Delhi District Court
State vs . Surender@Sande@Sanjay on 23 November, 2010
FIR No. 94/98
PS Narela
U/s. 452/323 IPC
State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK WASON
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. 94/98
PS Narela
U/s. 452/323 IPC
State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay
Date of Institution of case:12.03.99
Date of Judgment reserved:23.11.10
Date of which Judgment pronounced:23.11.10
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of case :1555/2
Date of commission of offence
:18.03.98
Name of the complainant :Smt. Surjeet Rani Name and address of accused : Surender@Sande@Sanjay S/o Sh. Hari Chander R/o H. No. 585, Village Bankner, Rahu Pana, Delhi.
Offence complained of :452/323 IPC Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty Date of order :23.11.10 Final order :Convicted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is as under:
Accused Surender@Sande@Sanjay, S/o Sh. Hari Chander has been sent up for the trial for the offence U/s. 452/323 IPC on the allegations that he on 18.03.98 at about 9:30 p.m Pg no. 1 Contd/-.....FIR No. 94/98
PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay at House of Sh. Jai Pal Singh, Gali no. 13-B, Swatantar Nagar, Narela, Delhi committed house trespass by entering into the house of the complainant namely Surjeet Rani, which was used as a human dwelling having made preparations for causing hurt and assaulting her and caused simple hurt to the above said complainant and he thereby committed the offence punishable U/s. 452/323 IPC and on the basis of which FIR no. 94/98 was registered at PS Narela.
2. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused & after supplying the copies to him in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, a charge U/s. 452/323 IPC was framed against accused on 31.08.99, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, the prosecution examined PW1 Dr. G. B. S. Kohli, PW2 Smt. Surjeet Rani, PW3 HC Ratan Singh, PW4 Ct. Pawan Kumar, PW5 Inspector Raj Pal Singh & PW6 SI Hawa Singh.
4. PW1 is Dr. G. B. S. Kohli, Hindu Rao Hospital. He has proved the MLC no. 3446/98 as Ex. PW1/A, with respect to Pg no. 2 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay injured namely Smt. Surjeet Rani, W/o sh. Jaipal Singh. He was not cross examined by the accused.
5. PW2 is Smt. Surjeet Rani, the complainant / injured. She has deposed regarding the incident in question. She was also not cross examined by the accused.
6. PW3 is HC Ratan Singh. He is the Duty Officer, who has registered the present FIR no. 94/98, under section 452/323 IPC. He has proved the copy of the FIR as Ex. PW3/A. He was also not cross examined by the accused.
7. PW4 is Ct. Pawan Kumar. He has deposed that on 08.11.98, he alongwith HC Hawa Singh went to Village Bankner and arrested accused Surender@Sanjay and conducted his personal search Ex. PW4/A. He was also not cross examined by the accused.
8. PW5 is Inspector Raj Pal Singh. He is the IO of the case and has deposed regarding the investigation proceedings conducted by him. He was also not cross examined by accused.
Pg no. 3 Contd/-..... FIR No. 94/98 PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay
9. PW6 is SI Hawa Singh. He is the second IO of the case and has deposed regarding the investigation proceedings conducted by him. He was also not cross examined by the accused.
10. It is a matter of record that vide order dated 10.06.09, P.E was closed and matter was fixed for recording statement of accused but on dated 26.11.09 perusal of record revealed that there was material infirmity in the charge and accordingly, amended charge was framed, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and as witnesses have already deposed regarding the said fact, matter was fixed for recording statement of accused but vide order dated 11.03.10, Ld. APP has moved an application U/s. 311 Cr.P.C for recalling PW HC Hawa Singh, the second IO and SI Raj Pal, the first IO, which application was allowed and said witnesses were allowed to be summoned for 21.04.10 and on 21.04.10, both these witness were present and they were examined and discharged and P.E was closed and again matter was adjourned for recording statement of accused and on 18.11.10, statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was Pg no. 4 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay recorded in which, accused has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case and simultaneously stated that he does not want to lead defence evidence and accordingly final arguments were heard and matter was fixed for 23.11.10 i.e today.
11. I have heard the arguments from Ld. APP, accused and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
12. To prove the offence U/s. 452/323 IPC and to prove the case, the prosecution has to prove all the ingredients of these Sections.
13. To prove the incident, the testimony of injured i.e PW2 Surjeet Rani is material for the present case, who has deposed that on 18.03.98 at about 9:30 p.m, she went outside her house for connecting the electricity wire with main line, where accused Sanjay was cutting the wire and when she raised objection, accused started abusing her. She has further deposed that she reached back to her home and after some time, accused entered her house and gave several Pg no. 5 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay beating on her stomach and shoulders and thereafter they called police upon which PCR Van came and took her to the Hospital, where she was medically examined and police recorded her statement Ex. PW2/A. She was not cross examined by accused. This witness has specifically deposed about the incident in question.
14. Perusal of testimony of this witness shows that she has supported the case of prosecution as she has specifically deposed that she went to tubewell for connecting the electricity wire with main line and accused started abusing her and when she reached back to her house, accused entered her house and gave her several beatings on her stomach and shoulder and she called the police and was medically examined. This witness has correctly identified the accused. Testimony of injured inspires the confidence of Court and had grain of truth since, testimony of injured has its own value and relevancy. As far as, injuries are concerned, the prosecution has examined PW1 i.e G. B. S. Kohli, who has proved the MLC of the injured / complainant Smt. Surjeet Rani as Ex. PW1/A. Pg no. 6 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay
15. As far as investigation is concerned the testimonies of PW5 and PW6 are material one and PW5 i.e Inspector Raj Pal Singh has deposed that on 19.03.98, on receiving DD no. 24, he alongwtih Ct. Fateh Singh (DIU) reached the spot i.e house of Jai Pal, where he met complainant Smt. Surjeet Rani, who was lying on the bed in injured condition. In the meantime, PCR Officials came at the spot and took her to Hindu Rao Hospital. He has further deposed that he alongwith Ct. Fateh Singh reached Hindu Rao Hospital and collected the MLC of the injured Smt. Surjeet Rani and she was declared as fit for the statement. He has further deposed that thereafter he recorded the statement of the injured as Ex. PW2/A and prepared rukka Ex. PW5/A and handed over the same to Ct. Fateh Singh, who went to PS for getting the case registered. He has further deposed that in the meantime, he alongwith injured came at the spot and prepared site plan Ex. PW5/B and thereafter Ct. Fateh Singh came at the spot and handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to him and thereafter, they searched for accused but in vain. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses and came back to PS and thereafter, deposited the MLC of the injured in Hindu Rao Hospital for Pg no. 7 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay the opinion. He has further deposed thereafter, he was transferred and he handed over the case file to MHC(R). He was also not cross examined by the accused
16. Further, PW6 i.e SI Hawa Singh has deposed that on 08.06.98, the present case was marked to him by the concerned MHC(R) for further investigation and he alongwith Ct. Pawan Kumar reached the spot i.e house of Raj Pal, Gali no. 11 B, Swatantar Nagar, Delhi, where he met complainant Smt. Surjeet Rani and her husband Raj Pal and they searched for accused but in vain and thereafter, he came back to PS. He has further deposed that on 30.07.98, he received the result on MLC and came back to PS. He has further deposed that on 08.11.98, he alongwith Ct. Pawan Kumar reached at Swatantra Colony and at the instance of complainant, they arrested accused Surender, vide arrest memo Ex. PW6/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/B. He has further deposed that they brought the accused to PS and sent him to lock-up. He has further deposed that on the next day, he produced the accused to the concerned court and accused was sent to J/C and after completion of the investigation, he prepared the Pg no. 8 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay challan and filed the same in the court for Judicial Verdict. He was also not cross examined by accused.
17. In view of the discussions made above, to my mind, all the witnesses examined by the prosecution are supporting the case of the prosecution and their statement on record is found to be cogent, inspires the confidence of the court and there is no reason to disbelieve the same and they are all corroborating each other on all material respects and there is no inconsistency contradictions in their statement. Hence, in view of the submissions made above and after scanning the entire record, I have no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has successfully able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for which the accused has been charged with.
18. Accordingly, the accused is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 452/323 IPC.
(DEEPAK WASON) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court,Delhi ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 23rd November, 2010 Pg no. 9 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay FIR no. 94/98 PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender ORDER ON SENTENCE 01.12.10 Pr: Ld. APP for the state.
Ms. Shalini Jain, Legal Aid Counsel for convict with convict in person.
It is submitted by her that convict is facing trial for the last 12 years and he is 48 years old and he has his family to be maintained by him. It is further submitted by her that he is a very poor person and hence, during the trial he could not cross examine any of the witnesses as he could not engage the counsel. It is further submitted by her that this is his first offence and no other case pending against him and hence, it is prayed that a lenient view be taken.
Heard.
Record perused.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of the convict and the fact that convict is facing trial for the last about 12 years, I am of the view that interest Pg no. 10 Contd/-.....
FIR No. 94/98PS Narela U/s. 452/323 IPC State Vs. Surender@Sande@Sanjay of justice would be met, if a lenient view be taken against him. Accordingly, the convict is released on probation on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 7,000/- with one surety in the like amount for a period of six months. He is further directed to maintain peace in the society and not to commit the same offence for the above said period. He is further directed to pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/- as a cost of proceedings.
Probation bond furnished & accepted. Cost of proceedings paid.
Copy of the judgment alongwith order on sentence be given to convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room, after necessary compliance.
Probation bond be put up on 02.06.2011.
(Deepak Wason)
MM (Outer)-01/Rohini/Delhi
01.12.10
Pg no. 11 Contd/-.....