Judgment:
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. This criminal appeal and revision arise from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 11.4.1977. In order to appreciate the entire case, basic facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal re recapitulated as under:
2. On 15.12.1974 at about 9.30 p.m., the appellants in furtherance of the common intention had caught hold of Shakti Bharat and Ved Prakash near the School building in Subhash Nagar area and had caused them injuries with a sharp edged weapon and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Shakti Bharat (PW-7) has stated that a theft had taken place at the shop of his brother Chander Prakash seven or eight days before the alleged incident. The matter was reported to the police and the police was informed that the appellants and their brother Roshan Lal and a few others were suspected to have committed the theft. The police searched the house of Roshan Lal. It is also alleged that Madan Lal, accused came to Shakti Bharat and extended a threat because at his instance, the house of his brother Roshan Lal had been searched. Madan Lal also threatened that he would teach a lesson to him. This is the motive according to the prosecution which had led to this occurrence.
4. On 15.12.1974, when Shakti Bharat was going to his house after closing the shop at 8.30 p.m. he reached near the said girl's school, the appellants along with other persons intercepted him. Ran Nath, accused gave a fist blow near the left eye of Shakti Bharat and Madan Lal accused gave a knife blow and caused an injury in the abdomen. According to Shakti Bharat, when he was being beaten, Ved Prakash also came there to protect him and he too was given knife blows by the appellants. Thereafter, Khazan Chand, father of Shakti Bharat also come to the scene of occurrence.
5. The prosecution had examined 13 witnesses in this case, Dr. R.K. Aggarwal, PW.-4 had stated that the injury sustained by Shakti Bharat was simple in nature, however, with respect to Ved Prakash he had stated that injury No. 1 shown in the injury sheet exhibit PW-4-c was dangerous in nature. There were two cut wounds in the stomach.
6. Bhim Singh (PW-1), who was a constable at Police Station, Mandir Marg, has stated in his statement that Ved Prakash and Shakti Bharat were admitted in the hospital in injured condition around 11:50 p.m. and he got their MLCs prepared. Lal Chand (PW-2) was posted on 16.12.1974 as a Constable Photographer in the crime branch. He had proceeded to the place of occurrence along with Incharge, Crime team and had taken the relevant photographs.
7. Ravel Singh(PW-3) was pointed at police station, Tilak Nagar, F.I.R.No. 1055 dated 7.12.1974 was given to him for investigation. Dr. R.K. Aggarwal had examined the injured witnesses. Chander Prakash who is the brother of the injured had been examined as PW-5. He had stated in his statement that when he reached the spot of the occurrence he found both his brothers injured and unconscious. He put them in a three wheeler scooter with the help of his other brother Viswa Mittar and took them to the hospital. He had also fully supported the prosecution's version. His testimony could not be discredited to any extent in the cross examination.
8. Dr. S.P. Aggarwal, Surgical Specialist, Willington Hospital, New Delhi had been examined as PW-6. Shakti Bharat, injured has been examined as PW-7. He was cross-examined as PW-8. He was also cross-examined but his testimony had also remained un-impeached. Ved Prakash, injured had been examined at length but his testimony could not be shaken. Vishwa Mittar, another brother of both injured has been examined as PW-9. He was also cross-examined at length but the defense had not been successful in discrediting his testimony. Khazan Chand, father of both the injured had been examined as PW-10 but the defense could not get any benefit out of cross-examination. PW-11 Jail Pal Singh, ASI: PW-12 Dharam Pal. Medical Record Technician: and PW-13 Ravi Dutt. PW-14 Ram Kishan, S.I. have also been examined by the prosecution.
9. On the scrutiny of the entire prosecution evidence it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the appellants had caused injuries to Ved Prakash and Madan Lal. The injuries which were sustained by Shakti Bharat are simple in nature. However, with respect to Ved Prakash, Dr. Aggarwal had mentioned that injury No.1 was dangerous in nature. The learned Additional Sessions Judge had found them guilty under Section 307 read with Section 34 and had given them sentence for four years. The learned amices curiae for the appellant submitted that the prosecution version cannot be accepted because it is not corroborated by any independent witnesses. The prosecution story rests entirely on the witnesses for their close relations of both the injured. They were interested witnesses and it would not be safe to place implicit reliance on their testimony.
10. Learned counsel also submitted that the weapon of offence, i.e., the knife had not been recovered. Ms. Singh, counsel for the accused submitted that the motive as set up by the prosecution for committing this crime is very weak in this case and in ordinary course of human behavior such a motive would not lead to an incident of this nature, particularly, when the incident had taken place, after seven or eight days or the theft in which brother of the injured Roshan Lal was named and his house searched. Human mind is very complex and uniform human behavior is not possible but at the same time broad human probabilities must be taken into consideration. Though, there are some minor discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witnesses but broadly on all material particulars no inherent infirmity can be found in the prosecution version. The prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.
11. On careful scrutiny of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case no infirmity can be found with the conclusions which have been arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The conviction is accordingly upheld.
12. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration, 1973 SCC 796, observed as under:-
'Now the question of sentence is always a difficult question, requiring as it does, proper adjustment and balancing of various considerations which weigh with a judicial mind in determining its appropriate quantum in a given case. The main purpose of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not osnly harmful to the society of which he forms an integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of the society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence; it is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen, for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining the question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. In the present case, after weighing the considerations already noticed by us and the fact that to send the appellant back to jail now after seven years of the agony and harassment of these proceedings when he is also going to lose his job and has to earn a living for himself and for his family members and for those dependent on him, we feel that it would meet the ends of justice if we reduce the sentence of imprisonment to that already undergone but increase the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 400/-. Period of imprisonment in case of default will remain in the same.'
13. This case has been followed in number of subsequent judgments by Supreme Court and various other courts. In Ramesh Kumar Gupta Vs . State of M.P. : 1995 CriLJ3656 , while referring to the judgment of B.G. Goswami v. Delhi Administration (supra), the sentence of imprisonment was reduced to the period already undergone, in a case where the accused was convicted under section 161 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
14. In the instant case, the incident had taken place about 24 years. The appellants have undergone the rigmarole of a criminal trial and trauma of criminal proceedings for 24 years. They have already served out part of the sentence.
15. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice shall be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. I order accordingly. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly disposed of. In view of my decision in the said appeal I find no merit in the Criminal Revision Petition and the same is accordingly rejected and disposed of.