Delhi District Court
State (75) vs Jitender @ Suja -2 Bail (To) (1Jc)(Utp) on 6 April, 2024
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC/162/2019
CNR No.: DLWT010023252019
Police Station: Kirti Nagar
FIR No.: 450/2018
State Vs. 1. Jitender @ Suja
R/o H. No. 10665, Gali No.08,
Pratap Nagar, Delhi.
2. Tarun Kumar @ Tunna
S/o Sh. Umesh Kumar
R/o H. No. 10685, Gali No. 9,
Pratap Nagar Delhi.
Date of institution before Ld. MM : 30.01.2019
Date of institution : 25.03.2019,
Date of arguments : 02.04.2024
Date of judgement : 06.04.2024
JUDGEMENT
1. Both the accused persons are facing trial on the allegations that on 2.12.2018 at 2:40 pm Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Sanjay were in the area patrolling at Ramesh Nagar, on Govt. Motorcycle No. DL1SS2496. On the same day at about 2:30 pm, HC Vinod passed information on wireless set that two boys are running on Pulsar motorcycle after SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 1 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 committing Robbery. On receipt of the said information Ct. Sanjeev along with Ct. Sanjay reached near Baba Wala School and found that HC Vinod and Ct. Satish were following the alleged Motorcycle. The accused persons were taken in cordon and stopped the, Ct. Sanjeev and Ct. Sanjay tried to apprehend them, both the accused persons attacked Ct. Sanjeev with fists and leg blows, which caused fracture in the right knee of Ct. Sanjeev. Soon the other police officials reached and apprehended the accused persons.
On the statement of Ct. Sanjeev a case vide FIR No. 450/2018, under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC, PS Kirti Nagar was got registered and investigation was taken up. During the course of investigation both the accused persons were arrested in the case. The result on the MLC of Ct. Sanjeev was collected and doctor opined the injuries "grievous". Section 333 IPC was replaced with Section 332 IPC.
It is further submitted that from the contents of the FIR and investigation conducted so far, it has been found that the above mentioned accused persons have committed offence under Section 186/353/333/34 IPC i.e. obstructing a public servant in discharging their official duties, assault and use of criminal force and voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant with common intention. To take cognizance of offence under Section 186/353/333/34 IPC complaint SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 2 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 of under Section 195 CrPC is required.
2. Investigation was conducted. A complaint under Section 195 CrPC was written by Kumar Abhishek, Assistant Commissioner of Police. Charge sheet was filed before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, who after completion of requirement under Section 207 CrPC, committed the case to Sessions Court.
Charge
3. After hearing arguments on charge, a charge under Section 186/34, 333/34, 353/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
4. Prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. PW1 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar and PW4 HC Vinod Kumar are the material witnesses in the present case. PW3 HC Rakesh was Duty Officer on 2.12.2018. At 7:40 pm, he received a rukka from Ct. Sanjay, which was sent by SI Banay Singh. On the basis of the said rukka, he recorded FIR Ex.PW3/B, wrote an endorsement Ex.PW3/A on the rukka. At about 17:41 hours, he received an information that SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 3 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 Ct. Sanjeev Yadav was admitted in Ashrey Medical Centre. This information was entered by him in General Diary vide GD No. 033A Ex.PW3/E. PW5 ACP Kumar Abhishek proved his complaint under Section 195 CrPC, which is Ex.PW5/A. PW6 Dr. Ashok Gupta proved MLC Ex.PW6/A of injured Ct. Sanjeev. He opined the injury to be grievous.
PW8 SI Tarsem Lal is the initial Investigating Officer. PW7 SI Banay Singh conducted further investigation and thereafter filed the charge sheet.
5. Testimony of PW1 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar is as under :
"On 02.12.2018 I was posted at PS Kirti Nagar and on that day I along with Ct. Sanjay were on Ilka patrolling duty in the beat area on motorcycle bearing registration No. DL1SS2496. During duty, at about 2.30 p.m. HC Vinod had informed through wireless set that two boys had robbed purse on the point of knife and thereafter fled away on Pulsar motorcycle at the roundabout of Ramesh Nagar. Thereafter, I along with Ct. Sanjay reached at Baba Wala School side on the above mentioned motorcycle being driven by Ct. Sanjay and I was pillion rider via ring road and saw that HC Vinod and Ct. Satish were chasing SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 4 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 a Pulsar motorcycle and two persons were on the said Pulsar motorcycle. Ct. Sanjay had put his motorcycle in front of Pulsar motorcycle and got stopped the said Pulsar motorcycle. Both the persons who were on Pulsar motorcycle got down and tried to ran away. During this, I had tried to apprehend both of them, on which they attacked on me by giving leg and fist blows as a result of which I fell down and received injuries. In the meantime, HC Vinod caught hold one of the persons out of them, whose name was later on revealed as Jitender @ Suja, who is today present in the Court (correctly identified). Ct. Satish had apprehended another boy, whose name was later on revealed as Tarun, who is today present in the Court (correctly identified). During cursory search of both the accused persons, one knife each was recovered from both the accused persons. In the meantime, complainant Rajan Kumar, whose purse was robbed by both the accused persons had also reached there. As I had received injuries, Ct. Sanjay took me to Ashray Medical Centre, Kirti Nagar, where I was medically treated.
SI Banay Singh reached at the hospital and recorded my statement, which is Ex.PW1/A, which bears my signatures at point A. X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 5 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 We proceeded for Ilaka patrolling in morning hours but I do not remember the DD number vide which we left for Ilka patrolling. We had received the information on wireless set at about 2.30 p.m. Public persons used to pass through the place where incident had taken place. I do not remember the registration of motorcycle on which accused persons had come. I had seen that HC Vinod and Ct. Satish were chasing the said Pulsar motorcycle and by this fact I was sure that the said Pulsar motorcycle was the same for which we had received the information through Wireless set. I had not stated this fact to the IO in my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. When the accused persons were apprehended, a crowd had gathered there. I had not told to the IO in my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that accused persons had beaten me by leg and fist blows. However, I had stated that accused persons had attacked on me. IO had not recorded statement of any public witness in my presence. It is correct that CCTV cameras are installed at roundabout of Ramesh Nagar. I do not know if IO had collected CCTV footage. I do not remember the exact time when I reached the hospital. However, I was shifted to the hospital after sometime, when the accused persons were apprehended. It is correct that I was taken to a private hospital. I was discharged from the hospital on the same day. The concerned Doctor had done x SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 6 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 ray of my feet. It is wrong to suggest that no Xray of my feet was done by the Doctor. I do not remember the time when my statement was recorded by the IO in the hospital. The accused persons did not use knife during scuffle with me. It is correct that in my statement Ex.PW1/A the date of occurrence is mentioned as 02.11.2018. I had not stated to the IO in my statement Ex.PW1/A that when accused persons had tried to flee away I had first tried to apprehend them. The site plan was not prepared in my presence. IO did not prepare any document in my presence except my statement Ex.PW1/A. My statement was recorded by IO and at that time Ct. Sanjay was present. It is correct that the hospital where I was taken is near to the police station and I had not gone to any govt. hospital of my own. I had not paid the bill of the hospital and same might have been paid by any other colleague present there. I cannot tell if the IO had filed the copy of bill along with chargesheet or not. I was discharged from the hospital on same night. But I do not remember the exact time when I was discharged from the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that no incident as deposed by me had ever taken place with me.
It is 1.30 p.m. Further crossexamination of witness is deferred. X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 7 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 Q. Have you stated in your complaint to the police Ex.PW1/A that the motorcycle was being driven by Ct. Sanjay?
Ans. In the complaint it is written that I along with Ct. Sanjay were riding on the motorcycle. (Confronted with statement Ex.PW1/A where it is not recorded that motorcycle was driven by Ct. Sanjay).
At the time of incident, the motorcycle was being driven by Ct. Sanjay. It is wrong to suggest that no such incident as deposed by me had ever taken place. It is wrong to suggest that I have not received any injury. It is wrong to suggest that due to said reason the IO has not filed any Xray report, any discharge slip or hospital bill. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely. It is wrong to suggest that I was not present on the spot. It is wrong to suggest that all proceedings were done while sitting in the police station. It is wrong to suggest that a false complaint is lodged against the accused persons in connivance of other police officials to work out other cases."
6. Testimony of PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar is as under :
"On 02.12.2018 I was posted as Constable at PS Kirti Nagar. On the said date, I along with Ct. Sanjeev were on patrolling duty in the area of Ramesh Nagar. We were patrolling on the official motorcycle bearing registration No. DL1SS 2496 make Pulsar. The same was SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 8 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 driven by me and Ct. Sanjeev was the pillion rider.
On the said day, at about 2.30 p.m. I as well as Ct. Sanjeev heard the message flashed on the wireless set by the HC Vinod. The message was that 2 boys riding on a motorcycle of make black Pulsar have ran away from Ramesh Nagar, roundabout after brandishing the knife and snatching a bag and they were being chased by him. It was also asked on the wireless set that I along with Ct. Sanjeev should reach on Baba Wala School, Ramesh Nagar.
I along with Ct. Sanjeev on the official motorcycle reached from Ring Road to Baba Wala School, Ramesh Nagar and I saw that 2 boys were running towards us while riding on motorcycle and they were being chased by HC Vinod and Ct. Satish. On seeing the police, those two boys got perplexed and their motorcycle got disbalanced and they fell on ground. Ct. Sanjeev reached near both the boys to apprehend them, both the boys have attacked him and started beating Ct. Sanjeev. I also immediately reached there and while they were trying to run away, both those boys were apprehended. HC Vinod also came at the spot and he also helped us in apprehending those boys. After enquiry names of both the boys were disclosed as Jitender @ Suja and Tarun @ Tunna. Both the said boys are today present in the Court as accused persons. (The witness has correctly identified both the SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 9 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 accused persons by pointing out towards them by face and names). I do not remember today the number mentioned on the number plate of the motorcycle on which both the accused persons were riding. Accused Tarun was apprehended by me. From possession of both the accused persons, a knife from each accused persons were recovered. Complainant Rajan Kapoor also came at the spot, whose bag (again said) the purse was recovered. At the spot PCR van also came. ASI Tarsem had also visited the spot. Since Ct. Sanjeev suffered the injuries on his leg, therefore, I had taken him to the nearby Medical Centre, which is in the name of Ashrey Medical Centre. Ct. Sanjeev was admitted in the hospital. ASI Tarsem also visited the hospital.
ASI Tarsem has recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev and handed over rukka to me and I had taken the same to police station and got the case registered.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) seeks permission to cross examine the witness as witness is not revealing the detailed facts. Heard. Request is allowed.
X X X By Sh. K.D. Pachauri, Ld. Addl. PP (substitute) for State.
It is correct that SI Baney Singh had visited the hospital and had recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev. It is correct that the rukka was SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 10 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 prepared by SI Baney Singh and handed over the same to me and I had taken the same to police station.
Question: Is it correct that the motorcycle on which accused persons were riding was having registration number DL6SBZ1530 on its number plate?
Ans. Yes.
It is correct that after registration of FIR I came at the place where both the boys were apprehended and handed over original rukka, copy of FIR and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act. It is correct that SI Baney Singh had drawn the site plan at my instance and at the instance of HC Vinod. Both the accused persons Jitender and Tarun were arrested formally vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively and both the memos bear my signatures at points A. It is correct that I have recollected these facts which I missed due to investigation of two cases and lapse of time.
X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both the accused persons.
I along with Ct. Sanjeev left for the patrolling duty in the morning on the said day at about 10.00 a.m. (It is already 12.15 p.m. and a woman witness in other matter listed for evidence in the Court today is waiting for her remaining SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 11 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 examination in evidence and the said case for examination the woman is to be taken immediately after this case. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has stated his personal difficulty not to wait till the examination of the said lady is over and requested for adjournment. Request opposed. Request declined. Further crossexamination be taken up today after the examination of the said woman witness is over).
X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Ld. Counsel for both the accused. The roundabout is a public thorough. It is correct that vehicles pass through said roundabout. I do not remember today the number of motorcycle. There are CCTV cameras installed where the incident of the present case had taken place. In my presence, IO had not obtained the CCTV footage. I had informed to the IO that both the accused persons have attacked upon Ct. Sanjeev with legs and punches. (Confronted with the statement Mark PW2/DA where the words legs and punches are not mentioned). We were informed on the wireless set that two boys were running after snatching a purse.
Q. You have stated in your examinationinchief recorded on previous date that the boys have snatched a bag and today you are stating that it was a purse. What you have to say?
Ans. It was purse which was snatched.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 12 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 I reached at the Asrey Hospital with Ct. Sanjeev at around 3.15 p.m., which is a private hospital. My statement was recorded by SI Banney Singh at around 7.30 p.m. at the police station only once. The statement of Ct. Sanjeev was recorded by the IO at Asrey Hospital in the evening around 7 p.m. but I do not remember the exact time. I do not now know who had paid the bill of the Asrey hospital. I left the hospital after 7 p.m. In my presence, no relative or friend of Ct. Sanjeev visited the hospital. I cannot tell today at what time Ct. Sanjeev was finally discharged from Asrey hospital. It is correct that my statement was not recorded by ASI Tarsem. The person whose purse was snatched had reached the spot. I do not know whether said person has been cited as witness or not in the present matter by the IO. IO had recorded the statement and prepared site plan in my presence. I had not signed the site plan. The site plan was prepared by the IO on 02.12.2018 at around 2.45 p.m. as far as I recollect today. I had taken the rukka at around 7.30 p.m. and reached at the police station within 10 minutes. I had not revisited the spot after reaching the police station. When I took the rukka to police station IO was present at the spot. I do not know at what time IO returned at the police station. The Xray of Ct. Sanjeev was conducted in my presence but I cannot tell the time when Xray was done. It is wrong SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 13 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 to suggest that no such incident had taken place or that accused persons had not assaulted the police officials. PCR van visited the spot at about 2.35 p.m. I do not know at what time both the accused persons were shifted to the police station from the spot by the IO. IO had arrested both the ACP in my presence but I cannot tell the exact time. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons were not present at spot or that accused persons were lifted from their house and falsely implicated in this case. It is wrong to suggest that the present case is registered falsely against the accused persons in connivance with the other police officials of the police station to work out the cases."
7. Testimony of PW3 HC Rakesh is as under :
"On 02.12.2018 I was posted at PS Kirti Nagar and was working as duty officer from 04:00 PM to 12 Midnight. On that day, at about 7.30 p.m. again said 7.40 p.m, I received a rukka from Ct. Sanjay Belt No. 2840/W which was sent by SI Banay Singh. On the basis of said rukka, I got recorded the FIR in the computer through CCTN operator on my dictation and direction. After registration of the FIR, the print outs were obtained, which I verified and checked with the rukka. While taking the print outs, computer and printer both were working properly. I have also put my endorsement on the rukka, which is in my SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 14 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 handwriting and now Ex.PW3/A, which bears my signatures at point X. I have also brought the register from the police station where the printouts of the FIRs are maintained. The same is seen and returned. The printout of the FIR is now Ex.PW3/B, which bears my signatures at point A. I had also issued certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act was issued, which is Ex.PW3/C, which bears my signatures at point A. On the same day i.e. 02.12.2018 at about 17.41 Hours I had also received another information from Dr. Ashok Gupta from Ashrey Medical Centre that one Ct. Sanjeev Yadav was admitted in the Hospital as injured vide MLC No. 94/2018. I had fed this information in the computerized general diary vide GD No. 033A. This information was communicated to SI Banay Singh telephonically. I had obtained the printout of this GD entry. I also submit certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act which respect to this GD entry, which is Ex.PW3/D. The printout of this GD entry, attested by ACP and certified by the SHO is now Ex.PW3/E, which bears my signatures at point A. X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for both the accused. The original rukka and copy of printouts were handed over to Ct. Sanjay and he left the police station at around 8.15 p.m. I received SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 15 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 the rukka and thereafter the GD entry was recorded and then I started getting the FIR registered. It is wrong to suggest that I have not recorded the FIR as the time as stated by me or that GD entry and the FIR were manipulated and registered subsequently in connivance with the IO and to support the case of prosecution. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
8. Testimony of PW4 HC Vinod Kumar is as under :
"On 02.12.2018 I was posted at PS Kirti Nagar. On the said day, I alongwith Ct. Satish were in the Beat of PS Kirti Nagar on the official motorcycle (Raftar) bearing registration No. DL1SY 3709. At around 2.30 p.m. while patrolling when we reached near Gol Chakkar, Community Hall, Ramesh Nagar, there we saw that one person was shouting "chor chor" and was stating loudly that two boys had brandished the knife and snatched his purse and ran away of motorcycle. The said persons pointed out towards a motorcycle on which two boys were going at a speed. On this, I along with Ct. Satish started chasing the said motorcycle. I was the pillion rider and I flashed the message through Wireless and sent messages to another motorcycle which was also on patrolling duty in the beat on which Ct. Sanjay and Ct. Sanjeev were patrolling. We were chasing this SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 16 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 motorcycle. My motorcycle was being driven by Ct. Satish. While chasing we reached at Baba Wala School, Ramesh Nagar. There from the Ring Road side i.e. from our front side, the official motorcycle on which Ct. Sanjay was rider and Ct. Sanjeev was pillion rider was seen coming from that side. My motorcycle as well as the another official motorcycle surrounded those boys near Baba Wala School. PCR van also reached the spot. Thereafter, we tried to apprehend both the boys. Ct. Sanjeev was ahead of us and when Ct. Sanjeev tried to apprehend those boys, they attacked on Ct. Sanjeev. Ct. Sanjeev had sustained injury on his leg. Then we all over powered those two boys and on enquiry there names were known as Jitender @ Suja and Tarun @ Tunna. The complainant who had made the PCR about snatching of his purse also came at the spot near Near Baba Wala School. Ramesh Nagar. From the possession of both the accused persons, one knife each was recovered. The stolen purse of the complainant was also recovered. The public persons Rajan Kapoor came at the spot and identified his purse, which was snatched from him. The motorcycle on which both the accused persons were riding and running away was later found to be stolen. At that time the motorcycle was having the number plate DL6SBZ 1530. IO ASI Tarsem had also arrived at the spot and the accused persons along with the SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 17 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 recovered case property were handed over to ASI Tarsem. I had overpowered Jitender and Ct. Satish had overpowered accused Tarun. Ct. Sanjeev was sent to the Hospital through Ct. Sanjay. The accused persons were arrested. IO SI Banay Singh also arrived at the spot, who had formally arrested both the accused persons in the present case. I had also shown the place of the incident to the IO. IO had recorded my statement.
I can identify both the accused persons. The accused Jitender @ Sujay is today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness by pointing out towards accused present in Court today.
At this stage, further examinationinchief is deferred as the other accused is not present today and exempted from personal appearance for today only.
I was posted at PS Kirti Nagar on 02.12.2018. On that day, I and Ct. Satish were in the Beat of PS Kirti Nagar on official motorcycle (Raftar) bearing registration No. DL1SY 3709. At around 2.30 p.m. when we reached while patrolling near Gol Chakkar, Community Hall, Ramesh Nagar, we saw that one person was shouting "chor chor" and was shouting loudly that two boys had brandished the knife and snatched his purse and ran away on motorcycle. The said persons pointed out towards a motorcycle on which two boys were going at a SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 18 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 speed. On this, I along with Ct. Satish started chasing the said motorcycle. I was the pillion rider and I flashed the message through Wireless and sent messages to another motorcycle which was also on patrolling duty in the beat on which Ct. Sanjay and Ct. Sanjeev were patrolling. We were chasing this motorcycle. My motorcycle was being driven by Ct. Satish. While chasing we reached at Baba Wala School, Ramesh Nagar. There from the Ring Road side i.e. from our front side, the official motorcycle on which Ct. Sanjay was rider and Ct. Sanjeev was pillion rider was seen coming from that side. My motorcycle as well as the another official motorcycle surrounded those boys near Baba Wala School. PCR van also reached the spot. Thereafter, we tried to apprehend both the boys. Ct. Sanjeev was ahead of us and when Ct. Sanjeev tried to apprehend those boys, they attacked on Ct. Sanjeev. Ct. Sanjeev had sustained injury on his leg. Then we all over powered those two boys and on enquiry there names were known as Jitender @ Suja and Tarun @ Tunna. The complainant who had made the PCR about snatching of his purse also came at the spot near Near Baba Wala School. Ramesh Nagar. From the possession of both the accused persons, one knife each was recovered. The stolen purse of the complainant was also recovered. The public persons Rajan Kapoor came at the spot and identified his purse, which SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 19 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 was snatched from him. The motorcycle on which both the accused persons were riding and running away was later found to be stolen. At that time the motorcycle was having the number plate DL6SBZ 1530. IO ASI Tarsem had also arrived at the spot and the accused persons along with the recovered case property were handed over to ASI Tarsem. I had overpowered Jitender and Ct. Satish had overpowered accused Tarun. Ct. Sanjeev was sent to the Hospital through Ct. Sanjay. The accused persons were arrested. IO SI Banay Singh also arrived at the spot, who had formally arrested both the accused persons in the present case. I had also shown the place of the incident to the IO. IO had recorded my statement.
I identify the accused Tarun Kumar as well as accused Jitender @ Suja, who are present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness).
X X X By Sh. Deepak Malik, Advocate for both the accused.
I had left Police Station at about 9.30 a.m. for patrolling duty. The DD entry was made in routine by the Duty Officer. I do not remember the DD number. I was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time when incident occurred. After the incident, complainant had called at No. 100. IO might have reached on the spot after about 30 minutes subsequent to making call at No. 100. I was SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 20 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 patrolling on a govt. motorcycle bearing registration No. DL1SY3709. Question - Did you state to the Investigating Officer the registration number of the motorcycle being used by you in your statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C.?
(Objected to by Ld. Addl. PP in view of Tahsildar Singh Vs. State of UP (AIR 1959 SC 1012)).
(I have considered the submissions and I agree that the question is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. This issue has been discussed in detail by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hidayatullah in the aforesaid judgment. Accordingly, the question is rejected. However, ld. Counsel wants to reframe this question, requests allowed.) Question - I put it to you that the motorcycle number being used by you does not find mentioned in your statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. Is it correct?
Answer - It is correct.
It is correct that the occurrence has taken place near a government school which is popularly known as Babawala School, Ramesh Nagar, Delhi. I do not know if CCTV cameras are installed around the school.
It is incorrect to suggest that CCTV cameras belonging to Delhi Police is also installed near the spot.SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 21 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 Question When you hit the motorcycle of accused persons with your motorcycle, did your motorcycle fell down due to the impact of hitting or not?
Answer - The motorcycle on which I was sitting as pillion rider did not hit the motorcycle of the accused rather it was the motorcycle being driven by Ct. Sanjay had hit the motorcycle of the accused persons.
At the time when accused persons were arrested from the spot, complainant was not present there. I had not accompanied Ct. Sanjeev to the hospital. In my presence, IO had recorded the statement of ASI Tarsem Lal, Ct. Satish and of mine or perhaps had also recorded the statement of PCR officials. Public persons had gathered subsequent to the incident. IO had tried to record the statement of public witnesses gathered there but none came forward to give a statement. My statement was recorded at about 9.45 p.m. but I am not sure about the time.
Question - Did you remain at the spot from 2.30 p.m. (afternoon) when the incident took place till 9.45 p.m. when your statement was recorded?
Answer - Yes.
Accused persons were taken to Police Station sometimes around SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 22 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 10.00 / 10.15 p.m. So far I remember, all the documents were prepared at the spot including arrest memo, personal search memo, site plan, etc. I might have signed the site plan. (confronted with site plan already exhibited as Ex. PW7/D, where the signatures of witness are not present).
It is incorrect to suggest that I was not present at the spot at the time of incident or during investigation or during arrest of the accused persons and that I am testifying falsely just to support prosecution case."
9. Testimony of PW8 SI Tarsem Lal is as under.
"In the year 2018, I was Assistant SubInspector and was posted at PS Kirti Nagar. On 02.12.2018, on receipt of copy of DD No. 26A regarding robbery on the point of knife, I had gone to near Babawala School, Ramesh Nagar alongwith PCR Van, Power II alongwith its InCharge Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir where the complainant Rajan Kapoor met me. Both accused present today in the Court Jitender @ Suja and Tarun were also present there in the custody of police. One Pulsar motorcycle registration No. DL6SBZ 1530 and daggers and one purse were also recovered from the possession of the accused persons. I recorded the statement of complainant Rajan Kapoor and got the FIR SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 23 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 No. 449/18 u/s. 392/397/506/34 IPC at PS Kirti Nagar registered and both the accused persons were arrested by me in this case. The recovered motorcycle Pulsar from the accused persons were found to be stolen and the number plate was fake during the investigation. However, the issue of robbery, recovery of daggers and purse from the accused persons is subject matter of case FIR No. 449/18 u/s. 392/397/506/34 IPC PS Kirti Nagar.
Accused persons had attacked Constable Sanjeev while performing duty by him. Both the accused persons were inquired by Sub Inspector Banay Singh in the present case and they were arrested in this very case.
Accused Tarun and Jitender made disclosure statement which was recorded by Sub Inspector Banay Singh already Ex. PW7/B and PW7/C respectively, both bearing my signature at points 'B'. Investigation Officer prepared site plan at the instance of Constable Sanjeev.
My statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. X X X By Sh. Deepak Bhardwaj, Advocate for both the accused.
Deferred at the request of ld. Counsel for the accused persons. X X X By Sh. Deepak Malik, Advocate for the accused.SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 24 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 I had left the Police Station 3.45 p.m. on my bike. My departure entry was made in DD No. 26A itself. Prior to reaching Babawala School, I had also stopped near Roundabout Ramesh Nagar. When I reached on the spot, InCharge of PCR Van ASI Rajbir, both accused, Head Constable Vinod, Constable Satish and complainant Rajan Kapoor met me there. I cannot tell whether IO had recorded statement of Rajan Kapoor or not. I cannot tell if IO had recorded the statement of all those persons thereon but he had interrogated them.
Today I do not fully remember the number of the motorcycle but I remember DL6S 1530, other alphabets I do not remember.
Injured Constable Sanjeev was already removed to the hospital. My statement was recorded by the IO on the spot at about 10.00 p.m. I had not noticed any camera installed around Babawala School. It is incorrect to suggest that the place of occurrence is thickly populated place and many shops are also there.
In my presence, IO had prepared arrest memo and disclosure statement of accused persons. I had not gone to hospital to know about his condition or well being. I had recorded his statement in another case in which I was the Investigating Officer.
At the time when I had reached Babawala School, it has not come to my knowledge that the motorcycle recovered was having fake SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 25 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 number plate. (Vol. This fact has come during investigation. Therefore, this fact has not been mentioned in my statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.).
It is correct that in my presence none of the accused persons had inflicted any injury on the person of Constable Sanjeev. It is correct that I came to know this fact subsequent to reaching there and on that basis, I had deposed so. It is incorrect to suggest that I have deposed falsely or that I had never joined the investigation."
10. Testimony of PW7 SI Banay Singh is as under :
"On 02.12.2018 on receipt of DD No.33A already Ex.PW3/E, I had gone to Ashray Medical Center, Kirti Nagar and collected MLC of injured Sanjeev Yadav already Ex.PW6/A, on which the Doctor has opined history of assault in Ramesh Nagar. The patient was attacked by accused while on duty and nature of injury was kept under observation and cause by blunt. Injured Ct. Sanjeev was found admitted in the Hospital. Doctor opined Ct. Sanjeev injured as fit for statement. I recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev and whatever he stated, the same was read over and on finding the same as correct, he signed on the same. The statement is already Ex.PW1/A bearing signatures of Ct. Sanjeev at point A and I attested the same at point B. SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 26 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 ON the basis of statement and MLC I prepared rukka same is now Ex.PW7/A and handed over the same to Ct. Sanjay at about 2.40 p.m. for registration of FIR. After handing over to Ct. Sanjay who had joined me in the Hospital, I left for spot i.e. Baba Wala School, Ramesh Nagar corner. On reaching there, I found ASI Tarsem, HC Vinod, Ct. Satish present there alongwith both the accused persons, who are today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness).
On enquiry I came to know that ASI Tarsem was the Investigating Officer of the case FIR NO.449/2018 under Section 392 IPC etc. PS Kirti Nagar and accused persons were arrested in that case and case property was recovered from them in that case. I interrogated both the accused persons and thereafter accused Tarun @ Tunna and Jitender @ Suja were arrested in this case also and their arrest memos are already Ex.PW2/B and 2/A respectively. Ct. Sanjay had arrived at the spot prior to their arrest. I recorded the disclosure statement of accused Tarun @ Tunna and Jitender @ Suja, which are now Ex.PW7/B and 7/C respectively. I prepared site plan with the assistance of HC Vinod, which is now Ex.PW7/D. I recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, I left for police station.SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 27 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 I collected the complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. from the concerned ACP which is already Ex.PW5/A. On the next day of their arrest, the accused persons were produced before Ld. MM and they were remanded to judicial custody. I deposited the MLC in the Hospital for opinion and Doctor opined the nature of injures as 'grievous'. Accordingly, I converted the case under Section 333 IPC in place of Section 332 IPC. I had also collected requisite certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act. Ct. Sanjay had handed over to me copy of FIR already EX.PW3/B and rukka. I had also obtained the details regarding previous involvement/conviction of the accused, namely Jitender @ Suja running into two pages, which is marked PW 7/PX. On the basis of material collected during investigation, I prepared the challan and filed the same in the Court through SHO/ACP.
X X X By Sh. Deepak Kumar, Advocate for both the accused. I left the police station at around 6.00 p.m. and reached Hospital within 10 minutes. Ct. Sanjay had also met me in the Hospital whereas Ct. Sanjeev was found hospitalized. I recorded statement of Ct. Sanjeev in the Hospital whereas statement of Ct. Sanjay was recorded at the spot. I recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev sometimes between 6.15 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. The xray of the injured SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 28 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 had not been taken in my presence. At the time of collecting the opinion of the Doctor regarding nature of injuries being grievous, I did ask for the Xray reports but the Doctor stated that he would present it during the trial. I reached the spot from Hospital at about 8.00 p.m. I had also found one person, namely Rajan Kapoor at the spot. ASI Tarsem had introduced him as the complainant of FIR No. 449/2018 PS Kirti Nagar. I had recorded the statement of Rajan Kapoor. Again said, he was enquired but his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was not recorded. It is wrong to suggest that spot in question was a very congested area. However, there are shops and residential houses. It is correct that there is a school nearby the spot. I cannot admit or deny if CCTV Cameras were installed at the nearby shops, residences and school. It is wrong to suggest that there was any Police Booth located at the corner of the school. There were no CCTVs installed at the spot or nearby during the relevant time. Vol. The same were installed subsequent to the incident in question. When I reached on the spot, public persons did not gather at the spot. There was no Guard outside the gate of School, and therefore there was no question of examining such Guard.
I recorded the statement of ASI Tarsem Lal, HC Vinod, Ct. Satish and Ct.Sanjay at the spot under Section 161 Cr.P.C. sometimes SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 29 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 between 10 to 11 p.m. The signatures of HC Vinod were not taken on the site plan. I do not remember the date on which I collected the result on the MLC. I cannot tell for how many days Ct.Sanjeev remained admitted in the Hospital. Asray Medical Center is a private hospital. I did not collect the bills pertaining to medical treatment administered to Ct. Sanjeev. I have no idea if the witness Rajan Kapoor gave an affidavit in FIR No. 449/2018 deposing that no such incident had occurred with him.
It is wrong to suggest that no such incident had taken place. It is wrong to suggest that the entire case against the accused persons is concocted and false. It is wrong to suggest that I have not conducted a fair investigation into the matter."
11. Prosecution closed prosecution evidence.
Statements of accused persons under Section 313 CrPC.
12. Statements of accused persons under Section 313 CrPC recorded. Both the accused persons denied all the allegation.
Defence Evidence
13. Both the accused persons did not lead evidence in defence.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 30 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 Contradictions and Inconsistencies
14. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to various contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW1, who testified that he received the information at 2:30 pm from HC Vinod through wireless set about the robbery, whereas copy of DD No. 19B (though not exhibited but available on record) mentions that at 9:00/10:00 am the police officials namely Ct. Sanjeev Kumar, Ct. Sanjay Kumar, HC Vinod etc. proceeded on patrolling duty on motorcycle. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that both the times are totally different and this is a major inconsistency in the timing.
15. I have considered this submission. DD No.19B only refers to the assignment of duties for patrolling and picketing to various police officials including the police officers, who are witness in the present case. This assignment of duties was made through DD No.19B at 9:10 am. PW1 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar and PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar have testified that on the said date, they were patrolling on official motorcycle and at about 2:30 pm, they heard the message flashed by HC Vinod on wireless set. Therefore, there is no inconsistency or contradiction of time of their departure on patrolling duty and the time of hearing of SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 31 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 wireless message.
16. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW7 SI Banay Singh (Investigating Officer), where he stated that he prepared rukka on the statement of Ct. Sanjeev Kumar and handed it over to Ct. Sanjay Kumar at 2:40 pm for registration of FIR. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to the rukka Ex.PW7/A in which he has mentioned the time of dispatch of rukka to police station at 7:15 pm. It is argued that this is a major contradiction of time, which shows that the police had actually concocted a false story.
17. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the testimony of PW7 regarding sending of rukka at 2:40 pm is only an inadvertent mistake by him. It is submitted that in cross examination, he has testified that he had left police station at about 6:00 pm and reached hospital within ten minutes and that he recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev Kumar sometime between 6:15 pm to 7:00 pm. Therefore, it is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that the rukka could have been dispatched at 7:15 pm, which is the time written in the rukka Ex. PW7/A. SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 32 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
18. I have considered the rival submissions. I am of the opinion that the time of dispatching rukka as 2:40 pm appears to be only a slip of tongue or inadvertent mistake. In cross examination, PW7 has clearly stated that he had recorded the statement of Ct. Sanjeev from 6:15 to 7:00 pm. Therefore, it is natural that he could have written a rukka on it and it could have been dispatched at 7:15 pm.
19. Therefore, the inconsistency and contradictions as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsel are of no value.
Non examination of Rajan Kapoor
20. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per prosecution case, both the accused persons had robbed Rajan Kapoor and escaped on a motorcycle. My attention is drawn to the testimony of PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar, who testified in his examination in chief that from the possession of the accused persons, knives were recovered. The robbed person namely Rajan Kapoor also reached at the spot and stolen purse was recovered. @@ The police officials apprehended the accused persons and recoveries of knife and stolen property was effected from the accused persons. It is submitted that as per the testimonies of the witnesses, Rajan Kapoor had also reached at the spot. It is submitted SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 33 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 that police did not cite Rajan Kapoor as a witness in the present case and therefore, has deliberately withheld the material evidence. It is submitted that on this ground itself, the accused persons should be given benefit of doubt and should be acquitted.
21. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently countered this argument submitting that Ld. Defence Counsel has been unable to understand the sequence of events. It is submitted that the accused persons after robbing Sh. Rajan Kapoor had escaped on their motorcycle. HC Vinod along with Ct. Satish, who were already on patrolling duty, flashed the message on wireless. Hearing this message, Ct. Sanjeev (PW1) and Ct. Sanjay (PW2), who were also on patrolling duty, chased the offenders on their motorcycle when all the four police officials cornered the accused persons, Ct. Sanjeev (PW1) proceeded to apprehend them On this both the accused persons started beating Ct. Sanjeev (PW1) with fists and leg blows due to which Ct. Sanjeev (PW1) received injuries. It is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that the finally all the police officials were able to get controlled over both the accused persons. Thereafter Rajan Kapoor reached at the spot. Therefore, it is submitted that Rajan Kapoor had not witnessed the incident of beating of Ct. Sanjeev SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 34 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 (PW1) by the accused persons. Hence, it is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that Rajan Kapoor was not a witness to the incident and this is the reason that he was not cited as prosecution witness.
22. I have considered the rival submissions. It is true that PW2 Ct. Sanjay Kumar has testified in his examination in chief that complainant Rajan Kapoor had also come to the spot. However, perusal of entire testimony of PW2 would also show that prior to coming of Rajan Kapoor at the spot, the incident had already taken place. I have reproduced the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW4 and I am of the opinion that Rajan Kapoor reached at the spot after the incident and therefore, he is not eye witness to the incident. Therefore, it cannot be said that evidence of Rajan Kapoor has been withheld deliberately by the prosecution. I agree with the submission of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that he is not the eye witness of the incident, he is not a relevant witness to testify in the present case.
Non use of Knife
23. Ld. Defence Counsel argues that as per prosecution, knives were recovered from the possession of the accused persons. It is submitted SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 35 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 that had they been possessing the knives, they must have used the knives for attacking Ct. Sanjeev and other police officials. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that there is no allegation that accused persons used the said knives and therefore prosecution story is unbelievable that the accused persons should have attacked the police officials simply with fists and leg blows.
24. I disagree with this submission. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered this argument submitting that when both the accused persons were cornered by four police officials, one of the police officials, came forward to overpower them, accused persons immediately reacted by attacking Ct. Sanjeev. It is argued that had these accused persons got some time, they would not have hesitated from taking out of the knives to attack Ct. Sanjeev.
25. I have considered the rival submissions and I am of the opinion that an action by a human being cannot be put in straight jacket formula. The reaction of an offender depends upon so many factors and it is not necessary that such offender would attack with knife definitely, if he is in possession of the same. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the aforesaid arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 36 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 CCTV Footage
26. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that the Investigating Officer did not collect CCTV footage installed around or near the place of occurrence. My attention is drawn to the testimony of PW1, who had admitted in cross examination that CCTV cameras are installed at round about Ramesh Nagar.
27. On the other hand, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the testimony of PW4 HC Vinod Kumar, who expressed ignorance as to whether CCTV cameras are installed there or not. My attention is also drawn to the cross examination of PW7 SI Banay Singh, who clearly testified that there was no CCTV installed at or nearby the spot during the relevant time and that CCTV cameras were installed subsequent to the incident in question. Accordingly, it is argued that when there was no CCTV camera at or around the spot, there was no occasion for collecting CCTV footage.
28. I have considered the rival submissions. PW1 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar in cross examination has testified as under :
"It is correct that CCTV cameras are installed at the round about of Ramesh Nagar"SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 37 of 43
State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
29. The use of present tense in the aforesaid testimony reflects that PW1 is talking about the presence of CCTV at the time of testimony and not at the time of incident. PW7 SI Banay Singh has clarified that CCTV cameras were not installed at the relevant time but they were installed later on. Consequently the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsel are rejected and explanation of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard is accepted.
Non Joining Of Public Persons As Witnesses
30. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the place of incident is busy place and the guard of the nearby Government school or any other public person should have been joined by the police during investigation. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that PW7 SI Banay Singh has testified in cross examination that there was no guard outside the school and therefore, there was no question of examining such guard. Regarding non examining of public persons, it is argued that no one would agree to become a witness against criminals and therefore, to expect and persuade public persons to come forward for becoming witness to the incident is a futile exercise.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 38 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
31. I have considered the submissions of the parties. I am of the opinion that though public persons might be available at the time of incident, it will dependent upon situation to situation as to whether it was feasible to join them in investigation. Normally hardly any public person would involve themselves in legal wrangles especially against criminals. In the situation which arose in the present case, public comes and goes and it is difficult to identify as to which public persons had witnessed the actual incident. Moreover, entire effort of police is to catch hold of the offenders. Therefore, it does not appear to be a case where the public was willing to be a witness but police deliberately did not join them in investigation. Accordingly, non joining of public person as a witness is not fatal to the facts of the case.
Nature of Injuries to Constable Sanjeev (PW1)
32. It is argued by ld. Defence counsel that grievous injuries on the person of the Constable Sanjeev have not been proved. In order to understand this submission, it is necessary to reproduce testimony of PW6 Dr. Ashok Gupta as under : "Statement of PW6 Dr. Ashok Gupta, MS (Surgeon), Ashray Medical Center, Kirti Nagar, Delhi. On S.A. On 02.12.2018 I was working as Casualty Medical Officer at Ashray Medical Center. On that day at about 2.50 p.m. on Sanjeev SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 39 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 Yadav S/o Lala Ram Yadav was brought in Casualty by Ct. Sanjay with the alleged history of assault in Ramesh Nagar. As per history, the patient was attacked by accused while on duty. I had medically examined patient Sanjeev Yadav vide MLC No. 94. During local examination, a decreased movement in right knee's joint with swelling, tenderness and crepitus at Knee joint was observed. Xray done. POP slab was done on the injured limb of patient Sanjeev Yadav. Medicines were given. The MLC in this regard is Ex.PW6/A, which bears my signatures/stamp at point A. On 14.12.2018 I had opined the nature of injuries as 'grievous'. The same is mentioned at portion B on MLC Ex.PW6/A, which bears my signatures at point C."
33. Ld. defence counsel submits that neither Xray report of the knee has been placed on record nor it has been testified by Dr. Ashok Kumar that there was a fracture in the knee. Therefore, it is argued that the injury is Simple in nature and therefore, the accused persons cannot be convicted under Section 333 IPC.
34. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that PW6 Dr. Ashok Gupta has testified that crepitus at knee joint was observed. It is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that crepitus of knee means dislocation of the knee bone, which is covered in the seventh point of Section 320 IPC which includes "fracture or dislocation of a bone". It is submitted that Section 320 IPC defines grievous hurt and therefore, the crepitus at knee point would also fall within the definition of grievous hurt.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 40 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
35. I have considered the rival submissions. The Xray of the knee of Constable Sanjeev Kumar is not on record. PW6 Dr. Ashok Gupta has not explained as to whether crepitus at knee point means dislocation of knee joint or knee bone. In these circumstances, the benefit would go to the accused persons. Consequently, I agree with the submissions of ld. Defence counsel that the injuries in question cannot be held to be 'grievous'.
Conclusion
36. I have perused the testimonies of PW1 Constable Sanjeev Kumar. He has testified that he was riding motorcycle being driven by Constable Sanjay. They heard the wireless message flashed by Head Constable Vinod that two boys had robbed purse on the point of knife and had fled away on Pulsar motorcycle at the round about of Ramesh Nagar. Therefore, they followed the accused persons and Constable Sanjay put his motorcycle in front of Pulsar motorcycle and got it stopped. Both the accused persons got down from the motorcycle and tried to ran away. PW1 Constable Sanjeev Kumar further testified that he tried to apprehend both of them, on which, they attacked him by giving leg and fist blows and as a result of which, he fell down and received injuries. PW2 Constable Sanjay Kumar, who was driving the SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 41 of 43 State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024 official motorcycle on which PW1 Sanjeev was a pillion rider, has also testified in the same way. PW4 Head Constable Vinod Kumar, who has on the other official motorcycle and following the accused persons, has also testified similarly. Their detailed crossexamination has not rendered any material contradictions and I hold them to be worthy of credence. Needless to say that PW1 Constable Sanjeev, a public servant, was discharging his official duties when he was following and chasing the accused persons on receiving the message on wireless that the accused persons were escaping on the Pulsar motorcycle after committing a crime. However, prosecution has only been able to prove that the accused persons had caused simple injury to Constable Sanjeev (PW1). Therefore, prosecution has been successfully able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, had voluntarily caused hurt to Constable Sanjeev (PW1), a public servant with a view to deter him from discharging his duty as public servant.
37. Therefore, I convict both the accused persons under Section 332/34 IPC.
SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 42 of 43State Vs. Jitender @ Suja & Anr. Judgement dt. 6.4.2024
38. Both the accused persons had been charged under Section 186 and 353 IPC also. The same offences has also been proved against them. But since these offences are lesser forms of Section 332 IPC, it is not required to record their separate convictions under the said offences.
Announced in the open court on 6.4.2024.
(Vinod Kumar) Principal District & Sessions Judge West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC/162/2019, PS : Kirti Nagar, CNR No.: DLWT010023252019 Page 43 of 43