Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas @ Kalu & Ors. on 12 September, 2022
fDLSW020009292013
IN THE COURT OF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-01,
SOUTH-WEST, DWARKA COURTS, NEW DELHI
- PRESIDED BY:
PARAS DALAL, D.J.S.
FIR No. 88/2013
PS Palam Village
U/S : 323/326/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860
State V/s Vikas @ Kalu & Ors.
Cr.C No. : 427885/2016
CNR No. : DLSW020009292013
Date of Institution : 31.08.2013
Name of complainant : Ajeet Singh
S/o Rajender Singh
R/o D-1/A-430,
Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Village, New Delhi
Name of accused no.1, parentage & address : Vikas @ Kalu
S/o Charan Singh
R/o RZ-D-7, Gali No.7,
Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Village, New Delhi
Name of accused no.2, parentage & address : Pankaj Kumar
S/o Jai Prakash Yadav
R/o RZ-D-1/315, Gali No.5,
Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Village, New Delhi
Digitally
signed by
PARAS PARAS DALAL
Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13
16:15:00
+0530
FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 1 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
Name of accused no.3, parentage & address : Dalip Kumar
S/o Sunder Dass
R/o RZ-112A, Gali No.4,
Raj Nagar-II, Palam Colony,
New Delhi
Name of accused no.4, parentage & address : Ramchander @ Chander
S/o Mani Ram
R/o RZ-D-21, Gali No.5,
Mahavir Enclave,
Palam Village, New Delhi
Offence complained off : 323/326/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final order : Accused No.1 convicted
Accused No.2 convicted
Accused No.3 convicted
Accused No.4
(Proceedings abated)
Date of Judgment : 12.09.2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argued by: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Rishab Yadav, Ld. Counsel for the complainant
Sh. Vinod Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. The SHO, Police Station Palam Village has presented this charge-sheet against above named accused for initiation of trial under Sections 323/326/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 24.03.2013 at about 09:45 AM one Raju driver of complainant Ajeet Singh came and stated that his vehicle accidentally cut one sign board and then Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:14:37 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 2 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
Ajeet went to the spot to sort the issue. There some arguments ensued and one person named Vikas @ Kalu alongwith his associates attacked Ajeet Singh with a sharp weapon on his head. Ajeet sustained injuries and he was shifted in an ambulance to DDU Hospital. Police officers were sent to inquire the call however the injured was already shifted to DDU hospital and no eye witness was present at the spot. IO reached the hospital and sought medical opinion on which the victim was declared fit for statement, MLC No. 6996/13 was also obtained. Based on the information, present FIR was registered under Section 324/34 IPC and investigation was carried out. Accused Vikas @ Kalu was arrested on the same day and later released on bail. Medical opinion was sought and based on the same Section 326/34 IPC was added. Accused Pankaj and Dalip were arrested on 17.04.2013, he was produced before Ld. MM and upon application for conduct of TIP, he refused to take part in the same. Disclosure of accused Vikas@Kalu was also recorded and based on the same, one wooden stick was recovered. Accused Ram Chander was arrested on 21.04.2013 and he also refused to take part in the TIP. Based on the investigation and evidence collected, the present chargesheet was prepared u/Ss. 323/326/34 IPC.
3. The copy of chargesheet and documents were supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Prima facie case was made out, charges for offence u/Ss. 324/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons on 04.02.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Trial was undertaken and vide Order dated 06.03.2017 charges were altered under Section 326/34 IPC and additional charge under Section 323/34 IPC was framed against all the four accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Ram Chander expired on 24.11.2019 and proceedings against him were abated on 10.06.2022 after the factum of death of Ram Chander was verified. PARAS Digitally signed by PARAS DALAL Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13 16:15:31 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 3 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others. Prosecution Evidence
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses (hereinafter referred to as 'PW'). PW-1 Ajit Singh is the complainant/ victim and he deposed that due to accident, documents of his vehicle were taken by Deepak, Ram Chander and Madan from his driver Raju. He deposed that his father while going to his duty assured the above persons of getting the damage fixed and requested that the documents be returned, the request was not accepted and PW1 was called by his father. PW1 reached the spot and his father went to his duty. PW1 was accompanied by his friend Sanjeev and Ajit offered to tie the banner at that time and to get to weld later. PW1 further stated that one Vikas @ Kalu came to the spot on his motorcycle and asked him to instal a new banner and when PW1 repeated his offer, he alleged that Madan caught hold of him, Deepak and Ram Chander beat him with fist. Vikas @ Kalu also started beating him and when Sanjeev requested not to hurt Ajit, Vikas @ Kalu pushed him and brought butcher's knife (meat katane wala chhapad) and hit Ajit on his head, due to which Ajit fell unconscious. Ajit further deposed that Sanjeev took him to Bhagat Chandra Hospital and also called his father and police on 100 number. PW1 further deposed that when police came, accused Vikas@ Kalu gave wrong information that no scuffle took place, he also removed blood from the spot and threatened his father. PW1 further deposed that his friend Sanjeev was asked not to get involved in the matter and his driver Raju was also threatened and he lives in Etta, UP now. PW1 then identified all the accused present in Court and stated that he was not sure about the name of Deepak but he was one of the assailant. PW1 on being asked leading questions stated that incident took place on 24.03.2013 as on 23.03.2013 he had appeared for constable for SSC examination. PW1 was cross examined and he answered that he knew Madan since childhood Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:15:48 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 4 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
and Vikas @ Kalu for the last six months. He further stated that he had seen accused Ram Chander (since deceased) in street no.5, but did not know his name before the incident and he knew Deepak who runs the Bisleri water shop but he did not know his name before the incident. PW1 was then confronted with his police statement wherein the following facts were not mentioned - that accused Madan, Ram Chander and Deepak had snatched his vehicle documents; about presence of his father and uncle at the spot as well as telephonic conversation between complainant and his father; coming of water tanker from the front; his father's offer to get the banner repaired; being caught by Madan and assaulted by Deepak, Ram Chander and Vikas; description of weapon as 'butcher's knife (meat katane wala chhapad)'. PW1 answered that he reached within 10 minutes of receiving call from his father and further stated that at the spot Madan, Ram Chander and Deepak were present and Vikas @ Kalu reached 2/3 minutes later. PW1 could not recall the number used by his friend Sanjeev to make calls. PW1 pleaded ignorance if accused Vikas had made the first call to the police and denied the suggestions that - after hitting the banner his driver Raju fled the spot; Raju abused Deepak and Madan before fleeing the spot; his driver Raju had got into arguments with Deepak and Madan; complainant Ajit reached the spot with 5-6 persons and threatened accused persons with knife (churi); it was Vikas who made the first call to the police; his father informed the police that there was no quarrel. PW1 pleaded ignorance if his father had made any police complaint of threat given to him. PW1 further denied that he fled the spot with his friends when Vikas called police. PW1 stated that his statement was recorded by police in the hospital around noon and there were two officers, whose names he did not remember. PW1 denied suggestion that he did not receive any injuries at the hand of the accused persons and further denied that the injuries were self inflicted. PW1 further deposed that neither he nor his Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:16:01 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 5 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
driver Raju made any written complaint to police regarding threats given and his friend Sanjeev did not file any complaint. PW1 stated that he regained consciousness in Bhagat Chandra Hospital and from there he was taken to DDU Hospital however he did not remember the time. PW1 denied that he alongwith his friends threatened Pankaj and that he is falsely implicating the accused as no quarrel ever happened.
5. PW2 Dr. Ramesh (later numbered as PW3) deposed that on 24.03.2013 at about 11:20AM, patient came in CAT Ambulance and stated history of assault by sharp object. PW3 deposed that victim Ajit stated he went unconscious as a result of the blow and upon examination blood was coming from his nose. PW3 further deposed the injuries and examination as stated in the MLC and exhibited the MLC no. 6996/13 as Ex.PW3/A. PW3 was cross examined and he expressed his inability to opine if the injuries sustained as per the MLC could be self inflicted.
6. PW2 Raju deposed that he was employed as driver by Rajender Singh and on 24.03.2013 a board was damaged in accident with his vehicle. PW2 identified two accused present in Court and their names were revealed as Ram Chander and Pankaj who were present and PW2 stated that after the accident both started demanding documents of vehicle, took keys and even misbehaved with him. PW2 further deposed that he requested that he will get their board repaired but they did not agree. He further stated that upon his information Rajender and his son Ajeet came at the spot. PW2 stated that Ajeet took keys and handed over it to him and he left the spot in his vehicle and after 10-15 minutes, he received call that Ajeet got into scuffle and received injuries on his head and was shifted to hospital. PW2 stated that neither police inquired from him nor they recorded his statement. PW2 was then cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State and he denied that Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:16:16 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 6 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
suggestions that - on 30.03.2013 IO recorded his statement; all accused gave Ajeet beating and caused head injuries in his presence; he raised alarm and Ajeet Singh also raised alarm; ambulance was called by someone and Ajeet was taken in the ambulance in his presence; he is deliberately not supporting the prosecution case and intentionally denying his presence at the spot at the time of incident of scuffle and assault on complainant Ajeet. PW2 then was cross examined on behalf of accused and he answered that he remained at the spot for 10-15 minutes after vehicle damaged the board and it was around 9:30-9:4 when the vehicle was damaged.
7. PW4 Constable Satender deposed on 24.03.2013 he joined investigation of this case with IO HC Roshan Lal and he went to Street No.5 Mahavir Enclave, Palam with secret informer and upon his pointing out accused Dalip Kumar and Pankaj Kumar were arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B, their personal search memo is Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and their disclosure statements is Ex.PW4/E and Ex.PW4/F, respectively. PW4 was cross examined and he denied suggestion that both accused came to police station when they were called by the IO.
8. PW5 Constable Anil Kumar deposed that he was posted as constable in PS Palam Village and was on emergency duty on 24.03.2013 when he received DD No.24B Mark X, regarding threat, he alongwith HC Roshan Lal went to Street No.5, Mahavir Enclave, Palam where no person who made the call was found and on inquiry from public persons it was revealed that victim was shifted to DDU hospital by ambulance and in meanwhile DD No.24A Mark X1 about admission of victim in DDU hospital was received. PW5 deposed that he went with HC Roshan Lal to the hospital and there application Mark X2 was given to Doctor for recording of statement. PW5 further deposed that HC Roshan Lal recorded victim's Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13 16:16:26 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 7 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
statement and rukka Mark X3 was made and handed over to him and sent through him to Police Station for registration of FIR. PW5 deposed that he got the FIR registered based on the rukka and returned to the spot with copy of the FIR which was handed over to the IO HC Roshan Lal. PW5 further deposed that IO prepared site plan Ex.PW5/A with his endorsement at point A. PW5 further deposed that in the evening one accused Vikas @ Kalu was arrested vide memo Ex.PW5/B, personal search memo is Ex.PW/C and his disclosure was recorded vide Ex.PW5/D. PW5 further deposed that on next date he again joined investigation and on the disclosure of accused Vikas, one wooden stick was recovered which accused told was used in the incident. Seizure memo of the wooden stick is Ex.PW5/E and PW5 identified both the case property as well as accused in the Court. PW5 was then cross examined and he answered that accused was arrested in the evening of the incident at 8-9 PM and admitted that wooden stick recovered at the instance of accused Vikas was easily available in the market. PW5 also admitted that there was no specific identification mark on the wooden stick. PW5 further deposed about the time and event surrounding the date of incident however specific to recovery, PW5 stated that no site plan was prepared by the IO.
9. PW6 Dr. Subodh Kumar Gupta identified the handwriting of Dr. Deepak who mentioned in the CT Scan report that it was found that the patient has acute extra-dural hematoma (EDH) with right temporal bone fracture with pnemocephalous. PW6 was cross examined as nil. PW6 was then recalled and examined as PW13 with copy of CT report and exhibited the same as Ex.PW13/A. PW13 in his cross examination then denied that report now presented was false and fabricated at the instance of complainant. Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13 16:16:38 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 8 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
10. PW7 HC Kartar Singh deposed that he was working as Duty Officer in PS Palam Village on 24.03.2013 and he stated that Ct Anil Kumar brought one rukka at about 4:20 PM sent by HC Roshan Lal and on basis of said rukka present FIR was registered which is Ex.PW7/A and he identified his endorsement as Ex.PW7/B. PW7 during his limited cross examination stated that he gave a copy of the FIR to Ct. Anil at 4:30 PM.
11. PW8 Dr. Babita deposed that she had worked with Dr. Akansha and she identified her handwriting and signatures on X-ray report dated 24.03.2013 and as per X-ray report there was no bone injury as seen in report Ex.P8/A. PW8 admitted that she did not prepare the X-ray report.
12. PW9 Ct. Bahadur Singh deposed that he joined investigation on 17.04.2013 with IO Roshan Lal and on secret information went to Street No.5, Mahavir Enclave and on pointing out by secret informer arrested accused Dalip and Pankaj. PW9 also identified their arrest memo, search memo and disclosure statements. PW9 further deposed that he again joined investigation on 24.04.2013 wherein based on secret information accused Vikas and Ram Chander were also arrested. Their arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B; personal search memo Ex.PW9/C and Ex.PW9/D, respectively were exhibited. PW9 was then permitted to be cross examined by the Ld. APP for the State as to date of arrest of accused Vikas and Ram Chander and he corrected himself that date of arrest was 21.04.2013 after looking at the records. PW9 was then cross examined and he answered that he signed on the disclosure statement of all four accused persons, but could not remember if the date was mentioned. PW9 further answered that his statement was recorded by the IO on 17.04.2013 and 21.04.2013.
Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13 16:16:47 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 9 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
13. PW10 HC Shri Krishan deposed that on 24.03.2013 he was working as DO at PS and at about 11:50 AM an information was received from Ct.
Pramod from DDU Hospital regarding admission of injured Ajit and said was recorded vide DD No. 24A and no Ex.PW10/A. During cross examination, PW10 deposed that DD entry no.24B already mark X dated 24.03.2013 was received at 11:05AM.
14. PW11 W/Ct. Kanta deposed that on 24.03.2013 he was working as DO at PS and at about 11:50 AM an information was received a call from SI Ajit from PS Dabri that a person is threatening the caller to hurt with a knife at D7, Gali No.5, Mahvir Enclave, Delhi and DD No.24B was exhibited as Ex.PW11/A.
15. PW12 HC Roshan Lal is the IO in the present case and he deposed about receipt of DD No. 24A and 24B dated 24.03.2013. PW12 further deposed about proceeding to inquire with Ct. Anil and about his seeking permission from Doctor. PW12 identified the statement of complainant already Ex.PW1/A, rukka Ex.PW12/A, Copy of FIR already Ex.PW7/A. PW12 further deposed about the arrest, search and disclosure of each of the accused and also identified all the exhibits. PW12 exhibited the pointing out memo of accused Vikas as Ex.PW12/A and disclosure statement of accused Vikas and Ram Chander as Ex.PW12/C and Ex.PW12/D. PW12 identified the TIP proceedings of accused Pankaj and Dalip as Ex.P1 and of accused Ram Chander as Ex.P2. PW12 was then cross examined by the defence and he answered about timings of receipt of DD No.24B at 11:10 AM, DD No.24A at 12 PM, reaching the hospital with Ct. Anil at 12:25 PM and statement of injured being recorded at 1:30 PM. PW12 further stated that accused Vikas was arrested at 8 PM on the same date and only one disclosure statement was stated to have been recorded by him. PW12 Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:17:19 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 10 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
further answered that he prepared the site plan at his own instance and admitted that recovered wooden stick was easily available in the market and answered that he did not prepare site plan of the place of recovery of the wooden stick.
16. PW14 Dr. Dhananjay Kumar brought the MLC CT Register of the year 2013 and as per record at serial no.237 dated 24.03.2013 NCCT (H) report in respect of Ajit Kumar having MLC No.6996. PW14 deposed that as per record there was fracture of the squamous part of the right temporal bone with adjacent pneucephalus with hyper-dense extra-dural bleed. The copy of entry no.237 dated 24.03.2013 is Ex.PW14/A. PW14 was cross examined and admitted that he did not bring the report of NCCT which is already Ex.PW13/A and voluntarily submitted that the said report was sent to the Neuro Surgery Department through NO. He further stated that as of then the report of NCCT was not traceable but denied the suggestion that entry no.237 Ex.PW14/A was manipulated and fabricated document.
Statement of Accused
17. Prosecution evidence was closed on the 12.07.2018. The statement of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded on 06.06.2018 to which all the accused persons stated that no such incident occurred and they were falsely implicated by complainant Ajit. Accused persons chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Arguments
18. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts by examining all the material witnesses who have supported the prosecution version in material aspects. Accordingly, conviction of accused was prayed.
Digitally signed by PARASPARAS DALAL DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:17:33 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 11 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
19. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable shadow of doubts and the case of the prosecution is full of contradictions. He further argued that PW2 Raju has not supported the case of the complainant and alleged eye witness Sanjeev was never examined. It is further argued that there was no eye witness to the incident and based on the testimony of PW1 Ajit there are a lot of improvements. Defence argued that complainant neither mentioned to the police that he was attached with butcher's knife (chhapad) nor that his driver Raju or his father offered repair of the board. Defense even argued the wrong timings of the case as the accident was alleged to be around 9:30-9:45 AM whereas the DD No.24B is of 11 noon and further the information from hospital was received around 12 PM. Defense also argued that spot inspection was prepared by the IO himself and the butcher's knife was never recovered. Recovery of wooden stick was also challenged as it was something which was never deposed to have been used, it was common article available in the market and had no unique identification mark. Defense has also challenged non proof of injuries by the medical report and has challenged that prosecution failed to place on record the original CT report whereas the X-ray report showed no fracture. The defense has thus argued that neither injuries were grievous as per the medical report, nor dangerous weapon was used even if the argument of assault is admitted.
Findings
20. At the onset, it is correct that PW2 Raju has not supported the incident of scuffle and assault and even when complainant has repeatedly deposed about presence of one Sanjeev, he was never examined. The only witness is complainant PW1 Ajit himself and medical injuries and report as deposed Digitally signed PARAS DALAL by PARAS DALAL Date:
2022.09.13 16:17:47 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 12 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
by PW3, 6, 8, 13 and 14. PW2 however, has supported that there was an accident and accused Ram Chander and Pankaj did take the keys of the vehicle. PW2 further deposed that it was only when Ajit Kumar came that the keys were returned. PW2 therefore has confirmed the reason for which the vehicle, complainant Ajit, accused Ram Chander and Pankaj were present at the spot.
21. PW3, 6, 8, 13 and 14 have also proved the injuries sustained by the victim Ajit. Although X-ray shows no fracture, however the CT report supports that victim Ajit did suffer a fracture. PW6 specifically deposed that patient had acute extra-dural hematoma (EDH) with right temporal bone fracture with pnemocephalous. PW13 and PW14 both produced further supporting documents and both support the injuries sustained which are grievous in nature. The only defence was that the reports were manipulated, however mere averment cannot be sufficient to cast doubt on Government Doctors discharging their duties in normal course of functioning.
22. PW1 Ajit is only eye witness, but he is an injured witness and greater credence is attached to such a witness. It is clear that there is no previous enmity between the complainant and four accused persons. The incident was accident on 24.03.2013 which brought all parties at the place of incident and owing to the time since the accident and the time when calls were received a considerable time had lapsed hinting that there was a long quarrel between both the sides. Even the defence during the cross examination of PW1 and PW2 have admitted to the arguments between the sides wherein they gave suggestions to the complainant that neither he, his father nor his driver gave any offer to repair the damage. Suggestions were also given that it was the driver who abused. This suggests that there was arguments and subsequently it is possible that they turned hostile. Accused Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date: DALAL 2022.09.13 16:18:00 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 13 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
Vikas was arrested on the same date at 8 PM and there was no injury found on his body. Defense did not even present any witness to show that both sides engaged in free fight. As per the record, it is the complainant who is deposed to have been restrained by Madan, assaulted by Deepak and Ram Chander. Subsequently Vikas @ Kalu also assaulted Ajit and then hit him with butcher's knife (chhapad). All the four accused persons were present and correctly identified by the complainant, although the exact names as per record could not be deposed by the complainant. Attention is also drawn to Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 wherein accused Ram Chander, Dalip and Pankaj refused to take part in the Test Identification Proceedings and even admitted the said proceedings.
23. The defence that the weapon used was never recovered is of no consequence owing to the consistent testimony of complainant that he was assaulted by sharp weapon. Defence did not put a single question or evidence to rebut that injuries sustained by the complainant could not have been sustained by a butcher's knife (chhapad). The nature and extent of the injuries support the version of the complainant that he was assaulted by sharp edged weapon and considering the extent, it is probable to have been sustained from a single blow of butcher's knife (chhapad). Complainant finds support in the DD No.24B wherein the first information did mention assault by a sharp edged weapon, the MLC no. 6996/13 of DDU Hospital which also records the use of sharp edged weapon which complainant stated to the Doctor on Duty as well as MLC itself showing that injury was grievous and caused by sharp weapon.
24. The prosecution has thus been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The butcher's knife (chhapad) is indeed a dangerous weapon used for cutting and probably is dangerous weapon when used on body of any Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date: DALAL 2022.09.13 16:18:11 +0530 FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 14 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.
person. The injuries sustained are serious and hence the ingredients of Section 336 stands established. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Pankaj and Dalip shared common intention with Vikas in inflicting the injuries from the butcher's knife. It is not the case of the prosecution that Vikas @ Kalu from before had butcher's knife in his possession or that other accused persons knew that Vikas was having butcher's knife in his possession. PW1 however has been consistent with his allegations that all other accused persons restrained him and gave fist blows and the same are sufficient to prove ingredients of Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusions
25. Thus from the discussion above, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that accused Vikas @ Kalu has voluntarily caused grievous hurt by dangerous weapon on Ajit Kumar and further accused Dalip and Pankaj acting in furtherance of the common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Ajit Kumar.
ORDER
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Vikas @ Kalu is hereby convicted of offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. And accused Dalip and Pankaj are hereby convicted of offence punishable under Section 323/34 IPC.
Digitally signed by PARAS PARAS DALAL Date:
DALAL 2022.09.13 16:14:14 +0530 Announced in Open Court (Paras Dalal) on this September 12, 2022 MM -01, South West Dwarka Court, New Delhi FIR No.88 of 2013; P.S. Palam Village Pages 15 of 15 State v. Vikas & Others.