Delhi District Court
State vs Mukesh Mahato on 23 January, 2024
CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. SONAM GUPTA, CMM, WEST,
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
State v. Mukesh Mahto
FIR No. 322/2016
u/s 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC
PS: Kirti Nagar
Unique Case I.D No. DLWT02-007543-2017
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 3541/2017
Date of commission of offence 25.08.2016
Date of institution of case 30.05.2017
Name of the complainant Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Chhabila Rai
Name of Accused, parentage Mukesh Mahato
& Address S/o Sh. Sudhir Singh
R/o H.No. 463, Pocket-6, D-4,
Punjabi Colony, Narela Delhi.
Offence complained Section 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC
Plea of Accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of argument 23.01.2024
Final Order Conviction U/s 325/341/34 IPC
Date of Judgment 23.01.2024
BRIEF FACTS
1. Succinct facts of the case as elucidated by the prosecution State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 1 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 are that on 25.08.2016 at about 12.30 am mid night, near A-2/10, WHS Kirti Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Kirti Nagar, accused Mukesh Maheto along with one associate (not traceable) wrongfully restrained the complainant and while quarreling with the Complainant/PW-1 Jagdish Rai, the accused Mukesh Maheto along with one associate (not traceable) hit him on his eyes with a danda and voluntarily caused grievous hurt and threatened to kill him. Allegedly, on receiving information regarding the alleged incident, PW-5 Head Constable Kuldeep (posted at PCR West Zone) Kuldeep reached at the spot alongwith PCR officials where they met injured/complainant Jagdish Rai and thereafter, PW-5 Head Constable along with PCR officials admitted the injured/complainant Jagdish Rai to Acharya Bhiskhu Hospital. After receiving the information in the police station, PW-4/IO HC Rabindra Kumar and PW-3 Ct. Vijay Singh reached at the spot but they found that the injured/victim had already been shifted to the Hospital. Thereafter, on 27.08.2016, IO recorded the statement of complainant/injured Jagdish Rai. On the basis of the statement of the Complainant/PW-1, present case FIR was registered against the accused Mukesh Maheto for offence under section 325/506(i)/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), which is Ex. PW-1/A. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo, which is Ex. PW-3/A and further investigation was conducted.
2. After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court. Cognizance of the offence was taken and copy State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 2 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 of chargesheet was supplied to the accused, in compliance of section 207, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C').
3. Arguments on the point of charge were heard and vide order dated 10.12.2018, charge for offence under section 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused by the Ld. Predecessor. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL
4. The prosecution has examined five witnesses to establish and prove the allegations leveled against the accused.
5. PW-1 Jagdish Rai is the Complainant as well as the injured. He has deposed that on 24.08.2016 at about 12.30 am mid night, while he was performing his duty as a security guard at Lakshmi Glass Shop, two persons came there and they threw smoke of "bidi" on his face and when he asked them not to do this, they started quarreling with him and beating him with danda and leg blows. Thereafter, he called at the 100 number, on which the police officials came and took him to the hospital and his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer, which is Ex. PW-1/A. PW 1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW-2 Shashi Bhushan Pandey deposed that on State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 3 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 24.08.2016 at about 12.30 am mid night, while he was performing his duty as security guard at G-4, Security company, he saw victim Jagdish Rai in a pool of blood and there was an injury on his head and he made a call at 100 number. However, PW2 turned hostile on the point of seeing the accused Mukesh Mehto with a danda in his hand and breaking the glass of the cabin. PW 2 was cross examined by Ld. APP for the state and then by Ld. Defence counsel.
7. PW-3 Constable Vijay Singh had accompanied the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the instant case. He has deposed that on 21.02.2017, on receiving DD No. 7B, he along with IO/HC Robinder Kumar reached Jawahar Camp, Kirti Nagar and during investigation, accused Mukesh Maheto had made a disclosure that the danda used in the commission of the alleged offence was hidden somewhere near Shochalaya at Jawahar Camp, Kirti Nagar. He further deposed that the accused Mukesh Mehto had made disclosure regarding involvement of co-accused Ravi in the present case. PW-3 Ct. Vijay Singh is also a witness to the arrest of accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that on the disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Mehto, efforts were made to search the danda which was used in the crime and co-accused Ravi, however, both of them could not be traced. PW 3 was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
8. PW-4 Inspector HC Rabindra Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the instant case. He has deposed on the State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 4 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 similar lines as PW-3. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex.PW3/B and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW-5 HC Kuldeep is the PCR officials and he deposed that on 24/25.08.2016 mid night, at about 01.00 am he received a call regarding quarrel at A2/10 Laxmi Glass WHS, Kirti Nagar and reached at the spot and met with one injured person namely Jagdish Rai, who narrated the whole incident to him and thereafter, he along with other police officials of PCR shifted the injured to Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar for his medical treatment. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel.
10. Consequently, PE was closed on 23.07.2022. Subsequent thereto, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 r/w 281 Cr. P.C on 30.08.2022 wherein, all the incriminating evidence were put to the accused. In his statement recorded under section 313 r/w 218 Cr.P.C, accused has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the Complainant/PW-1 and the complainant without any reason started abusing him, there was a little quarrel but he did not hit the victim. He also stated in his statement U/s 313 Cr.P.C that the complainant was also under the influence of liquor.
11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and have carefully perused the entire record.
State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 5 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED
12. Ld. defence counsel argued that the prosecution has examined only one eyewitness as PW-2. Ld. defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused as PW1 has stated that he made a call at 100 number and PW 2 has stated that he made a call at 100 number. It is further argued by Ld. Defence counsel that the PW 2 did not recognize the accused before the court at the time of his deposition and turned hostile witness. Further, it is stated that as weapon of offence ie 'danda' have not been recovered by the prosecution, the accused should be given benefit of doubt and the acquitted in the present case.
13. Per Contra, Ld. APP for the State has contended that charges against the accused have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted and sentenced as per law.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISIONS
14. In the present case, the accused has been charged for committing offence under section 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC. In the instant case, testimony of the Complainant/PW-1 is paramount for proving the case of the prosecution against the accused inasmuch as the entire case of the prosecution is based on the sole testimony of the Complainant/PW-1. Rest all witnesses are police/formal witnesses, who reached at the spot after the alleged State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 6 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 incident. Thus, before proceedings further, it would be apposite to refer to the law laid down by higher courts with respect to testimony of single witness. It is well settled principle of law that conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the complainant, if its reliable and free from blemishes. However, there care catena of judgments of the Superior Courts cautioning that the court shall exercise utmost caution and care while relying on the sole testimony of a witness to the incident, in order to exclude the possibility of false implication.
15. The complainant has identified the accused correctly in the court. The presence of accused at the spot is not disputed by the accused. The complainant has been consistent in his testimony recorded in the court and his complaint made to the police Ex.PW1/A. There is no major contradiction in the testimony of complainant and other witnesses. One eye of the complainant has got permanently damaged in the incident which is duly supported by MLC dated 25.08.2016, Ex.A1 and medical documents to that effect. Nothing would be elucidated in the cross examination of the complainant. Though, PW 2 has turned hostile w.r.t. presence of the accused on the spot of incident, however, he has supported the prosecution so far as finding the complainant in an injured state with blood oozing out on the date of the incident at the place of incident.
16. Now, I shall advert to the arguments advanced by Ld. State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 7 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 Defence counsel. The first aspect which has been pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel is that PW 1 in his testimony before court has stated that he made a call at 100 number whereas PW 2 in his testimony also stated that he made a call at 100 number. Further, it is stated that time of arrest of accused is questionable as PW 3 in his cross examination stated that he met the IO of this case at 04.30 pm in the police station and thereafter, they went to arrest the accused, however, PW 4 has stated that the accused was arrested at around 04.00 pm. Moreover, it is stated by Ld. Defence counsel that the weapon of offence i.e. danda has not been recovered in the present case, thus, casting a serious doubt of the case of the prosecution. Further it is brought on record that on the MLC of the accused, as per history "an unknown person"
was the assailant, however, as per the version of the complainant himself, he knew the accused from prior to the present case.
17. In this context, reliance is placed on the case of Laxmi Vs State (2002) 7 SSC 198, where it has been held "it is not a inflexible rule that weapon of assault must be recovered" and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India did not except as a general and broad proposition of law that in case of non recovery of weapon of assault, the whole prosecution case gets thrown out. In the present case, where the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the complainant coupled with his MLC Ex.A1, non recovery of weapon ie danda does not caste any dent on the prosecution case.
18. The inconsistencies with respect to time of arrest of also State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 8 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 are not material as PW 4 ie the IO has categorically stated that he does not remember the exact time of arrest of the accused. With respect to not mentioning the name of the accused in the MLC Ex.A1 also is of no consequence as it cannot be expected from the person who has been caused grievous injury in the eye to inform about the incident in totality to the doctor instead of focusing on the treatment. Thus, the aforesaid contradictions/inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution, in my considered opinion fall under the realm of minor inconsistencies and I hereby disregard such inconsistenceis
19. Further, the accused has been unable to bring to fore any material circumstances upon which the court may disbelieve the testimony of the injured as the prosecution witness. It cannot be gainsaid that the evidence of an injured witness is generally considered to be very reliable and is accorded a special status in law as it is unlikely that he would have spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else as accused. Complainant has supported the case of prosecution to its hilt. His testimony is cogent and consistent. Nothing has come in his cross examination which casts doubt on the testimony of PW-1.
20. In view of the above said discussion, the prosecution has able to prove its case against the accused for the offence charges U/s 323/341 IPC against the accused and the accused is hereby convicted for the offence U/s 323/341 IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence U/s 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt as the same State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 9 of 10 CNR no. DLWT02-007543-2017 has not been stated by PW 1 in his testimony recorded in the court.
21. Let the copy of judgment be given free of cost to the convict.Digitally signed
SONAM by SONAM GUPTA GUPTA 16:50:44 Date: 2024.01.23 +0530 Announced in open court (Sonam Gupta) on 23.01.2024 CMM/West District Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi State Vs. Mukesh Maheto ; CIS No. 322/16; FIR No. 3541/2017; PS Kirti Nagar; U/s. 325/506(i)/341/34 IPC 10 of 10