Two men who had beaten up a tempo driver 23 years ago have been acquitted by the Delhi High Court of the charge of attempting to kill the victim but convicted for causing grievous injuries.
While modifying their conviction, Justice P S Teji let them off on the period they have already spent behind the bars during over two decade long trial in the case as they both are senior citizens now.
The court acquitted them of the offence of attempting to kill the tempo driver as the prosecution had failed to establish that they had any intention to beat him to death.
The high court granted leniency to the duo as nothing adverse was found against them since the suspension of their sentence in 2001 when they had filed their appeal against the trial court order convicting them for attempted culpable homicide and sentencing them to three years imprisonment.
The high court convicted Aas Mohammad and Balmat for the offence of causing grievous injury saying “no doubt, they had the intention to cause grievous hurt to the injured, what to say by giving lathi blows on the head of the injured”.
“This court finds that the incident in question is of the year 1994 and considering the fact that the appellants have faced the agony of trial for the last 23 years, and the fact that after suspension of their sentence on August 30, 2001 and December 5, 2001 nothing adverse is found against them coupled with the fact that the two are at the verge of their age.
“This court is of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice sentence awarded to appellants for the offence under Section 325 of IPC be reduced to the extent of period already undergone by them,” the bench said.
As per the prosecution the accused persons, including two more who were declared proclaimed offenders during the trial, had beaten up the tempo driver on April 29, 1994 after a heated argument between them over a petty issue.
The high court, however, was not convinced with the police theory and noted that it “does not find” any reason to uphold the trial court’s judgement as the “prosecution was unable to establish the fact that there was any intention of appellants to kill the injured”.
“Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this court, the judgment cannot be upheld and the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt on the account of contradictions in the statements of the material witnesses and non-recovery of the weapon of offence…,” it said.
( Source – PTI )
