Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate with v. THE STATE NCT OF DELHI)

$~18 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.A. 382/2016 DILSHAD .....Appellant Through: Mr. D.K. Singh, Advocate with appellant in person. versus THE STATE ( NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for State with SI Atul Prabhakar, P.S. OIA. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI O R D E R % 12.09.2025 1. By way of the present appeal preferred under Section 374 Cr.P.C., the appellant has assailed the judgment of conviction dated 11.01.2016 and order on sentence dated 28.01.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-02, South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 27/2015 arising out of FIR No. 664/2013 registered under Sections 394/411 IPC at P.S. Okhla Industrial Area. Vide the impugned order on sentence, the appellant herein was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years along with fine of Rs.500/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 15 days, for the offence punishable under Section 379 IPC; and RI for a period of 5 years along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default whereof he would undergo SI for 6 months, for the offence punishable under Sections 325 IPC. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently and benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C. was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:55:15 granted to the appellant. 2. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed by the police, and the Trial Court thereafter framed charges under Sections 394/397/411 IPC against the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 3. The prosecution’s case in a nutshell is that on 10.12.2013 the appellant entered the complainant’s room at about 3:00 A.M., when the complainant, his wife and child were asleep. On hearing his child cry, the complainant awoke and saw the appellant carrying away his gas cylinder. The complainant gave chase, whereupon the appellant abandoned the cylinder and attempted to flee. When the complainant tried to apprehend him, the appellant brandished a knife and threatened to kill the complainant. The appellant then inflicted knife blows on the complainant’s neck, right index finger and right axilla. The complainant nevertheless succeeded in overpowering him. The appellant struck out with fists and kicks but could not break free. By then, the complainant’s family members and neighbours arrived and the appellant was apprehended. 4. The prosecution examined five witnesses in support of its case. PW-1/Uma Kant, the complainant and victim, gave a clear and cogent account of the incident. His testimony remained firm and unshaken in cross-examination with no inconsistency or indication of false implication. The Trial Court noted that he bore no ill will against the accused and that no prior enmity was established. PW-2/SI Raghu Nath, the duty officer, proved the registration of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A). PW-3/Ct. Dharambir accompanied the I.O. and carried the rukka for registration of the FIR. PW-4/Ct. Vikas, the DD writer, proved DD No. 36 (Ex. PW-4/A). The I.O., SI This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:55:15 Baldev Raj, was examined as PW-5 and he deposed about various aspects of the investigation, including preparation of the site plan, seizure of the gas cylinder, and arrest of the accused. 5. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence and alleged false implication. However, no defence evidence was led by the appellant. 6. On a perusal of the record, this Court finds that the testimony of the complainant/PW-1 withstood the test of cross-examination and is supported in part by the medical evidence on record. He had no reason to falsely implicate the accused, and his version inspires confidence. The complainant’s MLC (Ex. P-1) records multiple injuries, including on the neck and hand, lending assurance to his account of being assaulted. The defence plea that the accused was intoxicated and that there had merely been an altercation between him and the complainant stands contradicted by the accused’s own MLC, which notes absence of alcohol and a history of having been beaten by the public. PW-1 categorically stated that he saw the accused carrying away his gas cylinder, gave chase, and after a scuffle managed to overpower him, whereupon family members and neighbours arrived and together they apprehended the accused. Taken together, these circumstances form a complete chain pointing to the guilt of the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has joined the proceedings through V.C., and on instructions from the appellant, who is present in Court and has handed over his gate pass, states that the appellant does not wish to press the present appeal on merits and instead prays that he be released on the period already undergone by him. He further submits that the fine imposed by the Trial Court has already been deposited, and the said fact is confirmed by the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:55:15 latest nominal roll on record. 8. Even otherwise, this Court, having regard to the consistent and reliable testimony of the complainant/PW-1, supported by the complainant’s MLC recording multiple injuries and by the accused’s own MLC negating his defence, concurs with the findings of the Trial Court, save as to the conviction under Section 325 IPC, which calls for closer scrutiny. 9. The complainant’s MLC (Ex. P-1), admitted under Section 294 Cr.P.C., records the following injuries: “i. Laceration over neck ii. Laceration over right axilla iii. Abrasion over right knee and leg iv. Abrasion over right middle finger v. Laceration over right index finger” The doctor has opined these injuries to be “grievous blunt”, though the reasoning behind this conclusion is unclear. Section 320 IPC designates specific categories of “hurt” as “grievous”, and the injuries suffered by the complainant fail to meet that threshold. The complainant was not hospitalised for any extended period, nor did he suffer any fracture or permanent impairment. Notably, the knife allegedly used in the assault was never recovered. The description of the injuries as blunt further muddies the waters, given the prosecution’s case of a knife assault. However, since the examining doctor was not called before the Trial Court, there is unfortunately no clarificatory testimony on record. In these circumstances, the conviction under Section 325 IPC cannot be sustained. At the same time, the evidence establishes that the complainant did suffer multiple injuries at the hands of the appellant, and the offence of voluntarily causing hurt is fully made out. Accordingly, while the conviction of the appellant under This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/09/2025 at 11:55:15 Section 379 IPC is upheld, his conviction under Section 325 IPC is modified to one under Section 323 IPC. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant, aged about 53 years, has three children, aged approximately 14, 7 and 8 years, who are dependent on him. The offence dates back to the year 2013. The latest nominal roll on record, dated 31.03.2017, shows that as on 30.03.2017 the appellant had already undergone 1 year, 3 months, and 17 days of incarceration and earned 3 months and 29 days of remission, with his conduct in jail reported to be satisfactory. His sentence in the present case was suspended by order dated 16.08.2017. The nominal roll and the order on sentence show no prior criminal involvements and the appellant has already paid the fine imposed upon him by the Trial Court. 11. Keeping in view all of the aforesaid, and bearing in mind that the conviction under Section 325 IPC has been modified to Section 323 IPC, which prescribes a lesser punishment, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice will be served if the appellant’s substantive sentence in the present case is modified to the period already undergone by him. It is ordered accordingly. 12. The present appeal is partly allowed and disposed of in the above terms. 13. The personal bond furnished by the appellant is cancelled, and his surety stands discharged. 14. A copy of this order be communicated to the Trial Court, as well as the concerned Jail Superintendent. MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J SEPTEMBER 12, 2025/nb