Delhi District Court
State vs Amit on 12 October, 2023
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
IN THE COURT OF MS. SEEMA MAINI
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
In the matter of:
(Sessions Case No. 450/2021)
CNR No. DLNT010069942021
FIR No. 284/2019
Police Station Narela Industrial Area
Charge sheet filed 308 IPC
Under Section
Charges framed 308/34 IPC
Under Section
State V/s 1. Amit
S/o Sh. Raghuveer
R/o C109, Phase 1
Metro Vihar,
Holambi, Delhi.
.... Accused
Date of institution of case 19.10.2020
before the Ld. MM
Date of committal of case to 28.09.2021
Sessions Court
Date of arguments 06.10.2023
Judgment Pronounced on 12.10.2023
Decision Convicted.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 1 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Amit is facing trial in the present case on the allegations that he along with his two other associates (both not arrested), in furtherance of their common intention, hit a brick on the head of the complainant Vinit Jain multiple times, with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by their such act, the death of the complainant had been caused, then they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable u/s 308 IPC.
2. On the complaint of the complainant / injured Vinit Jain, the instant FIR bearing no. 284/2019, was registered by the police of Police Station Narela Industrial Area, under section 308 IPC, which after requisite investigation, culminated into the charge sheet, which the SHO of Police Station Narela Industrial Area filed against accused Amit in the Court of Ld. MM, NorthDistrict, Rohini, Courts, Delhi. After compliance of the provisions of Section 207 CrPC, Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Sessions, under provisions of Section 209 CrPC for trial, being a session trial case.
3. The facts in brief, which are borne out from the record / chargesheet are that on 28.05.2019 at about 12.30 PM, the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 2 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit complainant was going to his factory situated at E Block, Sector 5, Bawana, Delhi, in his car, being driven by his driver Sonu, and when he reached at Hanuman Chowk, one motorcycle having three riders, came from the side of Vardhman Mall and hit against the car of the complainant. The complainant and his driver got out of the car, whereafter the person who was sitting in the middle, on the motorcycle, caught hold of the collar of the complainant and started abusing him as well as his driver Sonu. Public persons also gathered there. When the complainant asked the said person, not to abuse, he picked up a brick lying there and hit it on the head of the complainant. The other two riders of the said motorcycle, were calling the said person, who hit the complainant with brick, by the name of Amit. Someone called the police and PCR van took the injured to MV Hospital.
4. The matter was reported in the PS vide DD No. 33 A, pursuant whereto HC Pyare Lal reached at the spot, and on coming to know that the injured had been removed to M.V. Hospital, HC Pyare Lal along Ct. Arun reached there and collected the MLC of the injured / complainant. However, before their arrival at M.V. Hospital, the injured had further been removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital. HC Pyare Lal reached at Jaipur Golden Hospital and recorded the statement of the complainant, prepared the rukka and got the case FIR registered through Ct. Arun, and further investigation of the case FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 3 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit was assigned to SI Manoj. SI Manoj along with Ct. Arun reached at the spot, where they met HC Pyare Lal and Sonu eye witness / driver of the complainant, on whose instance IO SI Manoj prepared the site plan and recorded his statement. The blood stained clothes and MLC of the complainant were sealed and seized. Investigation was carried out and on 14.06.2019, on receipt of a secret information, the accused Amit was arrested, vide appropriate arrest memo. The accused also got recovered the said brick, with which he had hit the complainant, from the bushes near the place of occurrence. IO recorded the statements of the witnesses, and after completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court of Ld. MM.
5. On appearance in the court of Ld. MM, the accused was supplied with the copies of chargesheet and other documents, where after the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions, as the accused has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC. The Ld. Predecessor of this court, after hearing the counsel for the accused and Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State, vide order dated 25.10.2021 framed charge against the accused Amit, for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Subsequently, on an application u/s 216 CrPC moved on behalf of the State and after the Ld. Counsel for accused has accorded FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 4 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit his 'no objection', the charge was amended by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 20.12.2022, as in the previously framed charge, the name of the injured / complainant was wrongly mentioned as Sonu instead of Vinit Jain, and accordingly amended charge u/s 308/34 IPC was framed against the accused Amit on 20.12.2022. After amendment of the charge, it was stated that the evidence already led need not to be repeated and it may be read in respect of amended Charge as well, as observed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court in the proceeding sheet dated 20.12.2022.
7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all, out of which PW 1, PW 7, PW 8 and PW 9 are formal witnesses, PW 3, PW 5 and PW 6 are witnesses of investigation, while PW 2 and PW 4 are the material witnesses, being the complainant / injured himself and his driver Dilip @ Sonu respectively.
FORMAL WITNESSES
8. PW 1 ASI Balu Palve deposed that in the intervening night of 2829.05.20219, while he was posted as Duty Officer at PS Narela Industrial Area, at about 1.15 am, Ct. Arun brought a rukka to him, sent by HC Pyare Lal, and on the basis of the same, he got recorded FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 5 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit the present case FIR, through computer operator, which he proved as Ex. PW 1/A. He made his endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B and also issued the certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, he handed over the copy of the FIR and original rukka to Ct. Arun, for handing over the same to SI Manoj, for further investigation.
9. PW 7 Dr. S.N. Siddharth, Medical Officer, Maharishi Valmiki Hospital deposed that on 28.05.2019, he had examined patient Vinit Jain vide MLC No. 2356/19 Ex. PW7/A.
10. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 7 deposed that the patient was fit for statement when he was examined by him. PW 7 was unable to tell for how long the patient remained in the said hospital, but deposed that the patient was referred to SR Surgery.
11. PW 8 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, Specialist & HOD, Forensic Medicine, BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi deposed that on 14.09.2019, he was requested by SI Manoj Kumar to give his opinion on the MLC of injured Vinit. A sealed parcel, said to contain a brick, sealed with the intact seal of MK, was also submitted with him. On examination, PW 8 opined that the injuries mentioned in the MLC, could have FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 6 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit been caused by the brick examined by him and gave his detailed opinion, Ex. PW 6/B. He further deposed that the photographs of the piece of brick with scale, were printed on the back of the opinion sheet, which are Ex. PW 8/A.
12. In his crossexamination, at the hands of Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 8 deposed that there was no obvious blood stain on the piece of brick examined by him. He admitted that the injuries as mentioned in the MLC could be caused by some other blunt object also of similar shape, size and weight. He further deposed that the overall pattern of injures, as mentioned in the MLC, is not consistent with a fall and is likely to be caused in an assault. He also deposed that it was possible that the injuries as mentioned in the MLC, could be caused by some hockey stick, bat etc.
13. PW9 Dr. Sanjay K. Gupta, Sr. Consultant (Neurosurgeon), Jaipur Golden Hospital, Sector3, Rohini, Delhi, deposed that on 28.05.2019, he examined the patient Vinit Jain and found that there was laceration on left tempoparietal and frontal region which was sutured outside (there were three scalp injuries on front and side of the head). He further deposed that the patient remained admitted in the said hospital from 28.05.2019 to 30.05.2019, and the nature of injury was opined as 'simple' on the application forwarded by the IO, which is Ex. PW9/A. The discharge report of the said patient was FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 7 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit also prepared by him, which is Ex. PW9/B (running into 3 pages). He further testified that no intracranial abnormality was detected on C.T Scan of the head of the said patient.
14. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 9 deposed that after medical examination of the injured, he did not find any internal injury on his head. He further testified that this sort of injury usually does not lead to harm to the life of the patient.
WITNESSES OF INVESTIGATION
15. PW 3 Ct. Arun deposed that on 28.05.2019, on receipt of DD No. 33A, he alongwith HC Pyare Lal had gone to the place of incident i.e. Hanuman Chowk, Fish Market, Sector5, Near DD Mall, from where, on coming to know that the injured had already been taken to M.V. Hospital by the PCR, they also reached M.V. Hospital, where HC Pyare Lal obtained the MLC of injured Vinit Jain. He further deposed that since the injured had already been taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital, they again went to the spot and then to Jaipur Golden Hospital, where injured Vinit Jain was found admitted. He further deposed that HC Pyare Lal seized the sealed pulanda containing blood stained clothes of the injured, vide seizure memo FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 8 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit Ex.PW3/A. PW 3 further deposed that HC Pyare Lal recorded the statement of the injured Vinit Jain, prepared the rukka and got the instant case FIR registered through him. After registration of the case, further investigation of the case was marked to SI Manoj, and he (PW3) alongwith SI Manoj had gone to the spot, where they met Sonu - the driver of Vinit Jain, on whose instance, the IO prepared the site plan.
16. In his crossexamination, at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 3 deposed that at the spot they did not find any vehicle in damaged condition. He admitted it to be correct that the spot is a public place and that DD Mall is situated at a distance of 150/200 meters from the place of incident. He further admitted it to be correct that accused Amit also received injuries and was taken to MV Hospital but he did not remember whether HC Pyare Lal made enquiries from accused Amit in the hospital or not. They had gone to Jaipur Golden Hospital in the evening hours, but he did not remember the exact time of their visit to Jaipur Golden Hospital. PW3 further testified that nobody else was present when HC Pyare Lal recorded statement of injured Vinit Jain, in Jaipur Golden Hospital.
17. PW 5 HC Pyare Lal deposed that on 28.05.2019, on receipt of FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 9 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit DD No. 33A Ex.PW5/A, he alongwith Ct. Arun went to the spot, where they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to MV Hospital by the PCR van, whereafter they went to M.V. Hosptial and he collected the MLC of injured Vinit Jain. On coming to know that the injured had been referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital, they both went back to the spot, from where they went to Jaipur Golden Hospital and met the injured Vinit Jain. PW 5 further deposed that he recorded the statement of the injured Ex.PW2/A, collected one sealed pulanda containing the clothes of injured alongwith sample seal, from the doctor concerned, and seized the same vide seizure memo already Ex.PW3/A. PW 5 further deposed that he made endorsement on the statement of injured, prepared the rukka Ex.PW5/A and got the instant case FIR registered through Ct. Arun. He further deposed that he went to the spot, from the hospital, with Sonu @ Dilip, who had met him in the hospital and stated himself to be the driver of complainant. At the spot, SI Manoj and Ct. Arun met him, whereafter SI Manoj inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of Sonu @ Dilip.
18. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 5 deposed that the distance between the spot and the Police Station is about 57 kms and it takes about 20 minutes to reach at the spot from the Police Station. He admitted that the spot of FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 10 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit incident is a populated area and people keep on passing from there. He admitted that the 'information' received was with regard to some accident between a car and a bike, but when he reached at the spot, no vehicle was found there. He denied the suggestion that there is a police booth near the spot. No eye witness met him at M.V. Hospital, so no statement was recorded. He did not know whether the accused Amit had also received injuries in the incident. He did not remember for how long he remained in M.V. Hospital, but he remained there till the preparation of the MLC of the complainant. In the M.V. Hospital, they came to know that the injured had been referred to Jaipur Golden Hospital. They went to Jaipur Golden Hospital in the night hours at about 9/10 PM. PW 5 further deposed that though some relatives of injured were present in Jaipur Golden Hospital but he did not make enquiries from them, as the doctor had allowed him to record the statement of injured. He further deposed that the injured informed him that his driver Sonu was present in the Jaipur Golden Hospital but he did not record the statement of Sonu in Jaipur Golden Hospital. Rukka was prepared by him in Jaipur Golden Hospital and the same was handed over to Ct. Arun at about 12:50 AM.
19. PW 6 SI Manoj deposed that on 28/29.05.2019, after registration of instant FIR, further investigation of the present case was handed over to him, pursuant whereto he alongwith him Ct. Arun FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 11 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit reached at the spot i.e. DD Mall Road, in front of Fish Market, Sector5, Bawana, Delhi and in the meantime, HC Pyare Lal alongwith Sonu @ Dilip, the driver of the complainant also reached there. He made enquiry from Sonu and prepared the site plan Ex.PW6/A at the instance of Sonu. He recorded the statement of Sonu U/s 161 Cr.P.C, and thereafter he alongwith HC Pyare Lal and Ct. Arun returned back to the PS and deposited the case property in the Malkhana. He recorded the statement of police witnesses U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
20. PW 6 further deposed that on 14.06.2019, on receipt of a secret information regarding the accused Amit, he arrested the accused vide memo already Ex.PW2/B and conducted his personal search vide memo already Ex.PW2/C. PW 6 recorded the disclosure statement of the accused which is already Ex.PW3/B. He further deposed that at the instance of the accused, the brick was recovered from the bushes near the spot and same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and the pointing out memo is already Ex.PW3/D. PW 6 further deposed that on 14.09.2019, he produced the sealed pulanda containing the brick before Dr. Vijay Dhankar, and obtained his opinion Ex.PW6/B. He proved the said brick as Ex.P1.
21. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 12 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit the accused, PW 6 deposed that the distance between the police station Narela Indl. Area and the spot is about 56 kms. He reached at the spot at about 2:30 am and street lights were lit at the spot, at that time and HC Pyarelal and PW Sonu were already present at the spot when they reached there, and that he recorded the statement of Sonu at the spot at about 3:30 am - 4:00 am. The statement of no other public person except Sonu was recorded by him at the spot, as no other public person was present there due to late night hours. He further deposed that Police booth is situated at a distance of about 1½ kms. from the spot, but no police official from the said police booth, was joined in the investigation. The nature of injuries was opined as 'simple' on the MLC. He denied the suggestion that the shopkeepers near the spot had visited and told him that the complainant Sh. Vinit Jain had hit the bike of accused Amit, by his car, on the day of incident. He did not search any brick at the place of incident in the intervening night of 28/29.05.2019 due to late night hours. PW 6 further deposed that he did not search for the brick from 29.05.2019 to 14.06.2019, at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the accused Amit had visited the police station on 14.06.2019 to lodge his complaint or that he was arrested in the police station. PW 6 further deposed that no blood stains were found on the brick. He admitted that the said brick was not sent to FSL.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 13 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
MATERIAL WITNESSES
22. PW 2 / Complainant - injured Vinit Jain deposed that on 28.05.2019, when he was going to his factory at Bawana from Metro Vihar, in his car, being driven by his driver namely Sh. Sonu, and at about 12:30 PM, when they reached at Hanuman Chowk, a motorcycle came from from wrong side i.e. from the side of Vardhman Mall, on which three persons were riding and the said motorcycle struck against his car. His driver Sonu got down from the car, whereafter the said three boys started quarreling with his driver Sonu. PW 2 also got down from the car and the person, who was sitting in the middle on the motorcycle, i.e. the accused herein (correctly identified) caught hold of his collar and started abusing him. He further deposed that the accused Amit started beating his driver Sonu, and when he (PW2) asked the accused not to abuse and beat him and his driver, accused picked up a brick from the ground and gave blows of the same on his head, multiple times; that someone from the public informed the police, whereafter PCR van came at the spot and took him to M V Hospital, from where he was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital, for his medical treatment. He further deposed that the police met him in Jaipur Golden Hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A; that on 14.06.2019, he joined the investigation of this case and on his identification, IO arrested the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 14 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit accused Amit vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex.PW2/C. He identified his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident, and the said shirt and baniyan were exhibited as Ex. P2 and P3 respectively.
23. In his crossexamination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, PW 2 deposed that his statement was recorded by police only once on 28.05.2019 at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi. He further testified that at the time of recording of his statement by the police on 28.05.2019 at around 10:00 pm to 11:00 pm, his father was present with him, apart from two police officials, including SI Manoj. He admitted it to be correct that the place of incident was a crowded industrial area and that though he was sitting in front of the car along the driver, he neither noticed the bike, nor did he notice the registration number of same, nor was he able to give the directions from where the said bike was coming.
24. In his further crossexamination, PW 2 deposed that IO had recorded his statement twice, in respect of the present case, firstly at Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi, and secondly at PS Narela Indl. Area. He did not remember as to whether he had visited the place of incident along with IO, during investigation, after being discharged from the hospital but his driver Dilip Kumar @ Sonu did not sustain FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 15 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit any injury in the incident. He had handed over his blood stained clothes to the IO in the night, on the same day, when he came to record his statement.
25. PW 4 Dilip Kumar @ Sonu deposed that on 28.05.2019, while he was working as a Driver with Sh. Vinit Jain, he along with Sh. Vinit Jain, was going from Metro Vihar to the factory situated at E Block, Bawana, Delhi, by car which was being driven by him. He further deposed that at about 12:3012:45 pm, when they reached in front of Vardhman Mall, suddently a motorcycle, on which three riders were sitting, stopped in front of their car. He got down from the car and all those three boys started abusing him in filthy language and started beating him, whereafter Vinit Jain also got down from the car and tried to intervene, on which one of those boys i.e. the accused herein (correctly identified) picked up a brick from the ground and hit the same on the head of Sh. Vinit Jain, whereafter, accused along with his associates ran away from the spot. PCR took Sh. Vinit Jain to hospital for medical treatment and police recorded his statement.
26. In his crossexamination, PW 4 deposed that police had recorded his statement once in connection with the present case, but he did not remember the date when his statement was recirded by the police. He even did not remember whether his statement was FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 16 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit recorded on the next day or after few days. His driving license was not obtained by the IO in the present case. He further deposed that the IO never took him anywhere during the investigation of the present case and he never went to the spot after the incident. He admitted it to be correct that the place of occurrance is an industrial area and people keep on passing from there and that there is a divider on the said road. He further deposed that there were three persons on the offending motorcycle and the accused Amit was driving the said motorcycle. He testified that the said motorcycle and their car collided with each other, but he did not remember as to whether any damage was caused to the said motorcycle or not, nor did he remember as to whether the said motorcycle had fallen down or not. He further deposed that all the said three boys started beating him but he was unable to tell who started the assault. To a specific question, PW 4 deposed that only one brick was lying at the spot. The suggestion, that the accused ran away from the spot after hitting the brick only once to Sh. Vinit Jain, was admitted to be correct. He did not know as to which hospital Sh. Vinit Jain was taken. After the incident, he had met Sh. Vinit Jain, after his discharge from the hospital. His statement was recorded by the police after the discharge of Sh. Vinit Jain from the hospital.
27. After close of PE, the statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he pleaded his innocence and stated that he has FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 17 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit been falsely implicated in the present case. He further stated that he himself is a victim in the present case as his motorcycle was hit by the car of the complainant, due to which he received injuries. He himself was driving his motorcycle and nobody else was with him at that time. He further stated that the complainant received injuries unfortunately through his own friends when they were beating him (accused) with hockey and when he tried to save himself, the hockey hit the complainant. He was saved by a lady. He was arrested in the PS when he had gone to lodge his complaint against the complainant.
28. Accused Amit, opted to lead defence evidence, and in his defence, he examined HC Pyare Lal as DW 1, Ms. Neetu as DW 2, Ct. Kapil as DW 3 and Dr. Veethika Dagar as DW 4.
29. DW 1 HC Pyare Lal (earlier examined by the prosecution as PW 5) deposed that on 28.05.2019 at about 1:10 pm, DD No. 33A Mark DW1/X was marked to him for inquiry. He deposed that he did not know if MLC No. 2355 dated 28.05.2019 was prepared in the name of Amit, but volunteered that he never received the said MLC during investigation of the present case.
30. On being cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for the accused, and on being shown the photocopy of said MLC, DW 1 deposed that FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 18 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit though his name is appearing at point A on the said MLC Mark DW1/A, but he had never received the said MLC and nor had he taken the injured to the hospital. He further deposed that he did not recollect as to what had happened to the said DD entry. He denied the suggestion that he was deliberately concealing the material facts of the case to give benefit to the complainant Sh. Vinit Jain or that he had deliberately hidden the DD entry registered on the complaint of accused Amit and MLC of the accused Amit, to give benefit to the complainant. He did not recollect what logical end was given to DD No. 33A.
31. On being cross examined by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, DW 1 deposed that on DD No. 33A, the injured Amit was taken to the hospital by Ct. Kapil, as he was busy in the investigation of some other cases. As far as he remembered, he had obtained the MLC of Vinit Jain and had recorded his statement. He further testified that in the present case, accused Amit never came forward to give his statement either on 28.05.2019 or on 29.05.2019.
32. DW 2 Ms. Neetu deposed that about three years ago, at about 12 noon or 1:00 pm, she saw that a boy i.e. the accused present in the Court today, was going on his motorcycle and was hit by a car from his back side, pursuant whereto the accused fell down from his bike.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 19 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
She further deposed that the car driver and other passenger of the said car came out of the car and started beating the accused. She along with one other lady tried to intervene but they did not stop beating the accused, and in the meanwhile, the driver of the car took out a hockey stick from the car and tried to give a blow on the head of the accused but the hockey stick was hit on the head of the other passenger of the car, who was also beating the accused. The other passenger of the car also hit on the eye of the accused with a punch. She further deposed that all the three persons were taken to the hospital by the police and she had also accompanied them to the hospital. The eyes of the accused were got checked in the hospital and he was given medicines. She further deposed that the car driver and other passenger were admitted in the hospital.
33. On being cross examined by the Ld. Chief PP for the State, DW 2 Neetu deposed that accused Amit was a stranger to her, prior to the incident in question but stated that he is residing at Metro Vihar, PhaseI, Holambi Kalan, Delhi, where she is residing. Her statement was recorded by the police. She also deposed that the alleged accident had taken place on the mid of the road. She denied the suggestion that she had good relations with accused and his mother, being the residents of same locality or that at the instance of mother of the accused, she had come to the Court to depose in favour of the accused. She did not know if two more boys were also sitting FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 20 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit on the motorcycle at the time of incident. She did not notice any pieces of bricks and stones lying near the place of incident. She denied the suggestion that she was not present at the spot at the time of incident or that her statement was never recorded by the police.
34. On being put a Court Question regarding the descriptions of those two persons who came out of the said car and assaulted the accused, she deposed that the height of the driver was comparatively short to the owner, and that other passenger of the car was tall with a strong built.
35. DW 3 Ct. Kapil deposed that on 28.05.2019, while he was on PCR duty, at around 12:45 PM, on receipt a call of accident or quarrel, he reached at the spot alongwith driver, and found a person in injured condition (correctly identified the person, who is accused present in the court) and he took him to M.V. Hospital and got him admitted there.
36. In his crossexamination, at the hands of the Ld. Addl. PP for the State, DW 3 deposed that on 28.05.2019, he was working as a driver on the above mentioned PCR van. He further deposed that any call received in the PCR was attended by Incharge, PCR Van and thereafter volunteered that the same was also attended by him. He further admitted that on 28.05.2019, he had also brought one injured FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 21 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit namely Vinit Jain to MV Hospital and got admitted him there. He admitted it to be correct that he could not say whether he had got admitted the accused in M.V Hospital or not.
37. DW 4 Dr. Veethika Dagar, Consultant, CD Global Hospital, Mundka, Delhi after seeing the copy of MLC dated 28.05.2019, deposed that on 28.05.2019, while she was posted at M.V. Hospital in ENT Department as Sr. Resident, the patient Amit was referred to ENT from the Casualty and after examining the said patient, she advised the patient for Xray of nasal bone. She admitted her handwriting from point A to A and and her signatures at point B on the said MLC Ex.DW4/X (objected to by Ld Addl. PP on the ground that it is the photocopy and cannot be exhibited).
38. Mr. Sumit Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the accused stated that since Dr. Praveen Chaudhary had left the services of Maharishi Valmiki Hospital and his whereabouts were not known, he dropped the said witness and closed defence evidence, vide his statement recorded on 02.05.2023.
39. I have heard Mr. Girish Giri, Addl. PP for the State and Mr. Sumit Bhardwaj, Ld. Counsel for the accused, scrutinized the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the accused, and have gone FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 22 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit through the relevant provisions of law.
40. Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that the incident was actually a road accident, which has been given the colour of a case u/s 308 IPC, only in connivance with the police, to escape payment of any compensation to the accused before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. It is stated that the incident is dated 28.05.2019 in the afternoon at around 12.30 PM, but despite the place of occurrence being a busy thoroughfare and allegedly public persons having gathered at the spot, no public witness has been joined in the investigation deliberately, because they would not have supported the prosecution case. It is submitted that DW 2, an independent witness, who also happened to be an eye witness, has given the real facts to the effect that after the accident it was the complainant, his driver and the friends of the complainant, who were called at the spot, who were the aggressors and had started beating the accused with hockey sticks, and only in this scuffle, it was the hockey stick, which hit the complainant, at the hands of one of his friends, and not the accused. The testimony of PW 8 the doctor concerned, has been laid thrust upon, who has opined in his crossexamination that the injuries could have been caused by a hockey stick. It is stated that there is deliberate suppression of real facts by the prosecution, in as much as the MLC of the accused, who was also taken to M.V. Hospital, has been suppressed, since it was the accused who also sustained injuries, but FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 23 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit because the accused was poor and complainant was rich, the FIR was lodged at the instance of the complainant. Contradictions in the testimonies of the complainant (PW 2) and his driver (PW 4), have also been highlighted. It is stated that no offence u/s 308 IPC is made out and that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case, though it was he, who sustained severe injuries. Acquittal of accused is prayed for.
41. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has stated that the genesis of the incident was the accident between the motorcycle of the accused and the car of the complainant, but after the collision, a quarrel took place and it was the accused, who was the aggressor and attacked the complainant with a brick, while two of his associates ran away from the spot. The weapon of offence i.e. the brick has since been recovered at the instance of the accused. The opinion of the doctor concerned examined as PW8 is clear that the injuries caused to the complainant could possibly be caused by a brick. It is stated that the version of the accused regarding the complainant calling his friends and attacking him with a hockey stick and hockey blow being caused to the complainant accidentally, is a sham defence, as it was never put forth to the complainant and other eye witness (PW4) at any point of time.
42. It is further contended that the complainant has sustained three FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 24 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit injuries on his head, which are not possible if he had sustained only one hockey blow accidentally. The fact that the complainant sustained three injuries on his head, clearly shows the intention of the accused as well as an intrinsic knowledge of the consequences of his act, when he hit the complainant multiple times. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the complainant were not accidental but were deliberate ones. It is also contended that DW 2 is not a reliable witness, in as much as, had she been present there, at the time of the incident, she would definitely have interfered in the incident, but it is not so. The very fact that she is not a summoned witness but has been called by the accused because she is a resident of the same village, makes it clear that her testimony is not reliable.
43. It is also contended that DW 3 a police witness, who has been called by the accused to bring forth the MLC of the accused, also does not support the case of the accused that any friends of the complainant had been called or that any hockey stick was used, which was instrumental in causing injuries to the complainant. It is submitted that from the testimony of PW 1 and PW 4, duly supported by PW 8 and other corroboratory witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt. Conviction of accused u/s 308 IPC is prayed for.
44. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 25 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit parties and scrutinized the evidence adduced. The case of the prosecution rests primarily on the testimony of the injured Vinit Jain (examined as PW2) and his driver Dilip @ Sonu (examined as PW
4). Vinit Jain being the injured himself, is the Sterling Witness of the prosecution.
45. Who can be said to be a "sterling witness", has been dealt with and considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Rai Sandeep Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, as under :
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 26 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.
46. The issue, as to the evidentiary value of injured witness was addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2009) 9 SCC 719, where in it was held that :
"Darshan Singh (PW4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tube well.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 27 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case, it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
47. In case State of MP Vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414, it was held that "the evidentiary value of testimonies of injured witnesses rests on a high pedestal and unless cogent reasons exist to discard their testimonies, 'minor discrepancies' do not corrode the credibility of an otherwise acceptable evidence."
48. In case Abdul Sayed V. State of MP, (2010) 10 SCC 259, to explain the reliability of injured witnesses, it was held that :
"Where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant (s) in order to falsely implicate someone".
49. In case State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Krishana Master & Ors, AIR 2010 SC 3081, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized that "It is the duty of the court to separate falsehood from truth and FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 28 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit shifting the evidence". At the same time, the eye witness's testimony must be credible and reliable. It should not be contradicted by other eye witnesses or by the medical and forensic evidence.
50. Keeping the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in mind, when the case in hand is adverted to, it is found that the complainant / injured Vinit Jain stood on very firm ground and deposed unambiguously the incident, as it happened. He is corroborated on all material particulars by his driver Sonu (PW4). Both the said witnesses stood the test of a grilling crossexamination very undaunted, coming out with flying colours. The presence of the said witnesses at the spot is undoubted, and similar is the presence of the accused. The injured Vinit Jain has emphatically deposed that after the motorcycle of the accused hit his car, his driver Sonu (PW 4) got down from the car, and a verbal quarrel followed by a physical squabble ensued, between his driver and the accused, supported by his two associates, who were coriders on his motorcycle. It was, when the complainant Vinit Jain intervened and tried to stop the accused from abusing and assaulting his driver, that the accused picked up a brick and gave blows on his head multiple times. The name of the accused being Amit, as per the injured, came to his knowledge, as the said two associates of the accused, were calling him by the said name.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 29 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
51. All the three injuries present on the person of the injured, as revealed from the MLC of the injured Ex. PW 7/A, prepared at the first instance, at M.V. Hospital, were on his head i.e. lacerated wound over midparietal, left tempoparietal region, and occipital region, and thus the medical evidence clearly corroborates the version of the injured / complainant.
52. No doubt, ultimately the injuries were opined to be simple in nature, but from the injuries, which have been inflicted on the head of the injured i.e. in the parietal region, tempoparietal region and occipital region, it is clear that the injured was assaulted multiple times.
53. The injured has stated that he was assaulted by the accused with a brick lying nearby, and he is duly corroborated by PW 4 regarding the injured being attacked by the accused, with a brick. The brick, being the weapon of offence, has been seized at the instance of the accused and the photographs of the same have been given an exhibit as Ex. PW 8 by Dr. Vijay Dhankar, who has been examined and cross examined in detail, and has given his opinion that the injuries could be caused by the brick. The brick has been proved on record as Ex. P1.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 30 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
54. The defence, which has been put forth by the accused, is that an accident had taken place due to fault of the driver of the complainant, and thereafter a quarrel had taken place, and only to shy away from paying any compensation to the accused, whose motorcycle was damaged, a different colour was given to the entire incident, and that in the quarrel, which had taken place, it was the complainant and his driver, who were the aggressors and in fact the complainant / injured Vinit Jain had called his friends, who were armed with hockey sticks and though the aim was to hit the accused but the hockey stick hit the injured on his head, due to which he sustained injuries.
55. To prove his defence, the accused has brought forth DW 2 Smt. Neetu, as a purported eye witness, who happened to be present at the spot and had seen the entire incident with her own eyes. Before analysing the defence, which has been put forth by the accused, out rightly, it needs to be observed that this defence appears to have been caricatured belatedly, or at least, after the prime witnesses of the prosecution had been examined and cross examined on behalf of the accused. This defence of the accused i.e. the injured calling his friends at the spot and a hockey stick having been used in the quarrel or the injuries having been caused, when the hockey stick hit the complainant, were never put either to the injured Vinit Jain or PW 4 Dilip @ Sonu, at any point of time.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 31 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
56. Ld. Counsel for the accused has laid thrust on the cross examination of PW 4 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, wherein he has stated that the injuries mentioned in the MLC, could be caused by some other blunt object of similar shape, size and weight and that it is possible that the injuries could be caused by some hockey stick, bat etc.
57. In my opinion, this opinion coming from the mouth of the doctor concerned, is of no help to the accused, as it is nowhere stated by the doctor concerned that the injuries could not be caused by a brick. The bottom line of the examination and crossexamination of PW 8 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, is to the effect that the injuries sustained by the injured, were caused by a blunt object, and the said blunt objection can very well be a brick, or even a hockey stick as alleged by the accused. However, this opinion cannot be read in isolation, being only corroboratory in nature. The opinion of the doctor regarding the weapon of offence has to be consistent with the other evidence, which has been put by either party.
58. The incident took place on an open road, where the possibility of a brick lying nearby, is very high. The injured in his consistent testimony in the court, duly supported and corroborated by other material witness PW 4, has supported his complaint and consequently the prosecution case regarding the injuries being caused to him by the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 32 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit accused, with a brick. On the other hand, the defence of the accused that the injuries were caused by a hockey stick, by one of the fictitious friends of the complainant, who were allegedly called by the injured, is too far fetched, and not at all believable, especially since the said defence was never put to the complainant / PW 2 and the other eye witness PW 4 Dilip @ Sonu.
59. In fact, the so called eye witness DW 2 Smt. Neetu also does not support the version of the accused that the complainant had called his friends, who had come to the spot, armed with hockey sticks, which resulted in the complainant sustaining a blow of hockey stick, on his head. As per DW 2, it was PW 4 i.e. driver of the car, who took out a hockey stick from the car and tried to give a blow on the head of the accused but the hockey stick hit the injured instead, causing him injury.
60. If this version was true, there would have been only one injury on the head of the injured, since allegedly it was an accidental blow, which could not have been repeated, since allegedly it was caused by the associates of the injured. The injuries being multiple ones, is a clear indication that the injuries were caused by the blunt object repeatedly and intentionally focusing on the area of the body of the injured, where the blow was intended to be given.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 33 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
61. Even otherwise, DW 2 does not appear to be a trustworthy witness, but rather appears to be a planted witness, if I may say so. DW 2 has testified that on the fateful day, she had gone to Bawana and on her way back, she was taking rest under a tree, when she saw the motorcycle of the accused being hit by a car from backside, due to which the accused fell down and thereafter a quarrel ensued between the accused and the injured and his driver. The site plan, which has been proved by the witness concerned, as Ex. PW 6/A, shows the spot of occurrence to be the corner of the road between Metro Vihar and DD Mall, and the road going towards Vardhman Mall. There is no bus stand or any other place, where a lady would choose to rest. No suggestion of this kind was ever given to the IO or PW 6 or the accompanying witnesses of investigation, regarding any place being situated near the spot of occurrence, where a lady would be able to sit down, to take a breather.
62. DW 2 has also testified that the injured as well as the accused were taken to hospital, and that she had accompanied them to the hospital, but in her crossexamination on behalf of the State, she has outrightly stated that the said accused Amit was a stranger to her prior to the incident. No lady, and that too a widow and a pensioner, would ever go to the extent of going to the hospital, just because she had allegedly witnessed an altercation between two parties, on the road.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 34 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
63. Pertinent it is to note, that PW 5 HC Pyare Lal, who came to the spot, on receipt of the information vide DD No. 33 A, along with Ct. Arun, categorically deposed that on reaching the spot, he came to know that the injured has been taken to M.V. Hospital and he did not meet any eye witness in the hospital. Even during the lengthy cross examination at the hands of the Ld. Counsel for the accused, he stood on firm ground that no eye witness met him in M.V. Hospital, due to which no statement was recorded.
64. Any stranger, who was such a humanitarian, that she went to the hospital after allegedly witnessing an altercation, would not just vanish from the hospital, if she had actually accompanied the parties to the hospital, but rather she would have insisted to give her version to the police and would have got her statement recorded.
65. Further more, as per DW 2 herself and as per the version of the accused, he was also admitted in M.V. Hospital, having sustained injuries on his nose etc., obviously did not have any time to interact with DW 2, who, as per them, were strangers to each other. Then how was the accused able to come to know her name and whereabouts and succeeded in bringing her in the court? The answer to this question is contained in the crossexamination of DW 2 itself, wherein though denying that she was known to the accused and was FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 35 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit having good relations with him and his mother, later admitted that they were living in the same locality. Therefore, DW 2 appears to be a planted witness and not an eye witness of the incident, and hence her testimony cannot be relied upon.
66. During the course of arguments and during the examination of the witnesses, there has been an attempt on the part of the accused, to convince the court that the incident was actually a road accident caused by the car being driven by the driver of the complainant and only to shy away from paying any compensation, a false case has been concocted. However, this contention of the accused does not inspire any confidence because the DD No. 33 A Ex. PW 5/A, clearly shows that the call was received in respect of a quarrel (Jhagda), and not a road accident. All along, be it the prosecution witnesses or the defence witnesses, it is a case of slight collision between the motorcycle of the accused and the car of the injured, but the rage from this collision, was the genesis of the actual incident of the quarrel (Jhagda), which went out of hand, and the injured sustained injuries on his head, at the hands of the accused. The accused has been blowing hot and blowing cold in the same breath, as on one hand, it is contended that it was only a road accident but the first call to the PCR clearly shows that it was not an accident but was a quarrel. The flip side of the contention raised by the accused is that the injured sustained injuries from a hockey stick, which was used by FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 36 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit his own friend. It is clear that no friends were ever called, and this defence was never put forth to the injured or his driver, and was emphatically denied by the witnesses of investigation, and therefore the version of the accused is not tanable.
67. In fact, if the crossexamination of PW 4 recorded on 06.09.2022 is scrutinized, it is found that during his cross examination, a suggestion has been given to PW 4 on behalf of the accused that the accused had ran away from the spot after hitting the brick only once on the person of the complainant, which was admitted to be correct by PW 4 i.e. the driver of the accused.
68. Accordingly, I find that the prosecution, with the help of the material witnesses and the corroboratory evidence of the police officials and the doctor concerned, is able to prove its case against the accused that it was the accused Amit, who gave brick blows on the head of the complainant on 28.05.2019, in the afternoon, as detailed in the prosecution case, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
Offence u/s 308 IPC
69. The accused Amit has been charged for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC. For ready reference, Section 308 IPC is being reproduced herein below :
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 37 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
70. Intention, knowledge and motive are the most important aspects under criminal law in determination of the consequences of various acts. Evidently, from the bare reading of Section 308 IPC, these aspects are vital in the instant case too. As such, a brief legal position concerning these words and how these should be read and interpreted is given herein below: Intention "Criminal intention" simply means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal law without just cause or excuse. The intention of the accused to produce a particular consequence shows his intention to do that act. An act is intentional if it exists in idea before it exists in fact, the idea realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied. The word 'intent' does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it used as a synonym for 'motive'. Where the Legislature makes an offence dependent on proof of intention, the court must have proof of facts sufficient to justify it in coming to the conclusion that the intention existed. No doubt one has usually to infer intention from conduct, and one matter that has to be FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 38 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit taken into account is the probable effect of the conduct. But that is never conclusive. As a general rule, every sane man is presumed to intend the necessary or the natural and probable consequences of his acts, and this presumption of law will prevail unless from a consideration of all the evidence the court entertains a reasonable doubt whether such intention existed. This presumption, however, is not conclusive nor alone sufficient to justify a conviction and should be supplemented by other testimony. An accused must be judged to have the intention that is indicated by his proved acts. The burden of proving guilty intention lies upon the prosecution where the intent is expressly stated as part of the definition of the crime. Criminal intent as a psychological fact has to be proved even in regard to offences under the Special Acts unless it is specifically ruled out or ruled out by necessary implication.
Knowledge - Where knowledge of a fact is an essential ingredient of an offence it must be distinctly proved. There are certain offences in the Penal Code where the accused who commits those offences is punished irrespective of the fact whether he had knowledge or not. Where a particular act is forbidden the question of knowledge becomes immaterial.
Motive - Motive is not to be confused with intention. If a man knows that a certain consequence will follow from his act, it must be presumed in law that he intended that consequence to take place although he may have had some quite different ulterior motive for performing the act. The motive for an act is not a sufficient test to determine its criminal character. By motive is meant anything that can contribute to give birth or even to prevent, any kind of action. Motive may serve as a clue to FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 39 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit the intention; but although the motive be pure, the act done under it may be criminal. Purity of motive does not purge an act of its criminal character. An act which is unlawful cannot, in law, be excused on the ground that it was committed from a good motive.
Motive, though not a sine qua non for bringing the offence home to the accused, is relevant and important on the question of intention.
Though the prosecution is not bound to prove motive for the crime, absence of any motive is a factor which may be considered in determining the guilt of the accused. Thus, if there is really no motive and the crime is completely motiveless then that circumstance can be taken into consideration along with the evidence of prior insanity. But if the actual evidence as to the commission of the crime is believed, then no question of motive remains to be established. It is not the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove motive with which a certain offence has been committed. It is sufficient if the prosecution proves by clear and reliable evidence that certain persons committed the offence, whatever the motives may be which induced them to commit that offence. For, motive is a fact very often within the special knowledge of the person doing the act and thus it becomes extremely difficult to ascertain the motive in a given case but that does not mean that the offence was not committed.
The question of motive is not material where there is direct evidence of the acts of the accused and the acts themselves are sufficient to disclose the intention of the actor. But in cases of circumstantial evidence, absence of motive is a factor in favour of the accused.
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 40 of 43
SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit
71. In view of the legal proposition detailed above, the facts of the present case are required to be tested in order to ascertain the culpability of accused Amit for the offence u/s 308 IPC, with which he is charged. In the case in hand, the accused and the injured were not known to each other prior to the incident. Therefore, there is no question of any previous grudges or motive being present for the accused to assault the injured Vinit Jain.
72. Admittedly, the incident finds its roots from a collision, which took place between the motorcycle of the accused and the car of the complainant and enraged due to the collision, as it happens quite often on the roads. The drivers / owners of both the vehicles get into a verbal squabble and quite often than not, a quarrel does take place, which generally gets subdued or defused, after both the parties have expressed their heated emotions and go their own way, not resorting to any legal action or may be, if any damage is caused to any vehicle, the person at fault, monetarily compensates the other. It is when neither of these two eventualities take place, that a quarrel ensues, resulting in a physical altercation and in the heat of moment, such an act of hitting the other with an object, whatever comes into one's hand, takes place.
73. In the case in hand, it is obvious that when the quarrel went FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 41 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit out of hand, in a fit of rage, the accused picked up a brick lying nearby and hit the injured on his head with the said brick. In my opinion, the accused did not have any intention to cause such an injury on the body of the injured, which if had caused the death of the injured, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However, every prudent adult person, be it in his house or on the roads, has the knowledge that when such multiple blows are given on the head of a person, it may result into his death, the head being a very vital part of the body of a human being. The accused has given not less than three blows on the head of the injured and not on any other part of his body, which clearly shows that the part of the body of the injured, which was being attacked, was with a focus that it was the part of the body, where the blow was to be given. The knowledge is intrinsic in this focused assault, that such blows can cause the death of the injured.
74. Therefore, I am of the view that the blows which were given to the injured on his head, with a brick, multiple times, by the accused, clearly bring the offence within the four corners of the offence u/s 308 IPC.
75. The accused has been charged for the offence u/s 308 IPC read with section 34 IPC. Though it was the emphatic version of the complainant / injured that there were three persons on the FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 42 of 43 SC No. 450/2021 State Vs. Amit motorcycle, but it was primarily the accused Amit, who was the aggressor and two of his associates came in support of the accused initially, but they also did the vanishing act from the spot, soon after the quarrel became very heated. Attacking the injured with a brick and causing injuries on the head of the complainant, was the sole act of the accused, as clearly deposed by the injured Vinit Jain and PW 4 Sonu - the eye witness. In any case, no other associates of the accused have been arrested. Accordingly, since no common intention could be established, section 34 IPC is not attracted in this case.
76. In view of my discussion above, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused Amit for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC, beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt.
Accused Amit is accordingly convicted for the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC.
Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMA
MAINI
Announced in the open court MAINI Date: 2023.10.13
16:51:46 +0530
today i.e. 12th October, 2023
(SEEMA MAINI)
Principal District & Sessions Judge (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 284/2019 : PS Narela Indl. Area page 43 of 43