Sonu Choudary vs State Of Nct Delhi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA 2024 INSC 864 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3111 OF 2024

SONU CHOUDARY …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

1. The instant appeal arises out of the impugned order

dated 21.02.2024 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New

Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.243 of 2023, whereby the High

Court had dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant

and confirmed the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2022

and order on sentence dated 04.02.2023 passed by the

Addl. Sessions Judge-FTC-02 (South East), Saket Courts,

Delhi (“Trial Court”). Vide the said judgment, the

appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections

324 and 452 of the IPC, and was directed to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay

fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for the offence under Section 324

IPC and in default thereof, to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of six months, and was further

sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence RAVI ARORA Date: 2024.11.11 11:24:05 IST Reason:

under Section 452 IPC, in default thereof, to undergo

further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

1

2. The case of the prosecution in short was that on

06.10.2014, the appellant-accused had gone to the

restaurant namely, Baithak Restaurant, run by the injured

Rajat Dhyani (PW-1). He asked for a jug of water to

consume alcohol. When the said Rajat refused to give

water, the appellant – accused took out a blade and

inflicted injuries on the thigh, shoulder and back of the

said Rajat. When the said Rajat called his friend Imran

Khan (PW-3), he tried to intervene, however, the

appellant caused injury on stomach with the blade to

Imran also. On receiving the information about the

incident (DD No.3A), the Investigating Officer found the

two injured persons, and the appellant was apprehended on

the spot.

3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned

counsel, Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash for the appellant that

the entire conviction of the appellant is based on the

solitary evidence of PW1- Rajat Dhyani, as the PW3 –

Imran Khan, though was allegedly injured, had not

supported the case of the prosecution. According to him,

no case for house trespass was made out and the injuries

allegedly caused by the appellant were also simple in

nature. He further submitted that the appellant has

already undergone two years of imprisonment.

4. However, the learned senior counsel, Ms. Archana

Pathak Dave appearing for the respondent – State has

supported the impugned order passed by the High Court and

submitted that the two Courts having concurrently held

2 the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 324

and 452 IPC, this Court may not interfere with the same,

more particularly, when there is no major irregularity or

infirmity in the impugned order passed by the High Court.

5. At the outset, it may be stated that though the

PW-1, i.e., injured Rajat had supported the case of the

prosecution, the PW-3, Imran Khan, who was also

allegedly injured by the appellant had not supported the

case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. The

PW-1 had inter alia stated that the appellant- accused

had come to his restaurant, and had asked for a jug of

water for consuming alcohol. When he refused to give him

the water, he started quarreling with him and ultimately

inflicted injuries to him with a blade. He stated that

the injuries were caused on his thigh, back and shoulder.

The MLC No.454231 (Ex. PW6/B) also corroborated the

version of PW-1. However, as per the opinion of PW7 –

Dr. Biswajit Singh, the said injuries were found to be

simple in nature.

6. Having regard to the afore discussed evidence, we

are of the opinion that the prosecution had proved the

guilt of the appellant so far as the offence under

Section 324, i.e., “voluntarily causing hurt” to the

appellant was concerned and was rightly convicted and

sentenced for the offence under Section 324 IPC.

7. However, so far as the offence under Section 452 is

concerned, both the Courts below have failed to consider

the ingredients of the said provision. Section 452 3 reads as under:-

“452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.—Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

8. The definitions of criminal trespass and house

trespass as contained in Sections 441 and 442 read as

under:-

“441. Criminal trespass.—Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

442. House-trespass.—Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”.”

9. Having regard to the said provisions contained in

Sections 441, 442 read with 452, it appears that in order

to convict a person for the offence under Section 452, it

has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused

had committed a house trespass within the meaning of

Section 442, on he having made preparation for causing

hurt to any person, or putting him under fear etc. The

“house trespass” being an essential ingredient for

convicting a person under Section 452, it has to be

4 proved by the prosecution that the accused committed the

house trespass and criminal trespass by entering into or

unlawfully remaining in any building, tent or vessel used

as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for

worship, or as a place for the custody of property, as

contemplated in Section 442 IPC.

10. So far as the facts of the present case are

concerned, admittedly, the incident had taken place in a

restaurant run by the injured PW-1, Rajat, which cannot

be said to be either a place used for human dwelling or

for worship or for the custody of the property. Hence,

the very ingredients of the offence under Section 452,

namely, the criminal trespass as contemplated in Section

441 and house trespass as contemplated in Section 442

having not been made out by the prosecution, the

appellant could not have been convicted for the offence

under Section 452 IPC.

11. In our opinion, both the Courts having miserably

failed to appreciate the said provisions in the light of

the facts of the case, the conviction of the appellant

for the offence under Section 452 IPC is liable to be set

aside.

12. In that view of the matter, the conviction made and

sentence awarded by the Trial Court and confirmed by the

High Court is further confirmed so far as the offence

under Section 324 IPC is concerned, however, the

conviction made and sentence awarded for the offence

under Section 452 IPC by the Trial Court and confirmed by

5 the High Court is hereby set aside. The appellant is

acquitted for the offence under Section 452 IPC.

13. Since the appellant has already undergone two years

of sentence, so far as the conviction under Section 324

is concerned, the appellant is set free, if not required

in any other case. However, it is clarified that the

appellant shall be liable to pay the fine as directed by

the Trial Court, if not paid so far, or in default

thereof, shall undergo the sentence as directed by the

Trial Court. The Trial Court shall verify the status of

sentence undergone by the appellant and payment of fine,

if any, made by him, and if not paid, shall proceed

against the appellant – accused in accordance with law

and also issue the non-bailable warrant as may be

required, for undergoing remaining part of sentence, if

any,.

14. The Appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

......................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J. (SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)

NEW DELHI;

06TH NOVEMBER, 2024.

6

ITEM NO.111 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Criminal Appeal No(s).3111/2024

SONU CHOUDARY Appellant(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF NCT DELHI Respondent(s)

Date : 06-11-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

For Appellant(s) Mr. Suvendu Suvasis Dash, Adv.

Ms. Swati Vaibhav, Adv.

M/S. Vaibhav & Dash Law Associates, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

1. In terms of the signed reportable judgment, the

Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.

2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed

of.

(RAVI ARORA) (MAMTA RAWAT) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

(signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)

7