Delhi District Court
State vs Pramod Singhal on 11 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03: WEST DISTRICT,
THC, DELHI.
CNR No. DLWT01-000271-2014
SC No. 56167-2016
State Vs. Pramod Singhal
FIR No. 21/2013
U/s. 308/326/341 IPC
PS: Janak Puri.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 56167-2016
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 30.07.2014
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Kamal Dev
Prasad
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 27.09.2012
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : Pramod Singhal
S/o Sh. K.L. Singhal
R/o C-2/13,
Janakpuri, New
Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : U/s 308/326/341
IPC
7. Offence Charged : U/s 308/323 IPC
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Acquitted for
offence u/s 308 IPC
and convicted for
Section 323 IPC.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 28.10.2024
11.Date on which Order Announced : 11.11.2024
SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.1/25 BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case of the prosecution as per original complaint Ex.PW4/H is that the complainant Kamal Dev Prasad was working as a Night Security Guard in C-2 Block, Janak Puri. On 27.09.2012 at about 11.00 PM while he was closing the gates of the block as per the directions of RWA and after closing gate no. 2 adjacent to Geeta Mandir was moving to other gate of the block at about 11.10 PM, accused Pramod Singhal arrived at gate no. 2 in his white Maruti Car bearing registration No. HR-06-M-7731 and asked the complainant to open the gate. Complainant informed him that he had already locked the gate no.2 and requested him to come from gate no. 1 which remains open 24 hours. However, on hearing this, accused Pramod Singhal became furious and started abusing the complainant and moved his car to gate no. 1. Complainant went ahead to close the gate adjacent to C-2 Church and after closing the gate when he reach in front of Kothi No. C-2/38 i.e. the house of Sh. Virender Chauhan, accused Pramod Singhal came looking for him in his car and tried to kill him by hitting him with his car at a very high speed.
Complainant flew and fell of at a distance and was badly hurt. His stick also fell down from his hand. Accused Pramod Singhal came out from the Car, picked up the stick and started beating the complainant mercilessly. The colleague security guard of the complainant tried to save the complainant but accused Pramod Singhal did not listen SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.2/25 to him and kept on beating the complainant. Complainant rushed towards the guard room to protect himself. One of the resident of C-2 block rang at 100 number and called the police.
2. On this complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. present FIR was registered under Section 279/337/341/323 IPC.
3. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Section 308/326/341 IPC against accused Pramod Singhal. CHARGE:
4. Detailed arguments on charge were heard from Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 14.11.2014, the Court charged accused Pramod Singhal for offences U/s. 308/323 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE :
5. The prosecution led evidence and examined 13 witnesses in all to bring home the charge against accused Pramod Singhal.
6. PW-1/ASI Babu Ram, is a formal witness being the duty officer who proved the registration of the present FIR as Ex.PW1/A and endorsement made on rukka as Ex.PW2/A.
7. PW-2 Dr. Rajesh Kohli, proved the MLC of injured Kamal Dev Prasad made by Dr. Vijay Dabas as Ex.PW2/A.
8. PW-3/Ashok Kumar is the owner of Maruti Car No. HR- 06-M-7331. He deposed that the said car is owned by his transport company M/s. Shri Ganesh Cargo Carriers, SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.3/25 Panipat. He had authorized Sh. Ajay Shukla vide letter Ex.PW3/A to get the said vehicle released on superdari. The vehicle was released on supurdaginama Ex.PW3/B executed by Sh. Ajay Shukla. He proved the photographs of the vehicle taken at the time of release of the vehicle on superdari which are Ex.PW1/I to Ex.PW1/VI. He could not produce the vehicle as it was not in working condition. Accused did not dispute the identity of the Car.
9. He further deposed that accused Pramod Singhal is his cousin brother and was driving the said car on the date of the incident.
10.PW4/Sh. Kamal Dev Prasad is the main witness of the prosecution case being the injured as well as the complainant. He deposed in consonance with his complaint (Ex.PW4/H). He further deposed that accused was also hurling bad abuses against him while beating him. His associate guard namely Ramesh had tried to save him. After arrival of the PCR, he was taken to DDU Hospital where he was medically examined. The doctor told him that his left shoulder was dislocated. The accused even threatened him with dire consequences and to kill him if the matter was reported to the police. Since, he was scared, he did not go to the police station immediately. Later on, he had given a complaint to SHO PS- Janak Puri which is Ex.PW4/A. The said complaint was registered vide DD No. 54B, PS- Janak Puri. The entire incident was recorded in camera of one resident namely Virender Chauhan resident of C-2/38. The said recording was given SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.4/25 to him by Sh. Virender Chauhan and he submitted the same to the police along with another complaint dated 03.10.2012 which is Ex.PW-4/B which was recorded vide DD No. 85 B. On 26.11.2012, he again gave a complaint to SHO PS- Janak Puri through post, copy of which is Ex.PW4/C. The copies of the said complaint were also forwarded to concerned ACP/DCP and CP, Delhi vide speed post, postal receipt in this regard Ex.PW4/D. He had specifically mentioned in his complaint dated 26.11.2012 that he was pressurized to enter into a forceful compromise with the accused from which he had retracted. He again sent a complaint to DCP concerned on 12.12.2012 vide speed post which is Ex.PW4/E and postal receipts are Ex.PW4/F.
11.He further deposed that he was medically treated at DDU Hospital and the medical records are Ex.PW4/G (Colly.). Since no action was taken on his complaints made to police officials, he filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C. before Ld. MM which is Ex.PW3/H along with application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. which is Ex.PW4/I. Vide order dated 22.01.2013 (Ex.PW4/J) directions for registration of FIR were passed. He identified the accused as the assailant and was duly cross- examined on his behalf.
12. PW-5/ASI Surender Singh, is a witness to the arrest of the accused on 09.02.2013 vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A.
13.PW6 Krishan Singhal, is a witness who had deposited the car bearing registration no. HR-06-M-7731 with PS- Janak SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.5/25 Puri on 07.03.2013 on the instructions of the owner which was seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A.
14. PW7/Virender Chauhan, is the person outside whose house the incident had occurred. He deposed that he had installed CCTV cameras outside his house. About 7-8 years back, police officials came to his house and obtained the footage of the CCTV camera in their laptop and the memo in this regard was prepared which is Ex.PW7/A.
15. PW8/Ramesh Chand, is the other security guard who was on duty with the complainant on the date of incident. He stated that he was present on duty at gate no. 1 and nothing had happened in his presence.
16. He was declared hostile and cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he admitted that accused Pramod Singhal was a resident of Block No. C-2, Janak Puri but he denied the entire suggestions regarding the incident given by Ld. Addl. PP for State. He was confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. which is Ex.PW8/A but he denied the same. He was also confronted with the CCTV footage of the incident wherein his presence at the spot was pointed out but he denied the same.
17. PW9 Manjinder Singh is again a hostile witness who deposed that accused Pramod Singhal is a resident of his block i.e. C-2 Janakpuri but not his friend and he does not know anything about the present case.
18. He was declared hostile and cross-examined on behalf of the State wherein he admitted that an accident had taken place in their block with one security guard in the year SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.6/25 2012. However, he denied the other suggestions regarding the incident given to him. He was also confronted with his statement Ex.PW9/A.
19. PW10/ Retired ASI Devender Kumar, is the Mechanical Inspector who had mechanically inspected the Car bearing no.HR-06-M-7731 on 04.03.2013 PS- Janak Puri vide report Ex.PW10/A.
20. PW11 ASI Narender, is a witness to the recovery of Danda on 12.09.2013 at the instance of accused Pramod Singhal from Park in front of C-2/38 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. He identified the danda as Ex.P- 11/A.
21. PW12 Vivek Chopra deposed that in the 2012, one day at about 12.00 mid night, he was going to his godown in his car. When he reached the gate of the locality, he found that guards of the locality were present there and one of the guard were lying in injured condition. He was told by other guards that the injured guard had a quarrel with someone. He took the injured guard to DDU Hospital.
22.He was also declared hostile and cross examined on behalf of the State wherein he had stated that police did not make any enquiry from him. He could not recollect if the date of incident is 27.09.2012 or the name of the injured guard was Kamal Dev. However, he denied the suggestion that injured guard had told him that one of the local residents had hit him with his vehicle and beaten him.
23. PW13 SI Bhawani Shankar is the IO of the case. He deposed that on 22.01.2013, the investigation of the case SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.7/25 was marked to him. The FIR was registered on the directions of Ld. MM under Section 156(3) Cr. P. C. Upon enquiry, he came to know that initially, DD No. 3A regarding the incident was registered at PS- Janak Puri on 28.09.2012 which was marked to ASI Joginder who had filed the same. He collected the documents that are MLC and treatment papers of the injured from the record. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW13/A at the instance of the complainant. He arrested the accused vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Complainant approached him and informed that the incident was captured in CCTV Camera. On 20.02.2013, one of the resident namely Virender Chauhan handed over one CD containing CCTV footage which was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. He also handed over the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the CD. After seeing the contents of the CCTV footage and examining other eye witnesses and on the directions of senior officials, offence under section 308 IPC was added in the present case.
24. On 07.03.2013, pursuant to the notice, the offending car was produced and seized vide memo Ex.PW6/A. On directions of the court in an anticipatory bail application, accused joined the investigation. On 12.09.2013, the weapon of offence i.e. Danda was recovered from the Park in front of the C-2/38 at the instance of the accused and was seized vide memo Ex.PW11/A. During investigation, he got the offending vehicle mechanically inspected, collected the PCR Form, recorded the statement of SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.8/25 witnesses and after completion of the evidence, he filed the charge sheet.
25. In addition to the above evidence, accused admitted the radiological report of injured Kamal Dev under Section 294 Cr. P. C. and accordingly, the relevant witnesses were dropped by Ld. Additional PP for State.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:
26. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to the accused and his statement was recorded U/s. 313 CrPC on 04.04.2024. In explanation to incriminating evidence, the accused refuted all the evidence recorded against him stating that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and he was falsely implicated in this case.
Accused stated that he did not know the complainant/PW-4 Kamal Dev Prasad prior to the incident. He admitted that at the time of the incident, only gate no.1 used to be open for 24 hours and rest of the gates of the locality were closed during night hours. He stated that on the date of the incident, he had neither gone to Gate no.2, nor asked PW-4 Kamal Dev to open the said gate. He had not threatened the complainant in any manner. The danda was planted upon him and he was falsely implicated in the present case. He was innocent. One Virender Nehra had grabbed one property bearing no. RAR-1A, Basement, Arihant Tower, B-1 Block, Janakpuri in the name of his wife Anju Sehgal. Thereafter, SI Bhavani Shankar called him at the PS and asked him to compromise the matter with Virender Nehra, SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.9/25 otherwise he will be falsely implicated in a case u/s 308 IPC. When he refused to compromise the matter, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE:
27. Accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence despite opportunity.
28. Final arguments have been heard and record carefully perused.
JUDICIAL RESOLUTIONS:
29. It is a settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on the judicial file by leading cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence beyond reasonable doubts. The case of the prosecution has to fall or stand on its own legs and it cannot derive the benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. It is not for the accused to disprove the case of the prosecution and the onus to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts never shifts and always remains on the prosecution. Further, benefit of doubt in the prosecution story always goes to the accused and it entitles the accused to acquittal.
30. In the present case, the accused is charged with the offences u/s 308/323 IPC.
31. Section 308 IPC punishes an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Offence punishable u/s 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.10/25 homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable u/s 308 IPC whereas punishment for simple hurts can be meted out u/s 323 and 324 IPC and for grevious hurt under Sections 325 and 326 IPC. Qualitatively, these offences are different (Sunil Kumar Vs NCT Delhi (1998) 8 SCC 557).
32. To prove an offence u/s 308 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the following:
A) that the accused did something towards the victim. B) that was done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that had it caused death. The accused would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
33. Section 323 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to any person. Section 319 IPC defines the offence of causing hurt and provides that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
34. Now, let us apply the above discussed definitions of the offences with which accused has been charged on the facts of the present case.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE
ACCUSED:
35.It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this is a classic case of false implication of the accused at the instance of a third party who is not even a party to the present case. The entire case of the prosecution is based on SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.11/25 the testimony of victim Kamal Dev who has been examined as PW-4. However, PW-4 Kamal Dev is not a reliable witness and is influenced by extraneous circumstances as has clearly come on record in his testimony. His entire testimony is clouded with doubt primarily on the ground that despite deposing that he was working as a Security Guard in C-2 Block, Janakpuri on the date of incident, he was unable to tell the essential details regarding the colony which should have been in his knowledge if he was actually working as a Guard there. He was unable to provide any document regarding his employment with any security agency or his duty at C-2 Block, Janapuri at the date and time of incident. Neither any appointment letter nor any log book and not even any salary slip in this regard has been placed on record. In his cross-examination, PW-4 Kamal Dev Prasad could not tell the basic details like number of gates in the block, timings of their opening and closing etc.
36. In addition to this, PW-4 Kamal Dev Prasad has categorically identified his signatures on the quashing petition for the quashing of the present FIR filed by him jointly with the accused before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which is Ex. PW-4/DA. The said quashing petition was also filed at the instance of the third party namely Virender Nehra, who was the whistle blower at whose instance present FIR was lodged for settling his own dispute with the accused. The quashing petition (Ex. PW- 4/DA) clearly mentions in paragraph no.11 that the FIR SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.12/25 was registered in the present matter at the instance of Virender Nehra as initially the matter was settled between the parties but on directions of Virender Nehra, the matter was again re-agitated and present FIR was registered. All these facts are sufficient to doubt the veracity of the victim/complainant Kamal Dev/PW-4. Accordingly, basing the conviction of the accused on his sole testimony is not judicious.
37. It is further submitted that the another alleged eye witness to the incident, Guard Ramesh has been examined as PW-8 and he has not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner. Similarly, independent public witness and a resident of the society Sh. Manjinder Singh/PW-9 has not supported the case of the prosecution. Thus, the untrustworthy testimony of PW-4 Kamal Dev has remained uncorroborated.
38. In addition to this, the CCTV footage placed on record and relied upon by the prosecution has not been duly proved on record. Neither the DVR of the said CCTV footage was seized by the IO, nor the same was sent for expert opinion regarding any manipulations. Moreover, PW-7 Virender Chauhan, who had handed over the said CCTV footage to the IO has not proved his certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act regarding the said CCTV footage. Moreover, PW-7 testified that he had himself not seen the CCTV footage, nor the CCTV footage CD was shown to him at the time of his examination. He had further testified that the DVR installed along with his SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.13/25 CCTV camera had the storing capacity of 10-12 days only whereafter the CCTV footage was automatically deleted or overwritten. However, the CCTV footage has been seized by the IO after about 5 months of the incident and there is no clarity on record as to how the said CCTV footage could be obtained from the DVR after such a long period when it was not specifically seen and preserved by PW-7 prior to that.
39. It is further submitted that a danda being the alleged weapon of offence has been shown as recovered at the instance of the accused on 12.09.2013 i.e. after almost one year of the incident that too, from an open park in front of C-2/38, Janakpuri which was accessible to public at large. Accordingly, the said recovery is highly doubtful and is not a sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused.
40. It is further submitted that as per the testimony of the victim Kamal Dev Prasad/PW-4, he was firstly hit by the accused with his car while it was moving at a high speed and with intention of running him over. Thereafter, he was given multiple blows with a danda because of which his left shoulder was dislocated. However, perusal of his MLC shows that he had not sustained any bone injury. The injury was opined to be simple in nature and the only injuries sustained by him were linear abrasion over left scapular region, bruise over left clavicle region and abrasion over right elbow. None of these injuries are consistent with the testimony of the complainant. This again gives a clear indication that the allegations are SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.14/25 manipulated by the complainant/victim due to external influence of Virender Nehra. Even the mechanical inspection report (Ex. PW-10/A) of the vehicle in question clearly mentions that no fresh damage was found on the car. The MLC (Ex. PW-2/A) of the victim as well as the mechanical inspection report (Ex. PW-10/A) falsifies the entire deposition of the complainant creating doubts on the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which has to be given to the accused.
41. In these circumstances, it is submitted that since the case of the prosecution is clouded with doubt, accused is entitled to acquittal.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT /STATE:
42. Per contra, it is submitted on behalf of State as well as the complainant that there is no reason to doubt the testimony of the victim/complainant Kamal Dev who has been examined as PW-4. His testimony is duly corroborated by his complaint u/s 200 CrPC which is Ex. PW-4/H as well his earlier complaints made to various police authorities which are proved as Ex. PW-4/A to Ex. PW-4/C. The complainant, being a poor person, has been harrassed not only by the accused but also by the police authorities. Despite reporting the matter to the police immediately after the incident, no action was taken and the FIR was registered only on 22.01.2013 i.e. after about 4 months of the reported incident, that too, on the directions of Ld. MM u/s 156(3) CrPC. The police authorities made every effort SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.15/25 to destroy the complete evidence by not taking immediate action against the accused. Merely because the complainant/PW-4 Kamal Dev has admitted his signatures on quashing petition Ex. PW-4/DA, it is not sufficient to doubt his deposition before the Court. This is more so as he has categorically stated in his cross-examination that accused had forcibly taken his signatures on the quashing petition. The defence put forth by the accused that he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of one Virender Nehra has remained completely unproved. The suggestions put to PW-4 in this regard have been specifically denied by him. Accused did not lead any evidence to show any dispute between him and Virender Nehra, because of which he might have been falsely implicated in this case despite taking opportunities for the said purpose. Mere suggestions to PW-4 as well as IO/PW- 13 Bhawani Shankar to this effect are not sufficient to doubt the entire case of the prosecution when no positive evidence to prove the said facts has been led by the accused.
43.It is further submitted that the mechanical inspection report of the vehicle in question (Ex. PW-10/A) showing no fresh damage to the car is also not of any support to the accused as admittedly the mechanical inspection of the vehicle was done after 6 months of the incident due to delay in registration of FIR.
44. It is further submitted that the injuries shown in the MLC of the complainant (Ex. PW-2/A) are consistent with his SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.16/25 testimony and merely because the injuries are simple in nature, they are not sufficient to doubt the testimony of the complainant. It is also pointed out that as per the MLC (Ex. PW-2/A), the injured was taken to the hospital by ASI Babulal, a PCR official. This fact clearly shows that the matter was immediately reported to the police but the police preferred not to take any action in this regard. The non-action of the police authorities cannot be a ground to doubt the statement of the complainant regarding the incident.
45. Moreover, the entire incident is contained is the CCTV footage. Although, the CCTV footage was not played in the testimony of PW-7, however, IO/SI Bhawani Shankar has duly proved the said CCTV footage, the CD of which is Ex. P-1. He had identified complainant, accused as well as the other guard Ramesh Chand/PW-8 from the CCTV footage. Perusal of the same show that complainant/ PW-4 has deposed about the incident in consonance with the CCTV footage. IO/PW-13 has also categorically deposed that Virender Chauhan/PW-7 had handed over certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to him along with the CD of the CCTV footage which is available on record. Thus, the testimony of the victim/PW-4 which is duly corroborated by CCTV footage of the incident is completely reliable and trustworthy and can be made the basis of convicting the accused.
46. As regards the eye witness/other Guard Ramesh Chand who is examined as PW-8, although, it is correct that he SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.17/25 had not supported the case of the prosecution and did not depose about the incident, however, his demeanor recorded by the Court during his cross-examination by Ld. Additional PP for the State when he was confronted by the CCTV footage clearly show that he was deposing falsely for the reasons best known to him. It is recorded in his testimony that the witness was observed being distressed and showing stretched facial expressions while the CCTV footage was played in his presence. Merely because PW-8 has turned hostile, it cannot be a sufficient ground to ignore the testimony of the complainant/PW-4 which is duly corroborated by the CCTV footage of the incident as well his MLC.
47. It is submitted that considering the overall evidence that has been produced on record, the occurrence of incident and the fact that accused was the perpetrator behind the reported incident is duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Thus, accused is liable for conviction for the offences charged against him.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS, EVIDENCE & LAW:
48. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made and the overall evidence produced on record.
49. As per the case of the prosecution, the victim/complainant Kamal Dev is the star witness of the prosecution case. He is examined as PW-4 and has duly supported the case of the prosecution and proved his complaints as Ex. PW-4/A, Ex. PW-4/B, Ex. PW-4/C and Ex. PW-4/H. The other eye SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.18/25 witness to the incident namely Ramesh Chand/PW-8 has not supported the case of the prosecution but the fact that he was deposing falsely before the Court is evident from his testimony and the court observations regarding his demeanor when he was confronted with the CCTV footage of the incident wherein his presence could be clearly seen. Being the sole witness supporting the case of the prosecution and deposing about the alleged incident, the testimony of the complainant/PW-4 has to be closely scrutinized to ensure that he is not motivated by any extraneous reasons.
50. Firstly, perusal of the record shows that the occurrence of the incident in itself at the date and time of the incident is not in dispute as the matter was immediately reported to the police and the complainant/injured was taken to DDU Hospital by PCR officials as is evident from his MLC (Ex. PW-2/A). The MLC in itself has been conducted immediately after the incident without any delay and fresh injuries were observed on the person of the complainant/victim Kamal Dev. Moreover, the occurance of the incident on the date, time and place of incident is also proved by PW-12 who had seen the injured guard and helped him shift to DDU Hospital and is not cross- examined qua this deposition. Accordingly, the occurrence of the reported incident at the date, time and place of incident is duly proved on record beyond any reasonable doubt. Victim/complainant Kamal Dev/PW-4 has duly identified the accused as the assailant who had caused SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.19/25 injuries to him on the date of incident.
51. Now, the case put forth by the accused is that he was falsely implicated in this case at the instance of one Virender Nehra with whom he was having prior disputes. However, the accused has not brought on record any evidence to establish his alleged disputes with the said Virender Nehra or any connection between the complainant herein and the said Virender Nehra. Except for the suggestions given to complainant/PW-4 Kamal Dev and IO/PW-13 in this regard, which have been duly denied by them, no other evidence has been led by the accused on this aspect. Thus, this defence of the accused does not appear to be probable or sufficient to doubt the credibility and veracity of the complainant/victim Kamal Dev who is examined as PW-4.
52. As regards the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that no documentary evidence has been produced regarding complainant being on duty as a guard at C-2 Block, Janakpuri on the date of the incident; although, it is correct that no such documentary evidence has been placed or proved on record by the prosecution. But the occular testimony of PW-4 to this effect is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW-8 Ramesh who was the other Guard on duty on the date, time and place of incident. In addition to this, complainant/PW-4 has not faltered in his cross- examination when questioned about the area of his duty. Although, it is correct that he could not tell all the details about the entire C-2 Block but he testified in clear terms SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.20/25 when asked about his duties and the area of his duty. Thus, mere arguments in this regard without any contradictory evidence is not sufficient to doubt the fact that complainant/PW-4 was on duty as a guard in C-2 Block, Janakpuri, on the date and time of incident.
53. In view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that accused has failed to create any reasonable doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of PW- 4/complainant Kamal Dev. No reasonable ground/motive has come on record because of which complainant might have falsely implicated the accused in the present case. Regarding the facts mentioned in the quashing petition Ex. PW-4/DA, regarding involvement of one Virender Nehra in the entire incident, same are of no support to the accused as the complainant/PW-4 has clearly testified that his signatures were forcibly taken on the same and the quashing petition has already been dismissed.
54. The CCTV footage placed on record cannot be looked into to corroborate the case of the prosecution and testimony of PW-4 as the same has not been duly proved on record. Neither the DVR/original source has been seized by the IO nor there is any expert opinion that CCTV footage is not manipulated or doctored. PW-7 Virender Chauhan has even failed to prove and rely upon his certificate u/s 65 Indian Evidence Act handed over by him to the IO during investigation. But failure to prove the CCTV footage on record has no bearing on the veracity and trustworthiness of the testimony of the SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.21/25 complainant/PW-4 who is otherwise found to be a reliable and trustworthy witness.
55. As regards the recovery of danda shown at the instance of the accused, the same is of no support to the case of the prosecution as recovery is from an open park after about 1 year of the incident. Moreover, the recovered danda is not identified by victim/PW-4 as the weapon of offence. Similarly, the mechanical inspection report (Ex. PW-10/A) does not record any damage to the vehicle but it has been prepared after about 6 months of the incident. It is apparent on record that there has been delays in investigation at the end of police authorities and not the complainant. So, the benefit of these lapses cannot be given to the accused in any manner.
56. In view of the above discussions, I have no hesitation in holding that PW-4/complainant is found to be a trustworthy and reliable witness and his sole testimony regarding the incident can be relied upon to convict the accused.
57. Now, let us examine the medical evidence on record.
58. MLC (Ex. PW-2/A) of Injured Kamal Dev/PW-4 records three injuries in all that are linear abrassion over left scapular region, bruise over left clavicle region and abrassion over right elbow region. X-ray of the shoulder was conducted, however, no bone injury was observed and the injuries are opined to be simple in nature.
59. Perusal of the MLC of the injured shows that no injury was caused to him on any vital part of the body. From the SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.22/25 nature of the injuries which are mainly abrasions and bruise, it is amply clear on record that the injuries are not of such nature or given in such manner to show an intention or knowledge of the accused to the effect that in case, the injuries had caused death of the complainant/victim, accused would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
60. PW-4 Kamal Dev had deposed that he had suffered dislocation of his left shoulder in the incident. But his MLC (Ex. PW-2/A) does not support this contention. Additional medical documents relied upon by him (Ex. PW-4/G) also record only soft tissue injury and not any bone injury or dislocation. As per the facts of the case and evidence that has come on record, the injuries were given to the complainant/victim in a quarrel that had taken place between the parties on the spur of the moment on the issue of opening the gate of the colony. There is no evidence on record to hold that accused had attacked the complainant in a pre-planned manner with any intention to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder. There are allegations of the accused hitting the complainant with his car while driving it at a high speed. However, the injuries sustained by the complainant do not support this allegation. Although, the injuries caused to the complainant might have been caused by being hit by a car or with danda as deposed by the complainant but not by driving the car at a high speed with the intention of causing death of the complainant. Considering the facts and circumstances of SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.23/25 the case, it is difficult to presume that the accused had any intention or knowledge to cause culpable homicide not amounting to murder of the complainant Kamal Dev.
61. Section 308 IPC provides punishment for an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The main ingredient to attract Section 308 IPC is doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act death is caused, the assailant would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The nature of injury actually sustained by the victim is immaterial, while giving a finding of guilt under Section 308 IPC. However, it may become relevant for finding the intention, knowledge and circumstances in which the injury was caused. In the present case, the facts that have been proved on record suggest that the quarrel that had resulted in the injuries to the complainant Kamal Dev had occurred on the spur of the moment out of certain dispute that had taken place due to the refusal by the complainant to open the gate of the locality as asked by the accused. It was neither a preplanned quarrel nor the accused is alleged to be armed with weapons before starting the quarrel. The nature and intensity of the injuries sustained by Kamal Dev reflected by his MLC are insufficient to give a finding that it was caused with an intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if, the injuries had caused death of the injured, the accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Thus, the accused is entitled for SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.24/25 acquittal for offence under Section 308 IPC in respect of injuries sustained by complainant Kamal Dev.
62.However, since simple injuries have been caused to complainant Kamal Dev due to being hit by the car and the beatings given to him by the accused Pramod Singhal, he is liable for conviction for offence under Section 323 IPC. He is accordingly, convicted for minor offence under Section 323 IPC for injuries sustained by complainant Kamal Dev.
CONCLUSION:
63. In view of the reasons given above, Accused Pramod Singhal is convicted for offence u/s 323 IPC and acquitted for offence u/s 308 IPC.
64. Be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Digitally signed by SHIVALI SHIVALI SHARMA Announced in the open court SHARMA Date: 2024.11.11 15:31:25 +0530 on 11.11.2024. (SHIVALI SHARMA) ASJ-03/WEST/THC/DELHI 11.11.2024
SC No. 56167-2016 State Vs. Pramod Singhal FIR No. 21-2013 Page no.25/25