Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In 2012, on the way to Faridabad, the then judges of the Saket District Court – Justice Ajay Garg, MK Nagpal and Inderjeet Singh were attacked by four people. Two of the accused attacked the rear windows of the Judges’ official car near Dakshinpuri in Delhi. Witnessing this incident and the ‘Judge’ sticker on the car, both the accused called for many people who hit the car with bricks and broke the glass windows thereby causing injury to the judges.
Previously, the court had upheld the conviction of the three accused by the Trial Court. Nevertheless, the Hon’ble bench presided by Justice Mukta Gupta modified the punishment granted to the three convicts – Rohit (five years), Anil Raj (five years) and Prashant Kumar (period already underwent). Relying on the allegations, three of them faced trial but one was proclaimed as guilty. The trial court found them to be guilty of attempt to murder and offences which attract the provisions of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and it granted them punishment for a period of 10 years.
The order was challenged before the High Court of Delhi, and the counsel appearing for the appellant could not reverse the conviction with his fragile contentions because the case had been proven beyond the doubt. Rather, the counsel pleaded for modification of the sentence granted to the convicts by advocating that the punishment is highly disproportionate. The court observed that the injuries caused to the victims were simple, and one of the accused also suffered an injury while attacking the victims. Furthermore, two appellants do not have a history of convictions, though Anil Raj had been charged twice previously under section 323 IPC FIRs of which have since been compounded. Therefore, the court inclined to accept this contention and thought fit to modify the sentence.
As a consequence of modification, Anil Raj and Rohit were awarded five-year rigorous imprisonment, and insofar as Prashant is concerned, the sentence was adjusted to the period already undergone by him. The court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant. Advocate Puri who represented Anil Raj and Prashant pointed out the harshness in the previous judgement and stated how trivial the court considered the points brought for the defence to be. The legal representative also appreciated the Hon’ble High Court for modifying the sentence.
86540
103860
630
114
59824