Delhi District Court
Sc No. 24/08 State vs . Sanjay Etc. Page 1 Of on 2 August, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. R.K.GAUBA, ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE 03 (CENTRAL) DELHI
SC No. 24/08 FIR No.: 408/07
ID No.: 02401R1048692008 PS: Patel Nagar
U/Sec.:307/323/34 IPC
State
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar s/o Sh. Nand Lal @ Majnu,
2. Rajesh Kumar s/o Sh. Nand Lal,
3. Ravi Kant s/o Sh. Vashisht Narain,
All Resident of H. No. 2094/4A,
Gali No.15, Prem Nagar, Delhi.
Instituted on: 23.07.2008
Judgment reserved on: 02.08.2010
Judgment pronounced on: 02.08.2010
J U D G M E N T
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 1 of 21
1. Three accused persons have faced this trial on the charge that on 16.07.2007 at about 10 PM in Gali No.15, opposite House No. 2094/4, Prem Nagar, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, (hereinafter, "the police station"), they in furtherance of their common intention caused injuries with iron rod and wooden stick on the person of victim (first informant) with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, the death of Virender had occurred, they would be guilty of offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder and further that in the course of same incident, they also in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple hurt on the person of Rinku (daughter of first informant).
2. The case set out in the charge sheet may be taken note of at the out side.
3. At 00.05 hours on 17.7.2007, information was received in police station on the basis what was communicated by HC Hari Kishan of police control room (hereinafter "PCR").The PCR had received intimation from House No. 15, Prem Nagar behind Madarsa that stones and brick pieces were being pelted. This information was reduced into writing vide DD no.2A (Copy Ex. PW 6/A) and was made over to ASI Ranvir Singh (PW13) who proceeded to the place of occurrence with Ct. Pramod Kumar SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 2 of 21 (PW12). At that place, he learnt that injured had already been taken to hospital.
4. In the mean time at 01.25 hours on 17.7.2007, information was received from HC Sajjan Singh speaking from ESI Hospital (hereinafter, "the hospital") that Virender Singh son of Shiv Poojan ( PW1) aged 36 years resident of 2094/4A, Prem Nagar, Gali No.15, had been brought in injured state on account of quarrel to the hospital by his neighbour Vijay Kumar (PW5). This information was recorded vide DD no.7A (Ex. PW 4/C) and also made over to the investigating officer (I.O.) PW13 ASI Ranvir Singh. Copy of DD no.7A (Ex. PW 4/C) was also received by IO while he was in the process of inquiry at the scene of occurrence pursuant to earlier DD.
5. The I.O. then proceeded to the hospital where he found Virender (PW1) under observation as per MLC (Ex. PW 7/A) recorded at 10.45 PM on 16.7.2007. On his status being ascertained, injured was declared by the attending doctor to be fit for giving statement as per endorsement recorded on MLC Ex. PW 7/A on 17.7.2007. PW1 Virender on being asked to give statement at that stage stated that he was feeling drowsy and had pain in the head and, therefore, he would give statement in the morning.
6. At 9 AM, on 17.7.2007, Rinku (PW2) daughter of Virender (PW1) aged 16 years was also brought to the hospital by her SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 3 of 21 mother Girja Devi (PW3) with history of assault by Sanjay at Prem Nagar. MLC (Ex.PW 8/A) was recorded in her respect and the information was conveyed to police station. On 17.7.2007 at 0940 hours, police station received the intimation from hospital that SI Shiv Dasan of PCR had brought Rinku, daughter of Virender Kumar R/o 2094/5A, Gali No. 15, Prem Nagar, Patel Nagar, aged 16 years to the hospital where MLC 266/07 had been recorded. This intimation was reduced into writing by DD no.18B (Ex.PW 9/A) and was also handed over to ASI Ranvir Singh (PW13) for the needful action.
7. Against the above mentioned backdrop, the I.O. PW13 ASI Ranvir Singh recorded statement (Ex. PW 1/A) of Virender (PW1) on which he recorded his own endorsement (Ex. PW 13/A) which was sent to police station through PW12 Ct. Manoj Kumar at 6.30 AM on 17.7.2007 for registration of FIR. The FIR (Ex.PW 4/A) came to be recorded on that basis.
8. In the course of investigation, I.O. prepared site plan (Ex. PW 13/B). He seized the blood stained clothes of first informant PW1 Virender (vide Ex. PW 1/B). In the FIR, the first information had named accused no.1 Sanjay Kumar (hereinafter, "A1") and his brother accused no.2 Rajesh Kumar (hereinafter, "A2) besides accused no.3 Ravi Kant (hereinafter, "A3") as the assailants. All these three accused persons are described as residents of 2094/4A, Gali No.15, Prem Nagar SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 4 of 21 which is immediate neighbouring house to that of the first informant. A1, A2 and A3 were arrested in the evening of 17.07.2007 as per arrest memos (Ex. PW 3/A to 3/C) after personal search (vide memos Ex. PW 12/A to 12/C).
9. It is alleged that during interrogation A1, A2 and A3 made disclosure statements which were recorded (vide Ex. PW 12/F, PW 12/G and 12/H).
10.It is further stated that pursuant to the disclosure statement and at the instance of A1, an iron rod was recovered from the house of A1 which was seized (vide memo Ex. PW 12/D). Similarly, pursuant to the disclosure of A3 and at his instance, a wooden stick was allegedly recovered and seized (vide memo Ex. PW12/E).
11. During the course of investigation, opinion was sought respecting the nature of injuries suffered by first informant (PW
1) on the basis, inter alia, of the Xray reports. It was found that these injuries were simple in nature, in that no fracture was found to have been caused.
12.On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate on 23.7.2008 seeking trial of all the three accused persons for offences under Section 307/323/34 IPC. The Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate took cognizance, complied with provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. and committed the case to Sessions Court.
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 5 of 21
13.My Ld. Predecessor considered the question of charge. He found charge made out for offences under Sections 307/34 IPC respecting injuries allegedly sustained by PW1 Virender and under Sections 323/34 IPC respecting injuries suffered by Rinku (PW2). Charge was accordingly framed on 10.9.2008 to which all accused pleaded not guilty.
14.In the prosecution evidence 15, witnesses were examined as under:
(i) Virender, (PW1),
(ii) Kumari Rini, (PW2),
(iii) Girija, (PW3),
(iv) HC Jai Chand, (PW4).
(v) Vijay Kumar, (PW5),
(vi) HC Madan Lal, (PW6),
(vii) Dr. P.K.Jain, (PW7),
(viii) Dr. S.C.Jain, (PW8),
(ix) Ct. Kuldeep, (PW9),
(x) Dharamvir Thakur, (PW10),
(xi) Ct. Dharmender Singh, (PW10A),
(xii) HC Yogesh Kumar, (PW11),
(xiii) Ct. Pramod Kumar, (PW12),
(xiv) ASI Ranvir Singh (PW13), and
(xv) Dr. Prakash Kumar (PW14) SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 6 of 21
15.After prosecution evidence had been concluded, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the said statements, accused persons denied evidence about the role attributed to them in the assault on the persons of PW1 and PW2 as incorrect. They pleaded ignorance about the documents in the nature of MLCs, FIR etc. They denied having made any disclosure statement or having led to the recovery of any article. They claimed that the case property has been planted and signatures were forcibly obtained on blank papers. They claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated, on the basis of a concocted story. They claimed that they had gone to police station to lodge complaint about the beatings given by PW1 and his wife (PW3) but the police instead detained them and latter falsely implicated them in this case. They declined the opportunity to lead evidence in their defence.
16.I have heard Sh. R.K. Tanwar, Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Harshvardhan, advocate for the accused. I have been taken through the record by both sides during the course of arguments.
17.I have given my considered thoughts to the relevant contentions urged before me.
18.The MLC of PW1 has been proved by PW7 Dr. P.K.Jain. MLC Ex. PW 7/A was prepared by Dr. Sanjay Singh who was the examining Medical Officer in the hospital. PW7 proved the document in his place because Dr. Sanjay Singh is reported to have left the services. PW7 is acquainted with handwriting and SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 7 of 21 signatures of Dr. Sanjay Singh since the latter had worked under him in the course of his services in the hospital. Though, PW7 during the crossexamination conceded that he had no personal knowledge of the case, it is clear from the evidence on record and also the submissions made on behalf of accused persons that the correctness of the record contained in the MLC Ex. PW 7/A is not disputed. This MLC shows that PW1 Virender had been brought to the hospital by PW5 Vijay Kumar, a neighbour at 10.45 PM on 16.07.2007 with the history of assault on the head, face and back at about 10 AM "after fight from the neighbour". The local examination indicated that PW1 had bruises over the back, lacerated wound over forehead right side, laceration over head on right parietal region and temporal region, besides swelling with tenderness and restricted movement of the right shoulder.
19.PW1 had not reported any history of vomiting or seizures. He had informed that he had been bleeding per ENT. The MLC bears endorsement recorded at 4 AM on 17.7.2007 certifying the individual to be fit to give statement.
20.MLC in respect of PW2 Rinku has been proved by PW8 Dr. S.C.Jain. This MLC Ex. PW 8/A shows PW2 Rinku had been brought to the hospital by her mother, PW3 Girija at 9 AM on 17.7.2007. As indicated earlier the history given was of assault by Mr. Sanjay (A1) which was inflicted at 10PM on 16.07.2007. The SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 8 of 21 MLC noted that the examining Medical Officer, had found abrasion around the neck on anterior side and on the left wrist.
21.The prosecution case shows that the first intimation about the quarrel had been received in police station vide DD no.2A recorded five minutes past mid night on the night intervening 16 17.07.2007 which was routed through PCR, the information being that stones and brick pieces were being pelted at a house No.15, Prem Nagar which was located behind Madarsa.
22.PCR record has not been produced. It is not clear as to from which specific house, this information had been conveyed. Apparently, there was some gap in the communication recorded, in that, the house of neither side is numbered 15. Rather, both houses are located in Gali No.15.
23. The information about PW1 and PW2 having been brought to the hospital and MLCs having been prepared in their respect was recorded vide DD no. 7B and 18B, both of 17.7.2007, the first recorded at 0125 hours ( vide Ex. PW 4/C) and the 2nd at 0940 hours (Ex. PW 9/A). These DD entries have been proved by PW4 HC Jai Chand and PW9 Ct. Kuldeep respectively.
24.Going by the evidence of PW13 ASI Ranvir Singh, PW6 HC Madan Lal and that of PW10A, Ct. Dharmender, a copy of DD no.2 reached the hand of the former (I.O.) immediately after it being recorded by PW6. The I.O. was on emergency duty in the police station on the night in question.
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 9 of 21
25.As per evidence of PW13, whose word in this regard is corroborated by PW12 Pramod Kumar, when the former had received the copy of DD entry, both of them had first gone to Gali no.15 where they were met by PW2 Rinku, from whom they learnt that her father PW1 had been taken to hospital in injured condition. The injured (PW1) was contacted in the hospital. Going by the evidence of these witnesses and the endorsement on MLC Ex. PW 7/A, this would be around 4 AM on 17.07.2007. But PW1 sought time till next day to give statement on the ground that he was feeling sleepy and had a headache.
26.PW13 deposed that he had recorded statement of the injured at 5 AM on 17.7.2007. This statement Ex. PW 1/A has been affirmed on oath by PW1. PW13 proved his endorsement Ex.PW 13/A on which he had sent rukka which resulted in FIR Ex. PW 4/A being recorded. The duty officer PW4 HC Jai Chand proved copy of FIR Ex. PW 4/A and also his endorsement Ex. PW 4/B in this regard which clearly shows that the FIR had been recorded at 07.05 hours on1 7.7.2007 on the statement of PW1.
27.It is, thus, clear that PW2 Rinku came to the hospital to report her injuries vide Ex. PW 8/A and information in this regard was conveyed to the police station vide Ex. PW 9/A much after the FIR had been registered.
28.It may be mentioned here itself that evidence of PW14 Dr. Prakash Kumar Mehta, whereby the opinion respecting injuries of PW1 SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 10 of 21 and PW2 recorded by Dr. Aakash Dua on their respective MLCs was proved, clearly shows that same were simple in nature.
29.The case of the prosecution rests essentially on evidence of PW1 Virender, PW2 Rinku, PW3 Girja and two eye witnesses, i.e. PW 5 Vijay Kumar and another neighbour PW10 Dharambir Thakur.
30.According to the statement Ex. PW 1/A on which FIR is founded, PW1 was at his residence on the night of 16.7.2007. It appears from this document that there had been some quarrel between his wife PW3 Girija and a neighbouring woman Parvati, described as wife of Rajni, over throwing garbage in the street and putting a small piece electrical wire in the sewer system. The quarrel reached to the extent wherein both side women had even grappled with each other. PW1 claimed that he was trying to persuade his wife not to engage herself in quarrel when A1 and A2 with A3 came there, A1 allegedly caught hold of PW1 whereupon A2 hit him on his head with iron rod. A3 had allegedly brought wooden stick which he used to hit PW1 on his head. It is alleged that A1 then took over iron rod from A2 and inflicted another injury on his head with that weapon. As a result of the assault, PW1 had allegedly fallen down and was also inflicted another injury on his back. He claimed that in the meantime his wife PW3 called neighbour and that this incident was seen by PW5 and PW1, the neighbours. PW5 took PW1 on his motor cycle to the hospital where he was examined.
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 11
of 21
31.In the witness box, PW1 deposed that at about 10.30 PM on
16.07.2007, when he was sleeping inside his house. He was called by A1 and that when he went near the door, A1 had dragged him out. At that time, A1 was accompanied by 3 others who started beating him with danda and saria as a result of which he had sustained injuries on his head, forehead and upper arms. He mentioned names of A2 and A3 as the persons with A1 at that time. He stated that his daughter Rinku had tried to intervene and had also sustained injuries in the course of incident. According to him, he could not say the reason behind the incident. He stated that at the time of incident A2 was armed with iron rod while A1 and A3 were armed with wooden sticks.
32.During crossexamination PW1 stated that the incident had taken place over the issue of children. He was questioned about another incident on 15.7.2007, when he stated that incident was also pertaining to dispute involving children . He denied that there had been any quarrel between his wife and Parvati over the issue of putting garbage. He denied that the incident was initiated by his wife assisted by PW5 Vijay Kumar against neighbouring woman Parvati. He conceded that at the time of incident, his wife had gone out to take water. It was suggested to him that PW5 Vijay had made a charge at A3 with iron rod which had accidentally fallen on his person. It was put to him that Parvati had also sustained injuries. He denied these suggestions as incorrect.
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 12
of 21
33.PW2, during her statement in the court, stated that on 16.07.2007 at about 9 or 10 PM, she was in the house cleaning utensils. Her father who was inside the house was called outside by the accused persons who had dragged him out and beaten him with wooden stick, iron rod and brick bats. He stated that he had tried to intervene and also sustained injuries. She stated that three accused persons were accompanied by two others. She further stated that her mother who had come after hearing her cries had also sustained injuries.
34.In crossexamination, PW2 stated that at the time of incident, her mother was not in the house and had gone to draw water. She stated that there had been no quarrel between her mother and Parvati including on the issue of garbage prior to the incident. She denied that no one had gone to call the neighbour PW5 stating he had reached of his own. She stated by the time her mother appeared at the scene, the accused persons had left the spot. She stated that her mother received injury during the scuffle. It was suggested to her that she had received injury in the incident that had occurred on 15.7.2007 at the hands of her mother. It was further suggested to her that iron rod was directed against A3, had fallen on the person of PW1. She denied these suggestions as incorrect.
35.PW3 Girija Devi deposed that at about 11 PM on 16.07.2007, a quarrel had taken place between her and Ramesh who was joined SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 13 of 21 by the three accused persons and two unknown persons. She stated that her husband was called when three accused persons with the said two unknown persons had given beatings to him with iron rod on her head. She stated that her daughter Rinku sustained injury in the scuffle. She deposed that no one else sustained any injury.
36.In crossexamination PW3, stated that a day before the incident a quarrel had taken place between her daughter Rinku and the neighbouring woman Parvati and that she had beaten both of them. She stated that no one had gone to the hospital on account of that incident. She conceded during crossexamination that she had not told the I.O. about the involvement of the two unknown persons. It was suggested to her that the accused persons had only tried to intervene in the quarrel between Parvati, herself, her daughter and her husband. It was also suggested to her that it was PW5 who had wielded the iron rod. She denied these suggestions as incorrect. She first denied that there had been any quarrel between her and Parvati over putting quarrel the garbage, but then corrected herself conceding that to be a fact.
37.PW5 Vijay, the neighbour testified that at about 10PM on 16.07.2007, he was strolling in the street, when PW3 had come to him and informed that her husband was being beaten by some persons. He deposed that he had gone to the street in question and saw three accused persons present there and beating PW1, at which stage A1 was holding the iron rod, while A3 was holding SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 14 of 21 wooden stick. He deposed that A1 had hit PW1 with iron rod on his head. He stated A3 had caught hold of the injured at that stage. He named A2 as the person commonly known as Shashikant in the neighbourhood.
38.During the crossexamination, he stated that all the accused persons are related to the injured persons. It came in evidence of PW3 also that both sides hail from the same native place Nawli in District Ghjahipur, U.P. It also came out during his crossexamination that his house is at a little distance away from the place of occurrence. According to him, the beating had commenced before he reached the spot and had continued even after his arrival there. It was suggested to him that he had been called by PW3 Girija to join in the quarrel. It was further suggested to him that he had been given iron rod from the house of PW1, which had been falsely stated to be weapon of offence by A1. It was also suggested to him that in the process of intervening PW1 had suffered iron rod blow at his hands. He denied these suggestions as wrong.
39.PW10, the other neighbour testified that on 16.07.2007, he was standing in front of his house at about 9/9.30 AM. He stated that he had seen A1 and A2 along with two others, one of the said others person being named Shashi Kant, giving beatings to PW1, while A1 was beating PW1 with iron rod, on his head as a result of which he had fallen on the ground. He stated he had intervened in the matter. He deposed that as the assailants were four in number, SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 15 of 21 he was helpless. He was crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP on the ground he was "not supporting the prosecution case".
40.During crossexamination at the hands of Addl. PP, he denied that all the three accused persons including A1 had come to the house of PW3 armed with iron rod and wooden stick. He stated that A3 had accompanied them. He denied having told the police that A3 had also hit PW1 with wooden stick. He then agreed with the suggestion of the Ld. Addl. PP that A1 first caught hold of PW1 and dragged him upon which A2 had hit him with iron rod on his head. According to him, A3 is uncle of A1. He denied that A3 was at all present at the spot or had participated in the incident. He at the same time conceded that due to lapse of time, he was unable to narrate the cause of the quarrel.
41. During crossexamination, he stated that he was not aware if Shashikant had been interrogated by the police or if the 4th assailant was arrested or not. He denied the suggestions that he had implicated A1 and A2 due to enmity. He further denied the suggestion that PW1 had attacked A1 and A2 with the help of PW5. He denied that his evidence had been procured by PW1 and PW5.
42.PW12 and PW13 have deposed about the arrest of three accused persons vide memos Ex. PW 3/A to 3/C after personal search vide Ex. PW 12/A to 12/C. They also deposed about the seizure of the blood stained clothes ( Banian P1 and Chaddar P2) of PW1 vide SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 16 of 21 memo Ex. PW 1/B. They further testified that accused persons after arrest were interrogated and made disclosures vide Ex. PW 12/F to 12/H. Their evidence further relates to the iron rod ( also Ex. P2) and wooden stick (also Ex. P1) having been recovered and seized on the pointing out of A1 and A2 vide memo Ex. PW 12/D and Ex. PW 12/E, from their respective houses.
43.The comparison of evidence of PW1 injured with that of the eye witnesses PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW10 shows that same is full of inconsistencies, on material points. PW1 injured himself disowned the version given by him in the FIR, basied on his statement Ex. PW 1/A. He would not even support the background of the dispute. He gave a different sequence of events. In the FIR, he had himself come out to stop his wife PW3 from picking up the quarrel with the neighbouring lady Parvati. In the statement in court, he denied there was any such background involving dispute over putting garbage in the street. In the court, he would state that he was dragged out of his house by A1. This was never attributed to A1 in the original case set up on his own statement. In the FIR, he had mentioned only three assailants, in the court, he added one more person amongst the assailants. In the original FIR, he would not refer to quarrel of children which is the reason now given.
44.In the original case set up in the FIR recorded at 7.05 AM on17.7.2007, there was no story of PW 2 Rinku having suffered injuries. A new case has been set up about PW2 having SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 17 of 21 intervened and sustained injuries. There is no explanation why Rinku was not brought to the hospital with PW1, if both of them had been injured in the same process. There is no explanation as to why she would come to the hospital almost 11 hours after the occurrence. Except for saying that she had suffered injuries when she had intervened, she would not state as to how she suffered injuries and on which part of the body. In the MLC, two abrasions were noticed on her person, one on the neck and one on the left wrist. Her own mother PW3 is on record stating that she had given beatings to PW2. In these circumstances, the possibility that injuries noticed on the person of PW2 had come at the hands of PW3, but now being falsely attributed to the accused persons, can not be ruled out, particularly because PW2 herself would not come clean on she having been beaten by her mother. Noticeably, PW2 would deny the suggestion to this effect in her cross examination.
45.MLC in respect of PW1 vaguely referred to the history as fight with neighbour. It would not disclose as to what was the weapon, if any, used by the assailants. In the FIR PW1 would allege use of one iron rod and one wooden stick. One iron rod and one wooden stick were recovered allegedly at the instance of A1 and A3. But then, there is nothing special about the said articles. Even though, they have been allegedly used to cause severe beatings which SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 18 of 21 would result in bleeding as well. These item do not carry tell tale signs.
46.As against the version stated by PW1, PW2 added use of stones and brick pieces in the assault. This is not what is sated by her parents PW1 or PW3. Against this back drop, original DD no.2A assumes significance. In that DD entry recorded at 5 minutes past midnight, it was reported that stones and brick pieces were being pelted. As mentioned earlier, it is not clear from the said record as to who had conveyed the said intimation. The DD entry contained an error in that there was reference to House No.15. In fact it appears to have been mixed up with Gali No.15. It is left to imagination as to who was at the receiving end of the stone pelting in as much as PW1 and PW3 did not speak about stone pelting at all.
47.PW1 had mentioned the names only of three assailants in the FIR. In the witness box, he would now state they were four in number. PW2 and PW3 would put the number of assailants as five. PW10 would again seek the court to believe that the assailants were four in number but he is very positive that the assailants did not include A3. In these circumstances, it is not possible to believe one or to disbelieve other. It is the word of one against the other, each cutting at the roots of the version of others.
48.As mentioned earlier, the official who picked up first communication in PCR has not been produced or examined. Even SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 19 of 21 during investigation, PCR official who would have come to the spot has also not been brought to light. There is no evidence of stones or brick pieces having been found at the scene of occurrence. If what the witnesses say is to be believed, the incident had occurred some time between 9 PM to 10.30 PM. In these circumstances, it is left to imagination as to how there was stone pelting at 5 minutes past midnight and who was responsible for the same. The possibility that another incident had occurred around midnight can not be ruled out. In these circumstances, refusal of PW1 to make statement immediately when he was declared fit in the morning by the examining Medical Officer creates a further doubt as to his veracity.
49.Given this kind of evidence coming from PW1, PW2, and PW3, I do not find it safe to rely on the evidence of PW5 and PW10, both of whom had to be declared hostile and crossexamined by the Ld. Addl. PP to bring home the material facts on record through their respective mouth pieces. Even otherwise, the presence of PW5 Vijay Kumar at the time of occurrence is doubtful in that PW2 would deny that her mother had gone and called PW Vijay to the scene for occurrence, as was case set out in the original FIR. PW2 also indicated that PW3 had come to the scene after the accused had left, i.e. after the incident was over.
50.In the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution witnesses do no speak in one voice or in corroboration of each other so as to SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 20 of 21 lend assurance about any particular sequence of events. Serious doubts arise as to the veracity of PW1 and PW2 and about the manner in which they had suffered injuries. Benefit of these doubts will have to be extended to the accused persons who are consequently acquitted.
51.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court on
This 2nd day of August, 2010 ( R.K. Gauba)
Addl. Sessions Judge 3
Central, Delhi.
SC No. 24/08 State Vs. Sanjay etc. Page 21
of 21