New Delhi India January 15, ANI The trial court has upheld the trial court order convicting a man for causing injuries to a police official when he was on duty.
Justice Mukta Gupta upheld a trial court order which convicted one of the accused, Pramod, of giving a razor to a police officer on duty.
The court said that the offences punishable under Section 186 333 34 IPC are beyond a reasonable doubt due to the nature of injury received by the complainant.
The court was hearing about the appeal of the convict who challenged a trial court order on September 1, 2016 and ordered him to pay a fine of 10,000, and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for an offense punishable under Section 333 34 IPC.
The Court deems it appropriate to modify the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone, considering the weapon of offense used and that the offence was not committed in a pre-meditated manner, but on the spur of the moment.
The prosecution case was initiated on a receipt of the complaint on May 24, 2014, informing that a person in drunken condition had given a razor to a police official.
Constable Kulvir Singh of Railway Protection stated that he was posted at the Police Post.
On May 24, 2014, the Lahori Gate of RPF was opened. He was in the area from 4.00 PM to 12.00 midnight.
He said that at about 10.45 pm when he reached the North Yard of the Railway opposite platform 10 and 11 near the Sheela Cinema bridge at the service road, which is not a public place, and that the public is not allowed to avoid theft of railway property, he saw two-three boys sitting there.
When the cop asked the boys to go away, they did not. When the police official touched one of them and asked to go, he started abusing him, grappling with him and taking out a razor ustra and giving a blow to his left hand wrist at two places, due to which bleeding started.
The complainant snatched the razor from him, whereafter he and his associates started pelting stones at him. The person who gave the blow to the razor was named Pramod, whom he knew from before and he could identify Pramod and his associates, the prosecution said.
An FIR was registered, based on the statement.