to him, have turned hostile.
26. Reliance can be placed on the decision reported as Ram Snehi
th
Dass vs. State (Govt. of NCT) of Delhi Crl.A.874/2010 decided on 17
January, 2013 whereby the High Court of Delhi has held as under:
‘5. The evidence of an injured witness cannot be disbelieved
without assigning cogent reasons. Mere
contradictions/improvements on trivial matters could not
render injured's deposition untrustworthy. The law on this
aspect has been detailed in the latest judgment State of Uttar
Pradesh vs. Naresh and ors. MANU/SC/0228/2011 : (2011) 4
SCC 324 as under :
27. The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot
be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very
reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant
in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an
injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this
lends support to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is
accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or
want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to
implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 12 of 18
offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein. (Vide Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab,
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra and Abdul Sayeed v. State of
M.P.)
6. Similarly in another case Abdul Sayed vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh MANU/SC/0702/2010 : (2010) 10 SCC 259, Supreme
Court laid down :
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of
a witness that was himself injured in the course of the
occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where
a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the
incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered
to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in
guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is
unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely
implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to
discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of
Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of
Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of
Maharashtra, Bhag Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p.
606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of
Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and
Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the
special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an
injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as
under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29)
28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been
examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed
aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was
present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In
Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka this Court
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 13 of 18
has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his
evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene
stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury
during the said incident.
29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand a similar view has been
reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has
its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends
support to his testimony that he was present during the
occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy
cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his
testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. State of
Haryana). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence
of Darshan Singh (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the
courts below.
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that
the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status
in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the
witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual
assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third
party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of
the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are
strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein’
27. The injured PW-2 has specifically stated that on receiving the
information at the house of his second wife that his first wife was
calling, he left for her house and when he was about to kick start the
scooter, at that time convict Jasbir Singh took out a knife and hit on
his abdomen thrice with the knife and other two convicts hit him with
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 14 of 18
hockey stick and danda. When he raised alarm nobody came to save
him but his wife watched the incident.
28. In this case, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by PW-2,
his statement could not be recorded immediately after the incident as
he was not found fit for the statement. It is not disputed that injured
and the convicts were known to each other and in such a situation
there was hardly any need to get them identified during Test
Identification Parade, especially when all of them have been named in
the FIR. The convicts have failed to assign any motive to the injured
for making the false statement. PW-2 Irshad Akhtar – the injured
might be involved in some cases of cheating but it is not the case of
convicts that they were also cheated by him. No prior enmity has been
brought on record either by the injured or by the convicts which could
be a motive for their false implication.
29. The statement of the injured that he received injuries at the
hands of the convicts cannot be rejected just for the reason that he has
not given any motive as to why he was attacked. Same is the case
with the convicts that they have also not given any motive as to why
they would be falsely implicated. The motive appears to be stated by
the convicts in their disclosure statement but during trial the convicts
as well the injured preferred not to suggest that motive to the injured
during his cross-examination or prove their defence. The MLC
No.5842 Ex.PW-9/A and the statement of PW-9 Dr.R.Srinivas,
Senior Resident, AIIMS proved that the nature of the injury suffered
by PW-2 Irshad Akhtar were dangerous and caused by blunt and sharp
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 15 of 18
object which corroborated the version of the injured PW-2 Irshad
Akhtar that he was attacked with knife, hockey stick and danda.
30. Name of all the assailants were given in the complaint Ex.PW-
4/A made at the hospital (AIIMS) immediately after the incident and
FIR No.35/90 Ex.PW-3/B has been lodged without any delay.
31. Testimony of injured PW-2 Irshad Akhtar inspires confidence.
It is unbelievable that injured after suffering dangerous injuries would
falsely implicate the convicts and let the real assailants go unpunished.
32. Keeping in view the duration for which the injured PW-2 Irshad
Akhtar remained hospitalized and unfit for statement, the nature of the
weapon used i.e. knife, hockey stick and danda, inference can be
drawn about the intention of the assailants that they attempted to
commit his murder.
33. It is not open to the convicts to seek their acquittal on the basis
that Raja Ram and Tej Singh are also named by the injured but no case
was made out to chargesheet them. Persual of the record shows that
Raja Ram and Tej Singh were kept in column No.2 as there was not
enough material to arrest them. Learned Trial Court preferred not to
take cognizance against them.
34. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of the
appellants under Section 307/34 IPC is upheld.
35. Now the question comes about the sentence being awarded to
the convicts for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
They have been sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to
undergo SI for one month.
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 16 of 18
36. On behalf of appellants, it has been submitted that now they are
well settled in their family, they have already remained in custody for
about two years and have paid the fine. In view of their family
responsibilities, sending them after twenty-seven years of the
occurrence to Jail would have negative effect on the future prospects
of their children. The occurrence pertains to the year 1990. The trial
continued for about 11 years and this appeal is pending for about 16
years. Except the instant case they had not been involved in any other
case prior thereto or thereafter.
37. Taking into consideration that the occurrence had taken place
about 27 years ago and they are having clean antecedents and already
settled in life, it would meet the ends of justice if the substantive
awarded to the appellant for committing the offence punishable under
Section 307/34 IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by
them in this case.
38. Accordingly, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants
for committing the offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC is
reduced to the period already undergone by them in this case.
However, in addition to the fine imposed on the appellants by the
learned Trial Court, which they have already paid, all the three
appellants are further directed to deposit a fine of Rs.1 lac each (total
₹3 lacs) with the Registrar General of this Court. In default of
payment of fine, the appellants shall undergo SI for three months.
39. The fine amount of ₹1 lac each (total ₹3 lacs) shall be deposited
with the Registrar General of this Court within four weeks from the
date of this order subject to furnishing PB/SB each in the sum of
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 17 of 18
₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of Registrar (Appellate) and furnishing an
undertaking by them within one week that they shall deposit the fine
within four weeks from the date of this order.
40. In the circumstances, the sentence to be undergone by the
appellants in default of payment of fine is deferred for a period of four
weeks. It is made clear to all the appellants that if they fail to deposit
the enhanced fine amount within four weeks as directed, they shall
surrender before the Jail Superintendent to undergo the sentence in
default of payment of fine.
41. All the three appeals are allowed only to the extent of
modification of order on sentence to the above extent.
42. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail
Superintendent for information.
43. Registry is directed to send back the LCR alongwith copy of
this order after the above order is complied with by the appellants.
44. Copy of the order be given dasti to the parties under the
signature of Court Master.
PRATIBHA RANI
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 29, 2017
‘pg/hkaur’
CRL.A.Nos.840/2001, 398/2002 & 399/2002 Page 18 of 18