Delhi District Court
State vs Kumar Dev @ Debu on 19 October, 2024
IN THE COURT OF DR. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC-02) SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
DLSE010059892018
Session Case No. 335/2018
FIR no. 62/2018
Police Station: Govind Puri
State
Versus
(1) Kumar Dev @ Debu
Son of Satish Kumar,
Resident of B-1042, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
(2) Kailash Singh @ Tinku
Son of Munesh Kumar,
Resident of B-972, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
(3) Puran Mal
Son of Ashok Kumar,
Resident of B-1070, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 1 of 61
(4) Lalit Kumar @ Sonu
Son of Ashok Kumar,
Resident of B-972, Transit Camp,
Govind Puri, New Delhi. ......Accused persons
Date of Institution : 28.05.2018
Judgment reserved on : 30.09.2024
Date of Decision : 19.10.2024
JUDGMENT
1. A police report was put up by the State through officer-in charge of the police station Govind Puri before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate with the view to take cognizance of offences under sections 307/323/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') against the accused persons, namely, Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu for having committed the said offences and to proceed with committal of the case.
2. As per the police report on 18.01.2017, this case FIR was registered against the accused persons, namely, Dev Singh son of Satish, Hariom son of Ashok and Sonu son of Ashok in police station Govind Puri for the offences punishable under sections 307/323/34 IPC.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 2 of 613. As per the police report, a PCR call vide DD No.43A dated 17.02.2018 was assigned to Sub-Inspector Raju and he along with Constable Deep Ram had reached the spot but the injured were already taken to the hospital by PCR Van and no witness was found on the spot.
4. It is further reported in the police report that in the meantime, the duty officer had informed PSI Raju on phone regarding MLC No.500078620/2018 and MLC No.500078624/ 2018 and PSI Raju along with constable Deep Ram had reached Trauma Center, AIIMS and obtained MLCs of the injured Monu age 28 years with alleged history of assault and result was pending investigation and of the injured Amit age 25 years with alleged history of assault and result 'simple blunt'. It is further reported in the police report that PSI Raju had prepared rukka on the basis of statement of the complainant Amit.
5. As per the police report, it is, inter- alia, stated by the complainant Amit that he resideexd at the above-mentioned address with his family and worked as driver; that Dheeraj @ Monu son of Lokesh was his nephew; that there was a marriage of his cousin fixed for the next day i.e. on 18.02.2018 so, on 17.02.2018 they were celebrating in the tent installed in the park near their house; that at 10.00 p.m. in the night, their neighbour Dev Singh @ Debu, along with his friends 'H' (CCL), Sonu son of Ashok, Puran, Tinke and three/four other boys had reached SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 3 of 61 there and started abusing; that when he and Dheeraj had tried to make them understand and not to do so, they did not understand and those boys had surrounded the complainant and Dheeraj and started beating them; that 'H' CCL and other two boys had caught hold the complainant and Debu had hit the complainant by a stone picked up from there and the people present there were frightened on seeing the fight; that when Dheeraj had run to save the complainant, all the accused persons had caught hold Dheeraj and Debu had taken out a knife and stabbed in the abdomen of Monu @ Dheeraj; that when the family persons of the complainant had tried to catch those boys, they all fled away from there; that someone had called 100 number and the police had reached at the spot and they were taken to the hospital for treatment. It is further stated by the complainant that he could identify those boys/offenders if they are produced before him. It is further reported in the police report that statement of Dheeraj @ Monu could not be recorded as he was in operation theater.
6. It is further reported in the police report that from the circumstances, contents of MLC and statement of the complainant, the offences under sections 307/323/34 IPC have been made out and therefore, a case under those sections was got registered and further investigation was assigned to Sub- Inspector Saurabh.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 4 of 617. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer Sub- Inspector Saurabh along with Head Constable Rajender had reached at the spot and prepared the site-plan at the instance of the complainant Amit and recorded the statement of the witnesses.
8. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation on 18.02.2018, on receiving an information from a secret informer regarding presence and availability of the offender who had quarreled with the complainant and inflicted injury by knife in the present case near his house, the investigating officer had requested the passersby to join the investigation but all of them had left after making excuses, therefore, in order to avoid delay proceeded towards that place and on pointing out by the secret informer towards a person to be the person involved in the incident of the present case, the investigating officer with the help of accompanying staff had apprehended that person and on interrogation, his name was disclosed as Lalit Kumar @ Sonu son of Ashok Kumar and arrested the accused and documents regarding his arrest were prepared and the accused had made disclosure statement, thereby, admitting his guilt and separate memo to that effect was prepared.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 5 of 619. It is further reported in the police report that the investigating officer had obtained two days police custody remand of the accused Lalit Kumar @ Sonu and searched for the co-accused persons but no clue was found. It is further reported in the police report that Kapil nephew of the complainant Amit had informed the investigating officer on phone that another accused Puran Mal involved in the present matter was seen roaming around market near metro-station so the investigating officer along with Head Constable Ravinder reached that place and on pointed out by Kapil towards a person to be involved in the commission of offence in the present case, apprehend him and his name, on interrogation, was revealed as Puran Mal and he was brought to the police station and formally arrested and the documents related to his arrest were prepared and the accused had disclosed about his involvement in the present case and he was sent to judicial custody.
10. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation on 26.02.2018, a secret informer had informed him on telephone that the offenders who had inflicted stab injury in the present case was about to come at B-Block Transit Camp; that the investigating officer along with Head Constable Ravinder, after requesting several passersby to join the investigation, on pointing out of the secret informer towards two persons to be involved in the present case, apprehended those two persons whose names on interrogation were revealed as SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 6 of 61 Kailash Singh and Kumar Dev @ Debu and they were arrested and the documents for their arrest were prepared and they were personally searched and during their disclosure statement, they had admitted their involvement in the present case and the separate memos to that effect were prepared. It is further reported in the police report that the investigating officer and the accompanied staff had taken the accused persons Kailash Singh and Kumar Dev with them and made search for the co-accused but found no clue. It is further reported in the police report that one day police remand of the accused persons Kailash Singh and Kumar Dev was obtained from the Court and the co-accused and weapon of offfence was searched for but of no avail and the accused persons Kailash Singh and Kumar Dev had informed that the weapon of offence i.e. knife was thrown by them in the canal, therefore, section 201 IPC was added.
11. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, statement of the injured Dheeraj @ Monu was recorded.
12. It is further reported in the police report that the investigating officer was present in the police station and one accused 'H' CCL along with his mother, had come to the police station and he was apprehended and his version of conflict was recorded and on collection of documents regarding his age, he was produced before JJB and kept in observation home.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 7 of 6113. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, the investigating officer had obtained the result on the MLC of the injured Dheeraj @ Monu where the nature of injury was opined as 'grievous' and the type of weapon used was 'sharp'.
14. It is further reported in the police report that during the course of investigation, statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses were recorded and the documents related to the treatment and X-Ray were obtained.
15. It is further reported in the charge-sheet that the afore-said acts on the part of Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit Kumar revealed commission of offences punishable under section 307/323/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is, therefore, prayed that cognizance of the offences committed by Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit Kumar may be taken and they should be tried as per the provisions of law.
16. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer had filed the charge-sheet before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 8 of 6117. On the police report, on 28.05.2018, the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate had taken the cognizance of the offences.
18. On the date of taking cognizance, the accused Kumar Dev was also produced from judicial custody before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused persons Puran Mal and Lalit on bail were also present. Copies of police report and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C. were supplied to them. Summons for appearance of the accused Kailash Singh were issued.
19. On 04.06.2018, the accused Kailash Singh appeared in the Court and he was also supplied with the copies of the police report and other documents in compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C.
20. On 13.07.2018, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate found the offence under section 307 IPC to be exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, committed the case to the Court of Session.
21. On 27.08.2018, upon considering the police report and the documents sent with it under Section 173 Cr.P.C. and after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused persons, the charge was framed against the accused SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 9 of 61 Kumar Dev @ Debu for him having committed offences punishable under sections 323/34 and 307 Indian Penal Code. The charge was also framed against the accused persons Kailash, Puran Mal and Lalit for having committed offences punishable under section 323/307/34 Indian Penal Code.
22. The charge was read over and explained to the accused persons and they were asked if they pleaded guilty of the offences charged or claimed to be tried. The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
23. In support of its case, the prosecution got examined PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu (injured), PW2 Amit (complainant/ injured), PW3 Kapil, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dhar, PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal, PW6 Constable Rajesh, PW7 Ashutosh, PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh, PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, Trauma Center AIIMS, PW10 Dr. Pulak, PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh, PW12 Constable Deep Ram, PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju. During the examination of the prosecution witnesses, the documents Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, and Ex.PW14/A were also tendered in evidence.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 10 of 6124. On 27.05.2023, prosecution evidence was closed and matter was posted for examination of the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C. and for their statement.
25. On 25.07.2023, this Court examined the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. and their separate statement was recorded. During his examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons have denied the correctness of incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them.
26. During their examination under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the accused persons took the defence that that they are innocent. It is further stated by the accused Kumar Dev this case was a counter blast of the case lodged by his sister namely Pinki against one Dheeraj @ Monu; they wanted to pressurize them to settle the said case and hence he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further stated by the accused Kailash @ Tinku that he was present at the spot as he was at his ice-cream shop and he has been implicated in the present case being friend of other accused persons. It is further stated by the accused Puran Mal that he on 17.02.2018, Monu and his friends had misbehaved with his cousin sister namely Jyoti and in order to save themselves from any allegation and case, they got him implicated in this case. It is further stated by the accused Lalit @ Sonu that FIR No.265/2018 was lodged under section SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 11 of 61 354/354B/323/341/34 IPC was registered against Monu @ Dheeraj and other accomplices.
27. The accused persons expressed their desire to lead evidence in their defence.
28. In their defence, the accused persons examined DW1 Pinki, DW2 Sachin, and DW3 Jyoti.
29. I have heard Mr. Narender Yadav, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, Ms. Khushboo Kohli, Advocate for accused Puran Mal and Lalit and Ms. Garima Tripathi, Advocate for accused Kumar Dev and have gone through the record of the case carefully.
30. Having drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu (injured), PW2 Amit (complainant/ injured), PW3 Kapil, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dhar, PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal, PW6 Constable Rajesh, PW7 Ashutosh, PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh, PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, Trauma Center AIIMS, PW10 Dr. Pulak, PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh, PW12 Constable Deep Ram, PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju and the documents Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 12 of 61 Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, and Ex.PW14/A, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that from the evidence led by the prosecution, it has been proved that the accused persons had caused simple injury to the person of complainant with blunt object and grievous injury to the person of Dheeraj @ Monu with sharp edged weapon and thus committed an offence of attempt to murder. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that there are total five accused persons, out of which, one is CCL.
31. Per contra, counsel for the accused persons Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu has drawn my attention on the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu (injured), PW2 Amit (complainant/ injured), PW3 Kapil, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dhar, PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal, PW6 Constable Rajesh, PW7 Ashutosh, PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh, PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, Trauma Center AIIMS, PW10 Dr. Pulak, PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh, PW12 Constable Deep Ram, PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju and the documents Ex.PW2/A, Ex.PW4/A, Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C, Ex.PW6/D, Ex.PW6/E, Ex.PW6/F, Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B, Ex.PW9/C, Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW11/A, Ex.PW11/B, Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW13/A, Ex.PW13/B, Ex.PW13/C, Ex.PW13/D, and SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 13 of 61 Ex.PW14/A and submitted that the first call was made at 09:00 p.m. and as per the FIR, at 10:00 p.m., outside the function venue the incident had happened, however, the incident had happened at 10:00-10:30 p.m. It is further submitted that as per the testimonies of PW2 Amit, there is a difference of time that is 10:00-10:15 p.m. and 09:00-09:15 p.m. It is further submitted that as per the FIR, victim's statement was recorded at the hospital and as per PW2 Amit and PW15 Sub-Inspector Raju also, the injured's statement was recorded at the hospital, however, as per the testimony of PW2 Amit during his cross- examination, nobody from the local police had met him in the hospital. It is further submitted that as per the police, they had taken the injured to the hospital by PCR van, but the injured says that they were taken in the hospital by Wagon-R/ PCR. It is further submitted that as per police report, the injured received one injury, however, the MLC shows two injuries each. It is further submitted that the FIR fails to make-out any statement against the accused persons Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu. It is further submitted that blood-stained clothes were not seized by the investigating officer. It is further submitted that PW7 Ashutosh is the first informant who had called 100 number and as per his statement, he had taken the victims to hospital and the police had never inquired from him regarding this case, whose statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded just three days before the filing of the charge-sheet. It is further submitted that PW3 Kapil resiled from his statement, on whose behest the SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 14 of 61 accused Puran Mal was arrested and he was cross-examined on behalf of the State. It is further submitted that the weapon of offence was not recovered by the investigating officer. It is further submitted that there is no evidence corroborating the time and place of incident.
32. Learned counsel for the accused Kumar Dev has drawn my attention on the testimonies of witnesses and the documents tendered in evidence and submitted that as per the main complainant, "sar pe patthar uttha kar maar diya", so injury must have been grievous and it is not corroborated from the MLC. It is further submitted that Pinki has filed the case for molestation and the present case has been filed against the accused persons to take revenge.
33. Learned counsel for the accused Kailash Singh has drawn my attention on the testimonies of witnesses and the documents tendered in evidence and submitted that no recovery of clothes was affected by the investigating officer and no material was produced to prove the case. It is further submitted that as per the case set up by the investigating officer, he had recorded the statement of the complainant in the hospital, whereas, the complainant say he had gone to the police station to give statement.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 15 of 6134. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties.
35. The accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under sections 307/323/34 I.P.C. Sections 307,323 and 34 read as follows:
"307. Attempt to murder. - 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 murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.-- When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death."
"323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 16 of 61
36. The facts of the case have already been noticed earlier, here, I would like to only focus on the evidence that has been adduced by the prosecution.
37. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses.
38. PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu has deposed that during the days of the incident, he was working as driver in private cars and on 17.02.2018 at about 10:00 p.m., he along with his relative Amit (chacha) was standing outside the tent erected for the occasion of marriage of his chacha Karan which was to be held on 18.02.2018. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that the said tent was erected near the house of his chacha Karan, in the park and at that time, accused Debu came abusing as he was drunk at that time. PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu has correctly identified the accused Debu present in Court. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that Amit (his chacha) had moved towards accused Debu to make him understand not to abuse as there was a marriage function in their family. PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu had also correctly identified the accused Sonu, Tinke and Puran in court. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that accused Sonu, Tinke and Puran were also with accused Debu. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that one another person namely 'H' (JCL) was also present along with the abovesaid accused persons. It is further deposed by SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 17 of 61 PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that 'H'(JCL) was separately facing trial as he was JCL). It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that when Amit had asked the accused Debu not to abuse and he had tried to understand him which fell on the deaf ears of Debu, at this, the accused Debu had picked up a stone (pathar) and he had hit with the said stone on the head of Amit and seeing this, they all had got perturbed.
39. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that he had tried to save Amit and as soon as he had proceeded towards him to save him, the accused Puran had caught hold of him from behind and the accused Tinke and Sonu had caught hold of him from his each hand/arm respectively and the accused Debu had taken out a knife and had hit him with the said knife in his stomach. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that Amit had raised alarm and their family members had come out and seeing that their family members were coming, all the accused persons had run away from there. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that his clothes were also torn when a knife blow was given to him and he had fallen down at the spot. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that somebody had made a call to police at 100 number and he was taken to AIIMS Hospital by police. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that Amit was also taken to Hospital and they both were treated there. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that he was initially discharged from the Hospital on 22/23.02.2018 SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 18 of 61 but again he had some problem and he was again taken to Hospital and then he was discharged on 28.02.2018. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that he was not able to speak properly due to above injury and then he had gone to his native village and when he had returned, his statement was recorded by the police. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that one or two persons were also along with the above accused persons at the time of commission of above offence and they were the associates of the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu that he did not know their names but he can identify them by their faces.
40. PW2 Amit has deposed that he knew the accused persons who are residing in the same locality since his childhood. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that on 18.2.2018, there was function of marriage of his brother Karan who was son of his elder paternal uncle (tau). It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that his family and family of his tauji had resided jointly in the same house. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that there was function of manda (bhat) on 17.2.2018 and they were enjoying the function by dancing, singing etc at about 10 or 10.15pm, in the park in front of their house in the tent. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that at about 9 or 9.15 pm he and Monu @ Dhiraj were standing outside the tent and were discussing about the arrangements. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that two-four minor children were also playing nearby and in the meantime, SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 19 of 61 the accused Debu, 'H'(JCL), Puran, Sonu and Tinku had come there while abusing. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that when he had tried to ask them as to why they were abusing, they all had started manhandling and pushing him. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that the accused Debu had picked up a stone from the park and had hit on his forehead as a result of which, he had fallen down. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that blood had started oozing out of the wound and Monu @ Dhiraj had come for his rescue but all the accused persons had surrounded Monu and the accused Debu had given a knife blow to Monu @ Dhiraj on his stomach. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that he had cried for help and on hearing the cries, his family members had reached there and by that time, the accused had run away.
41. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that some one from his family had made call at 100 number and the PCR van had come at the spot and had taken him and Monu @ Dhiraj to AIIMS Trauma Centre where they were medically examined and treated. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that the police had come in the AIIMS Trauma Centre and had recorded his statement (Ex.PW2/A) It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that he was given five stitches on his forehead. PW2 Amit had correctly identified all the accused except 'H'(JCL) in the court. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that he had also shown the place SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 20 of 61 of occurrence to the police. It is further deposed by PW2 Amit that the site-plan was prepared by the police.
42. PW3 Kapil has deposed that in the month of February, 2018, one day he saw the accused Puran Chand near Mool Chand Metro Station at about 4:30 p.m. and thereafter, he had called at 100 number and had informed about the location of the said accused. It is further deposed by PW3 Kapil that he had also called the investigating officer/Sub-Inspector Saurabh Parashar and the police from police station Amar Coloy had come there. It is further deposed by PW3 Kapil that he had informed the police about the presence of Puran Chand, who is involved in the present case and on his pointing out and identification, the accused Puran Chand was arrested by the police in this case. PW3 Kapil had correctly identified the accused Puran Chand in the Court.
43. During his cross-examination by the State PW3 Kapil had admitted that he had seen accused Puran Chand on 24.2.2018 and had intimated the IO. It is deposed by PW3 Kapil that Head Constable Ravinder from PS Govindpuri came who apprehended the accused and took with him to the police station.
44. PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt has deposed that on the intervening night 17 th & 18th February, 2018, SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 21 of 61 he was on duty at police station Govind Puri as Duty Officer from 12:00 a.m. (midnight) to 08:00 a.m. It is further deposed by PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt that at around 03:45 a.m., Constable Deep Ram had produced one rukka to him for registration of the FIR which was sent by Sub-Inspector Raju. It is further deposed by PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt that on the basis of said rukka, he had got registered FIR No.62/2018 (Ex.PW4/A), police station Govind Puri under section 307/323/34 IPC through Computer Operator. PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt had brought the original FIR register which was seen and returned. It is further deposed by PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt that his endorsement (Ex.PW4/B) on rukka and certificate (Ex.PW4/C) under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, bore his signatures at point A.
45. PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal has deposed that on 17.02.2018 he was on duty as Duty Officer from 4:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal that at around 10:38 p.m., he had received a call from Java 62 Operator who had informed him that at B-Block Govind Puri, a Baraat had arrived and some boys were stabbing (Chakubazi kar rahe hai) and one person had received knife injury. It is further deposed by PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal that he had recorded the said information vide DD No.43-A Dt. 17.02.2018 Govind Puri (Ex.PW5/A). It is further deposed by SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 22 of 61 PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal that the DD was handed over to Sub-Inspector Raju for further proceedings. PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal had brought the original DD register.
46. PW6 Constable Rajesh has deposed that on 18.02.2018, on the asking of the investigating officer/Sub- Inspector Saurabh, he had reached at the spot at B-Block, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where he had joined investigation. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that on the direction of the investigating officer, he along with Head Constable Rajender had taken the accused Lalit for medical examination at AIIMS. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that after medical examination, they had taken the accused to the house of Duty MM at Ghaziabad where IO had also reached. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that the accused was remanded to the judicial custody. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the above said effect.
47. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that on 24.02.2018 on the requisition of the investigating officer, he along with Head Constable Ravinder had taken accused Puran for medical examination at ESI Hospital, Okhla. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that after medical examination, the accused was taken back to the police station. It SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 23 of 61 is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the above said effect.
48. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that on 26.02.2018 he had again joined the investigation of the present case with the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Saurabh along with Head Constable Ravinder and they had reached at B- Block, Transit Camp and there, the investigating officer had spoken to someone whose identity he did not know and thereafter, the investigating officer instructed him (PW6) and Head Constable Ravinder that two boys who were seen roaming in the Transit Camp have to be apprehended. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that thereafter, he along Head Constable Ravinder helped the investigating officer to apprehend both the persons who upon inquiry had revealed their identity as accused Kailash @ Tinku and accused Debu and after due inquiry, the investigating officer had arrested them and had conducted their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D).
49. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had interrogated and recorded disclosure statements (Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F) of both the accused persons. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that on SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 24 of 61 the instruction of the investigating officer he and Head Constable Ravinder had taken the accused persons to ESI Hospital for medical examination and thereafter, the accused persons were taken to the police station. It is further deposed by PW6 Constable Rajesh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the above said effect. PW6 Constable Rajesh had correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
50. PW7 Ashutosh had deposed that he knew Dheeraj @ Monu and he knew the complainant Amit as they were his neighbours and he knew them for long time. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that on 17.02.2018, he was invited in the marriage of uncle of Monu @ Dheeraj and on that day, he had participated in the said marriage function and at about 10-10:30 p.m., he was having food in the tent/marriage party in the park in the back side of Transit Camp towards Okhla Circle on the road from Okhla Circle to C.L. Chowk. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that after 15-20 minutes, when he had started having food, he had heard a commotion outside park near the mor of his colony. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that he had come out and saw Dheeraj @ Monu coming from the place of commotion towards his home. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that he had noticed that abdomen of Dheeraj @ Monu was cut and his intestine was coming out. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that thereafter he had called at 100 number and SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 25 of 61 had informed the police by his mobile No.8010509497. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that after some time, police/PCR had come at the spot. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that he along with Kapil (brother of Dheeraj @ Monu), complainant Amit who had also received injuries on his head, one boy Sarkar and Golu, etc. took Dheeraj @ Monu to the hospital.
51. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that he had come to know at the place of commotion that Puran and Debu had inflicted injuries upon Dheeraj @ Monu. It is further deposed by PW7 Ashutosh that the police did not meet him in the present case and that the police had never inquired him regarding the present case.
52. PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh has deposed that on 17.02.2018, he was deputed as Incharge of PCR van No.Kite-68 along with driver Head Constable Ram Kishan.
53. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub- Inspector Satya Dev Singh that during his duty hours at about 9 p.m., he had received a call regarding " baraat aayi hui hai usme chaku chal rahe hain at Transit Camp, Govindpuri ". It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh that SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 26 of 61 thereafter, he, in his PCR van, had reached at the spot i.e. B- Block, Transit Camp, Govindpuri, where they had met huge gathering. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh that they had come to know that a scuffle had taken place and two persons were injured. It is further deposed by PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev Singh that they had taken the victims to Trauma Centre AIIMS in the PCR van and had got them admitted.
54. PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi has deposed that in pursuance to summons received in their office regarding MLC No.500078620 of patient Monu, prepared by Dr. Indrajit G. Momin and regarding MLC No.500078624 of patient Amit prepared by Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti, he (PW9) and Dr. Pulak have been authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha, Faculty In-charge JPNA Trauma Centre AIIMS, New Delhi to appear before the Court with office copy of the records of afore-mentioned MLCs. It is further deposed by PW9 Kartar Singh that Dr. Indrajit G. Momin and Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti had left services of AIIMS Trauma Centre and their present whereabouts are not known in official records.
55. It is further deposed by PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, AIIMS Trauma Centre that he had seen the MLC No.500078620 (Ex.PW9/A) of patient Monu, prepared by Dr. Indrajit G. Momin SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 27 of 61 bearing signatures of Dr. Indrajit G. Momin at point A and point B. It is further deposed by PW9 Kartar Singh further deposed that today he has seen the MLC No. 500078624 (Ex.PW9/B) of patient Amit, prepared by Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti, bearing signatures of Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti at point A. It is further deposed by PW9 Kartar Singh that his authorization letter (Ex.PW9/C) in this regard bearing signature of Dr. P. P. Sinha at point A. PW9 Kartar Singh has brought certified office copy of medical record of discharge note, discharge summary and MLCs of aforementioned patients of 6 pages (Ex.PW9/D colly).
56. It is further deposed by PW9 Kartar Singh that he was working in the Medical Record Section of Trauma Centre since year 2015 and he had seen afore-mentioned both the doctors writing and signing during usual course of his duties and therefore he identified their signatures and writing.
57. PW10 Dr. Pulak, Sr. Resident, AIIMS Trauma Centre, New Delhi has deposed that in pursuance to summons received in their office regarding MLC No.500078620 of patient Monu, prepared by Dr. Indrajit G. Momin and regarding MLC No. 500078624 of patient Amit prepared by Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti, he (PW10) and Kartar Singh, MRT have been authorized by Dr. Tej Prakash Sinha, faculty incharge JPNA Trauma Centre AIIMS, New Delhi vide authorization letter SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 28 of 61 (Ex.PW9/C) to appear before the Court with office copy of the records of aforementioned MLCs. It is further deposed by PW10 Dr. Pulak that Dr. Indrajit G. Momin and Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti have now left services of AIIMS Trauma Centre and their present whereabouts were not known to the hospital.
58. It is further deposed by PW10 Dr. Pulak that he has seen the MLC No.500078620 (Ex.PW9/A) of patient Monu, prepared by Dr. Indrajit G. Momin, in which, as per MLC, patient has suffered stab injury over the abdoman just left of the umbilicus 1x1 cm with bowel herniating through wound and stab injury over the left posterior axillary fold over the back 2x1 cm musle deep and the said injuries have been caused by sharp object and were grievous in nature. It is further deposed by PW10 Dr. Pulak that he has seen the MLC No.500078624 (Ex.PW9/B) of patient Amit, prepared by Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti. It is further deposed by PW10 Dr. Pulak that as per the MLC, the patient has suffered laceration over forehead measuring 3x1 cm and laceration over back of the left ear. It is further deposed by PW10 Dr. Pulak that as per opinion, the nature of injury was simple cause by blunt object.
59. PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh has deposed that on 24.02.2018 he was posted as Head Constable at police station Madanpuri. It is further deposed by PW11 Head SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 29 of 61 Constable Ravinder Singh that on that day Sub-Inspector Saurabh Parasar had received phone call from Kapil i.e. nephew of the complainant Amit regarding location of accused Puran Mal near Moolchand Metro Station.
60. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that thereafter, Sub-Inspector Saurabh Parasar had called him (PW11) up and directed him to reach at the Moolchand Metro Station where Kapil would meet him and would point out to accused. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that thereafter, he along with Constable Rajesh had reached near Moolchand Metro Station where in the nearby Market Kapil met him. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that Kapil had pointed out towards accused Puran Mal who was present at the market. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that thereafter, he along with Constable Rajesh had apprehended accused Puran Mal and after establishing his identity, they had taken him to the police station. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that in the police station, the accused was arrested by the investigating officer vide arrest memo (Ex.PW11/A) and personal search of accused was conducted vide memo (Ex.PW11/B).
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 30 of 6161. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that the investigating officer had interrogated and recorded the disclosure statement of accused Puran Mal (Ex.PW11/C). It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that they had also tried to search the co-accused but in vain. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that after medical examination, the accused was committed to custody. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that on 26.02.2018, he along with Constable Rajesh had joined the investigating officer Sub- Inspector Saurabh and they had gone to B Block, Transit Camp, Govind Puri where secret informer had told that two of the accused persons involved in the present case were about to reach there. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that thereafter, upon arrival of both the accused, namely, Kailash and Kumar Dev, they had apprehended them.
62. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that both the accused persons were arrested by the investigating officer vide arrest memo (Ex.PW6/A) and (Ex.PW6/B) and their personal search was conducted vide memos (Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D). It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that the investigating officer had interrogated and had recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons (Ex.PW6/E and SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 31 of 61 Ex.PW6/F). It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that after medical examination, accused persons were sent to custody. It is further deposed by PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh that the investigating officer had recorded his statement to the abovesaid effect. PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh has correctly identified all the three accused persons present in the Court.
63. PW12 Constable Deep Ram has deposed that on 17.02.2018 in the intervening night of 17/18.02.2018, he was on emergency duty along with Sub-Inspector Raju. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that during his duty hours, at about 10 p.m., one DD No.43A regarding quarrel was received by Sub-Inspector Raju, in pursuance of which they had reached at B-Block Transit Camp, Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that at the spot, after enquiry it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place and the injured persons had already been shifted to hospital.
64. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that Sub-Inspector Raju had made efforts to take the statement of some public persons, but none could agreed to give the statement regarding the quarrel. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that in the meanwhile, a telephonic call of duty officer SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 32 of 61 was received by Sub-Inspector Raju and he (PW12) told about the MLC of some injured at Trauma Centre, AIIMS.
65. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that thereafter, they both had gone to Trauma Centre, AIIMS and there it was revealed that two persons, namely, Monu @ Dheeraj and Amit were got admitted after the quarrel. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that Sub-Inspector Raju had recorded the statement of injured Amit. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that at that time, Monu @ Dheeraj was in the operation theater so the statement could not be recorded at that time. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that upon the statement of Amit, Sub- Inspector Raju had prepared the rukka and had given it to him (PW12) for getting registered the FIR. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that accordingly, he had taken the same to police station and got registered the FIR. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that after getting registered the FIR, he had taken the copy of the same and handed over the same to Sub-Inspector Raju. It is further deposed by PW12 Constable Deep Ram that his statement was recorded in this regard by the investigating officer.
66. PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh has deposed that on 18.02.2018, after registration of this case, the file was handed SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 33 of 61 over to him for further investigation. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that thereafter, he along with Head Constable Rajender had reached at the spot i.e. B- Block Transit camp Govind Puri, where the injured Amit had met them and he (PW13) prepared the site-plan (Ex.PW13/A) at his instance. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had recorded statement of the injured Amit. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that in the meanwhile, he had received a secret information from secret informer that one of the accused persons was roaming near his house and upon this information, he (PW13) along with Head Constable Rajender had reached near the house of the accused Lalit @ Sonu i.e. House no.B-1070, Transit Camp, Govind Puri, where they had found that the accused was standing there and he (PW13) had apprehended him. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had arrested the accused person vide arrest memo (Ex.PW13/B) after conducting his personal search vide memo (Ex.PW13/C). It is further deposed by PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh that the disclosure statement of the accused was recorded by him vide memo (Ex.PW13/D). It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that the medical examination of the accused was got conducted and the accused Lalit @ Sonu was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody for three days. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh that on 21.02.2018, he had moved an application for obtaining the police custody remand of accused SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 34 of 61 Lalit and the same was allowed. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that thereafter, he along with other police officials and the accused Lalit had gone to the area of police station Govind Puri for search of the other co-accused and case property i.e. knife. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that during the police custody, no weapon i.e. knife could not be recovered at the instance of the accused Lalit and no co-accused could be recovered at his instance. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that on 23.02.2018, the accused Lalit was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody after conducting his medical examination. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that on 24.02.2018, he was present in arrangement duty in the area of police station Badarpur and the nephew of the victim, namely, Kapil had called him and stated that one of the accused who was involved in this case was present near Moolchand metro Station, Kailash Colony. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had given this information to Head Constable Ravinder, police station Govind Puri and he (PW13) instructed him to go to above mentioned place. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had also shared the mobile number of Kapil with Head Constable Ravinder. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh that Head Constable Ravinder had brought the co-accused Puran Mal in the police station Govind Puri and he (PW13) had also reached at police station Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 35 of 61 arrested the accused Puran Mal vide arrest memo (Ex.PW11/A) after conducting his personal search vide (memo Ex.PW11/B). It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that disclosure statement of accused Puran Mal was recorded by him vide memo (Ex.PW11/C). It is further deposed by PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh that accused Puran Mal was produced in the Court and sent to judicial custody.
67. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that on 26.02.2018, he along with Head Constable Ravinder and Constable Rajesh were present in the police station and he (PW13) had received a secret information from secret informer that two co-accused persons who were involved in this case were present at B-Block, Transit Camp, Govind Puri. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that upon this information, he along with above-mentioned police officials and secret informer had reached at B-Block transit camp, Govind Puri and at the instance of secret informer, they apprehended both the co-accused and their name were revealed as Kumar Dev @ Debu and Kailash @ Tinka. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that he had arrested the accused persons Kumar Dev @ Debu and Kailash @ Tinka vide arrest memos (Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/A) after conducting their personal search vide memos (Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D) and their disclosure statements (Ex.PW6/E and Ex.PW6/F) were recorded SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 36 of 61 by him. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that the medical examination of the both accused persons were got conducted and they were produced in the Court and their one day police custody remand was obtained . It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that thereafter, both of the accused persons, namely, Kumar Dev @ Debu and Kailash @ Tinke had led them Badapur for search of the weapon but could not be traced out. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that thereafter, both the accused persons were produced in the Court and sent to the judicial custody. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that during investigation of this case, section 201 IPC was invoked. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that result on the MLC of the injured was obtained. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh that he had recorded the statement of other injured, namely, Dheeraj @ Monu. PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh has correctly identified all the four accused present in the Court.
68. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that during investigation of this case, one JCL was apprehended and proceeding qua him was initiated separately. It is further deposed by PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh that during investigation, he had recorded the statement of other witnesses and prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same in the Court.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 37 of 6169. PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju has deposed that on 17.02.2018, after receiving DD No.43A Ex.PW5/A, he along with Constable Deep Ram had reached at the spot B-Block Transit Camp where they came to know that injured had been shifted to hospital. It is further deposed by PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that in the meanwhile, he had received information regarding the MLC from AIIMS hospital and upon this, he along with Constable Deep Ram had reached at AIIMS Trauma Center and collected MLCs of two injured, namely, Amit and Dheeraj @ Monu. It is further deposed by PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that injured Amit was declared fit for statement by the Doctor and injured Dheeraj @ Monu was unfit for statement. It is further deposed by PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that he had recorded the statement of Amit and prepared the rukka (Ex.PW14/A) and the case was got registered through Constable Deep Ram. It is further deposed by PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that thereafter, the case file was handed over to Sub-Inspector Saurabh for further investigation.
70. In defence, DW1 Pinki has deposed that she is the elder sister of accused Kumar Dev and complainant Dheeraj @ Monu used to reside in their neighbourhood with whom she had a case in the year 2014. DW1 Pinki has proved the certified copy of FIR (Ex.DW1/A). It is further deposed by DW1 Pinki that complainant Dheeraj @ Monu always used to pressurize her to SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 38 of 61 withdraw the said case and she came to know about this case only when police had visited their house after few days of the incident. It is further deposed by DW1 Pinki that police did not tell them anything and straight away took her brother along with them without disclosing them about the case against him. It is further deposed by DW1 Pinki that later on, she came to know that the said case was lodged at the instance of Dheeraj @ Monu. It is further deposed by DW1 Pinki that the actual dispute was between Dheeraj @ Monu and Rajender @ Titu but her brother was falsely implicated in this case.
71. DW2 Sachin has deposed that on 17.02.2018, at about 08:00-08:30 p.m., he had reached ice-cream shop of Kailash who was his classmate and his friend. It is further deposed by DW2 Sachin that he had also worked with him in one office, hence, DW2 was a frequent visitor at his shop. It is further deposed by DW2 Sachin that they started talking to each other at the shop of Kailash and after about half an hour, all of the sudden, they saw a large public running here and there and upon query, it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place. It is further deposed by DW2 Sachin that at about 10:30 p.m., mother of Kailash had come there and told him to close the shop and to go home as a big quarrel had taken place, thereafter, Kailash had closed his shop and had gone to his home and DW2 had come back to his home.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 39 of 6172. DW3 Jyoti has deposed that on 17.02.2018, she used to reside at her maternal grand mother's house (nani) at Transit Camp, B-Block Govindpuri, New Delhi and was working at Grocery store situated at J-Block, Saket. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that on that day, she had come from ger job at about 08:00 p.m. and she was sitting in her house and her Nani was sleeping when she heard lot of noise outside. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that when she opened the door of her house, she saw many people running here and there and she also heard noise of her cousin Puran who was walking towards the place where quarrel had taken place. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that she also started walking in that direction and the family members of Puran including his mother and wife were requesting him not to proceed. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that she also told him to remain at home and she had gone ahead to see the fight. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that after reaching there, she came to know from someone that some persons were beating Debu and she intervened in the said fight and saved Debu from the clutches of those boys and told him to run away. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that those boys had also misbehaved with her and torn her clothes and after some time, she heard voice of Puran from her backside and when she turned around she saw those boys running towards Puran and his younger brother Harry. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 40 of 61 she told them to run away and she also snatched a burning piece of wood which one of those boys was holding in his hand and threw it away. It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that Puran, Sonu and Harry had come to her locality while running and hidden themselves in a hut (jhuggi). It is further deposed by DW3 Jyoti that those boys gathered on a (chabutara) outside her house and one of them started giving beatings to her younger mama namely Satish with a helmet when she and her mami snatched the helmet from his hands and threw it away, thereafter, she made a call at 100 number and police had reached and had taken all of them to AIIMS for treatment.
73. In the light of the charge framed against the accused persons and the arguments advanced before the Court, following are the points for determination:
1. Whether the accused persons have done any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder, and have caused hurt to the complainant/injured Amit and the injured Dheeraj @ Monu by such act.
2. Whether the accused persons have voluntarily caused hurt to complainant/injured Amit and injured Monu.SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 41 of 61
3. Whether the accused persons had acted in furtherance of common intention of them all and inflicted injuries on the persons of the complainant/injured Amit and the injured Dheeraj @ Monu.
DISCUSSION ON THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
74. On these points, to prove the commission of offence by the accused persons, the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, PW2 Amit, PW3 Kapil, PW7 Ashutosh, PW13 Sub- Inspector Saurabh and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju are relevant.
75. As per the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, on the date of the incident i.e. on 17.02.2018 at 10:00 p.m., there was some celebration/function connected with marriage in his family and all the family members were celebrating in the tent near their house and at that time, the accused Kumar Dev along with other accused persons Sonu, Tinke and Puran had come to the venue of function/place of incident and started abusing the injured. It is also in the evidence of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, when Amit had tried to make the accused persons understand and not to do so, the accused Debu had picked a stone and hit on the head of Amit; when Dheeraj @ Monu had tried to save Amit, the accused Puran had caught hold of Dheeraj @ Monu from back and the accused persons Tinke and Sonu had caught hold of his both hands and the accused Debu had stabbed PW1 Dheeraj @ SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 42 of 61 Monu in his stomach with a knife; and when the family members of the injured had raised alarm, the accused persons ran away from the spot. The above-said testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu regarding the commission of offence have been duly corroborated by PW2 Amit, the another injured and complainant in the present case.
76. In the present matter, information regarding the commission of offence was given by PW3 Kapil to the police by dialing 100 number and he has proved such fact in his examination-in-chief. PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal was on duty on 17.02.2018 and as per his testimonies, he had received a call from Java 62 Operator who had informed him that at B- Block Govind Puri, a Baraat had arrived and some boys were stabbing (Chakubazi kar rahe hai) and one person had received knife injury. PW5 Head Constable Sunder Pal has also proved DD No.43-A dated 17.02.2018 (Ex.PW5/A).
77. To prove the commission of the offence, testimonies of PW7 Ashutosh are also relevant. PW7 Ashutosh is neighbour of the injured persons and he was also invited in the function on 17.08.2018. Although, PW7 Ashutosh had seen the the accused persons inflicting the injuries, but he had seen that abdomen of Dheeraj @ Monu was cut and his intestine was coming out, so he had also informed the police by dialing 100 number. Testimonies SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 43 of 61 of PW7 Ashutosh are relevant under section 6 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as he was present at the spot at the time of the incident and he had seen the injured with a cut in his abdomen.
78. It is in the evidence of PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that on receiving of DD No.43A(Ex.PW5/A), on 17.02.2018, he along with Constable Deep Chand had reached the spot and come to know that the injured persons had already been shifted to the hospital and in the meantime, he had received information regarding MLC from AIIMS hospital, so he along with Constable Deep Chand had reached the Trauma Center, AIIMS, collected MLCs of two injured persons, namely, Amit and Dheeraj and the injured Amit was declared fit for statement, however, Dheeraj @ Monu was unfit for statement.
79. Regarding registration of this case, the testimonies of PW2 Amit, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt, PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju the investigating officer are relevant.
80. As per the testimonies of PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju, he had recorded the statement of injured Amit, prepared the rukka Ex.PW14/A and got the case registered through Constable Deep Ram. As per the testimonies of PW4 Assistant Sub-
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 44 of 61Inspector Ganga Dutt, on 17/18.02.2018, at about 03:45 a.m., Constable Deep Ram had produced one rukka to him for registration of FIR, which was sent by Sub-Inspector Raju and on the basis of said rukka, he had got the FIR No.62/18 (Ex.PW4/A) police station Govind Puri registered. PW4 ASI Ganga Dutt has also proved his endorsement (Ex.PW4/B) on the rukka and certificate (Ex.PW4/C) under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. PW2 Amit, the complainant/injured, has also proved his statement (Ex.PW2/A) on the basis of which the present case FIR was registered.
81. From the testimonies of PW2 Amit, PW4 Assistant Sub-Inspector Ganga Dutt and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju, the prosecution has been successful in proving the registration of FIR against the accused persons. During the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and in the course of arguments, the registration of FIR against the accused persons has not been disputed by the defence counsel. No delay in the registration of FIR has been pointed out by the defence.
82. For proving the injuries caused to the persons of the complainant/injured Amit and the injured Dheeraj @ Monu, the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, PW2 Amit, PW8 Assistant Sub-Inspector Satya Dev, PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 45 of 61 Trauma Center, AIIMS, PW10 Dr. Pulak, Senior Resident, Trauma Center, AIIMS are relevant.
83. As per the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu and PW2 Amit, when the complainant/injured Amit had tried to make the accused persons to understand, the accused Kumar Dev @ Debu had taken out the knife and stabbed in the abdomen of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, while other accused person had caught hold of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu and also inflicted injury on the person of PW2 Amit.
84. As per the testimonies of PW8 Assistant Sub- Inspector Satya Dev Singh, in-charge of PCR van, on receiving of a call regarding "baarat aayi hui hai, usmein chaaku chal rhe hain, at Transit Camp Govind Puri " on 17.02.2018, he reached the spot in PCR van and scuffle had taken place and two persons were injured; they had taken the injured to Trauma Center AIIMS in their PCR van and got them admitted. A perusal of true copy of DD no.43A (Ex.PW5/A) Police Station Govind Puri reveals that an information regarding quarrel was received by Sub-Inspector Raju and he along with Constable Deep Ram PW12 reached the spot.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 46 of 6185. PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT, Trauma Center, AIIMS has proved the MLC No.500078620 (Ex.PW9/A) of patient Monu, prepared by Dr. Inderjeet G. Momin and MLC No.500078624 (Ex.PW9/B) of patient Amit, prepared by Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvatti and he also identified the signatures of the doctors on both the MLCs.
86. As per the testimonies of PW12 Constable Deep Ram and PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju that pursuant to receiving of telephonic call, they had gone to the Trauma Center, AIIMS and collected MLCs of both the injured persons who were admitted there.
87. For proving the nature of injuries inflicted to the injured persons, the prosecution has examined Dr. Pulak (PW10), Senior Resident, Surgery Department, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. Having seen the MLC (Ex.PW9/A) of the patient Monu, Dr. Pulak (PW10) has also deposed that the nature of injury is grievous caused by the sharp object and as per the contents of MLC (Ex.PW9/B) of injured Amit, the nature of injury is simple caused by blunt object.
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 47 of 6188. It has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kamlesh v. State, CRL.A.481/2019 and CRL.MA.1845/2022 as follows:
"13. The contention of the Ld. counsel for the appellant that in the absence of examination of Dr. Rajender, who has examined the victim and prepared the MLC, the MLC cannot be admitted in evidence is fallacious and has no force in it. Although Dr. Rajender was not examined but PW 7 Dr Monika Chopra was examined who stated that she has seen the MLC Ex. PW 7/A which was prepared by Dr. Rajender. She has also identified the signatures on the MLC Ex. PW 7/A to be that of Dr. Rajender. PW 7 has stated that Dr. Rajender has left the hospital and his whereabouts were not known.
14. The MLC is an authenticated record of injuries which is prepared in regular course of business by the doctor and can be relied upon by the Courts, even when the doctor who prepared the MLC is not examined in the Court and record is proved by any of the other doctor. It cannot be expected from the hospital to keep track of the doctor after he leaves the hospital. Neither the doctor is expected to keep the hospital informed about his /her whereabouts. Merely because the doctor who prepared the MLC is not personally examined, the MLC cannot be disbelieved. Proving of MLC by a colleague doctor who identifies the handwriting and signatures of the doctor who examined the patient or by an administrative staff of the hospital who identifies the signatures of the doctor is sufficient and good proof and MLC cannot be doubted."SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 48 of 61
89. In the light of law laid down by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kamlesh's case (supra), for non-examination of the doctor who prepared the MLCs, the MLCs cannot be disbelieved. The injured persons, in the instant case, were examined by and their MLCs were prepared by Dr. Inderjeet G. Momin and Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvati, who have left the services of the AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW9 Kartar Singh, MRT from AIIMS Trauma Center, who has worked with Dr. Inderjeet G. Momin and Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvati and had also seen them writing and signing, has identified and proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Inderjeet G. Momin and Dr. Rahul Kumar Varvati and the nature of the injuries on the MLCs have been well explained by a colleague doctor (PW10 Dr. Pulak). It is not the case of the accused persons that there is any tampering with MLCs. During the course of arguments also, the contents of MLCs have not been challenged on behalf of the accused persons.
90. As per the MLC (Ex.PW9/A) of the injured Monu, the nature of injury on his person was opined as grievous and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was opined as sharp.
91. However, as per the MLC (Ex.PW9/B) of the injured Amit, the nature of injury on his person was opined as SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 49 of 61 simple and the kind of weapon used to cause the injury was opined as blunt.
92. It is noteworthy here that nothing material has been brought to my notice from the cross-examination of above prosecution witnesses for suspecting the truth of the version given by either of them and their testimonies has remained consistent to prove the fact of causing simple injury on the person of the complainant/injured Amit by blunt object and grievous injury on the person of Dheeraj @ Monu by a sharp- edged weapon i.e. knife.
93. Regarding arrest and identification of the accused persons, the testimonies of PW3 Kapil and PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh are relevant.
94. PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh has proved the fact of arresting of the accused persons, namely, Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu in his evidence. PW11 Head Constable Ravinder Singh has corroborated the testimonies of PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh regarding arrest of the accused Puran Mal, Kailash Singh @ Tinku and Kumar Dev @ Debu and as per his testimonies he had accompanied the investigating officer while arrest of these SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 50 of 61 accused persons was made. PW3 Kapil has also proved the fact of making a call to the police for giving information about the presence of the accused Puran Mal.
95. Regarding identification of the accused persons, PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, injured and PW2 Amit, the complainant/injured have duly and correctly identified the accused persons to be the offenders who had inflicted injuries on their person. PW3 Kapil has identified the accused Puran Mal in the Court. PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh and PW11 Head Constable Ravinder have also identified all the accused persons in the Court.
96. In the light of the testimonies of PW1 Dheeraj @ Monu, PW2 Amit, PW3 Kapil, PW13 Sub-Inspector Saurabh and PW11 Head Constable Ravinder, identification of the accused persons, namely, Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu as the persons who had inflicted injuries on the persons of the complainant/injured Amit and the injured Dheeraj @ Monu is duly established and proved.
97. For the purpose of constituting an attempt under section 307 IPC, the prosecution needs to establish the following two ingredients, namely: -
SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 51 of 61(i) An evil intent or knowledge
(ii) An act done
98. It has been held in the judgment in S.K. Khaja v. The State of Maharashtra, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 715 that it is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 I.P.C., if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case entitled S.K. Khaja (supra) as follow:
"8. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- State, merely because the injuries sustained by the complainant -Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) were very simple in nature, that would not absolve the appellant/accused from being convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the IPC. What is important is an intention coupled with overt act committed by the appellant /accused. In the instant case, it was proved by cogent evidence that the appellant/accused had tried to assault the complainant- Mohammad Khan Pathan (PW-2) with Gupti and too on his head. Though the complainant received injury on his right shoulder while avoiding blow on his head, from the blunt part of the Gupti, such an overt act on the part of the applicant/accused would be covered by the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. There being no infirmity pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant in the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed."SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 52 of 61
99. In the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. K. Khaja's case (supra), the law is well settled that for conviction for the offence under section 307 of the IPC, what is important is an intention coupled with an overt act by the accused; while grievous or life threatening injury was not necessary to maintain a conviction under section 307 of IPC, the intention of the accused can be ascertained from the actual injury, if any, as well as from the surrounding circumstances.
100. As per the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution duly corroborated with MLCs of the complainant and the injured, when the first investigating officer PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju of his case had gone to AIIMS Trauma Center, where the complainant and the injured were admitted for the treatment, the injured Dheeraj @ Monu was found to be unfit for statement and he was in operation theater at AIIMS Trauma Center. The injury caused to the person of the injured Dheeraj @ Monu was 'grievous' in nature. The testimonies of PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju have been duly corroborated by PW12 Constable Deep Ram, who had accompanied Sub-Inspector Raju to the place of incident and from there, to the Trauma Center AIIMS where both the injured persons were under treatment. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the accused persons have done such act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder, SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 53 of 61 and they have actually caused hurt (simple injury) to the complainant/injured Amit and (grievous injury) to the injured Dheeraj @ Monu by such act.
101. Learned counsel for the accused has also argued that as per the testimonies of PW7 Ashutosh, he had taken the injured to the hospital whereas the injured Dheeraj @ Monu has deposed that he was taken to the hospital by police and the second injured Amit has deposed that they were taken to the hospital in PCR Van. Although, there are some contradictions regarding the fact as to how the injured persons reached hospital but the said contradictions are not material so as to doubt the fact of causing injury to the person of the complainant/injured Amit and the injured Dheeraj @ Monu. In his examination-in-chief, PW1 has specifically stated that he was taken to AIIMS hospital by police. This fact has also been corroborated by PW8 ASI Satya Dev Singh, in charge of the PCR Van and as per his testimonies, on receiving the call, he had reached the spot in his PCR Van and they had taken the victims to Trauma Center AIIMS to their PCR Van. PW2 Amit has also deposed that PCR Van had come at the spot and had taken him and Dheeraj @ Monu to Trauma Center AIIMS where they were medically examined. In the cross- examination, PW2 has stated that Dheeraj was taken to hospital in Wagon-R and PW7 Ashutosh has deposed that the injured persons were taken to hospital in an old Tata Safari Car but in his SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 54 of 61 examination-in-chief also, he has deposed that PCR Van had come at the spot and thereafter, injured persons were taken to the hospital. In view of the above testimonies, I am of the view that such contradictions are minor in nature and need to be ignored.
102. Another contention raised by counsel for the accused persons is that as per the testimonies of PW2, nobody from the local police station had met them in the hospital so, the investigating officer should not have recorded his statement in the hospital. It is consistent case of PW2 Amit that police had come to Trauma Center AIIMS and recorded his statement. PW14 Sub-Inspector Raju has also deposed that he had recorded the statement of injured Amit in the hospital, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. PW12 Constable Deep Ram has also corroborated the testimonies of PW2 Amit and PW14 Sub- Inspector Raju regarding recording of statement of the complainant at the Trauma Center, AIIMS. Merely because PW2 Amit has stated in his cross examination that nobody from the local police station met them in the hospital does not disprove the fact of recording of statement of the complainant at the hospital which is proved by three witnesses.
103. The learned Counsel for the accused persons have vehemently argued that the weapon of the offence i.e. knife was never recovered during investigation, therefore, the testimonies SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 55 of 61 of the prosecution witnesses have become doubtful. The weapon of the offence i.e. knife used by the accused persons to cause injuries to the persons of injured Dheeraj @ Monu could not be recovered during investigation.
104. Regarding trustworthiness of the injured eye- witness, it has been held by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Yogender Singh v. State, Criminal Appeal number 265/2001, as follows:
"28. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the courts are required to be kept in mind.
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of an injured witness is always of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(d) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 56 of 61
(e) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
105. Regarding non recovery of weapon of offence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State through the Inspector of Police v. Lali @ Manikandan & Another Etc., Criminal Appeal numbers 1750-1751 of 2022 has dealt with such question as mentioned in para 4.5 and held as follows:
"4.5 It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that even the recovery of weapon cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution. XXXXXX Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness.
8. As observed hereinabove, PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 57 of 61 prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. As observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of PW1. Therefore, it will be safe to convict the accused on the sole reliance of deposition of PW1."
106. There are two injured eye-witnesses of the incident, namely, Amit (the complainant/injured) and Dheeraj @ Monu (the injured), who have given their ocular account of this case. During the evidence and arguments, counsel for the accused persons have tried to show that the injured witnesses have animus or grudge against the accused persons, however, the manner of the incident as described by the injured witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence which shows the presence of injuries on the person of the complainant/injured Amit and injured Dheeraj @ Monu. The accused persons have tried in their evidence to show that they have been falsely implicated as sisters of the accused persons have filed cases against the injured persons, however, in the light of injuries duly proved by the injured persons, the defence of false implication taken by the accused persons, does not inspire the confidence of the Court as the injured persons have duly proved their case and their testimonies have to be accepted as they have suffered injuries. The non-recovery of weapon of offence is of no consequence in this case, as direct testimonies of injured witnesses are available SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 58 of 61 to prove the guilt of the accused persons and their testimonies are the biggest guarantee of the truthfulness of the prosecution case as they have suffered injuries and the contention raised on behalf of the accused persons is not sustainable.
107. The accused persons have examined three witnesses in their defence. DW1 Ms. Pinki is elder sister of the accused Kumar Dev who has stated that the actual dispute was between Dheeraj @ Monu and Rajender @ Titu but her brother was falsely implicated in this case, however, she is not an eyewitness to the incident and had seen nothing, therefore, her testimonies are not worthy of credit, being an interested witness to save his brother. DW2 Sachin is friend of the accused Kailash and as per his testimonies, he had gone to the ice cream shop of the accused Kailash and stayed there from 08:00-08:30 p.m. and he had tried to make out a case that the accused was not there at the place of incident at the time of incident. Both the injured persons have specifically named the accused Kailash @ Tinku @ Tinke to be person present there with the other accused persons and also specified his role in the offence, therefore, the testimonies of the injured witnesses is to be weighed as they would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. DW2 Sachin has also deposed that a quarrel had taken place on the date of incident. DW3 Jyoti is cousin sister of the accused Puran. As per the testimonies of DW3 Jyoti also, there was some fight SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 59 of 61 on the date and time of incident. It is in the evidence of DW3 Jyoti that some boys were beating Debu and she had intervened and those boys were also running after the accused Puran and his younger brother Sonu but she has not named those boys who were beating Debu and running after Puran and Harry. From the testimonies of DW3 Jyoti also, presence of the accused Puran at the place and time of the incident is proved, however, his testimonies are of no avail to the accused Puran.
108. In the light of the evidence and discussion above- stated, it has been proved that (i) the accused Kumar Dev @ Debu had hit the injured Amit with a stone on his head, (ii) when, the injured Dheeraj @ Monu had tried to save Amit, the accused Puran had caught hold of him from back and the accused persons Kailash Singh @ Tinku and Lalit @ Sonu had caught hold both the hands/arms of the injured Dheeraj @ Monu and the accused Kumar Dev @ Debu had inflicted knife injury in the abdomen of injured Dheeraj @ Monu causing 'grievous' injury,
(iii) all the accused persons have acted in concert while inflicting injuries to the person of injured Amit and Dheeraj @ Monu. The accused persons have not tendered any reasonable explanation of their conduct.
109. To sum up, in view of above discussion, the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt the charge SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 60 of 61 under sections 307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons Kumar Dev @ Debu, Kailash Singh @ Tinku, Puran Mal and Lalit @ Sonu are found guilty of having committed the said offences and hence he is convicted of offence punishable under sections 307/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
110. Let the convicts be heard on the question of sentence. Digitally signed by DR RAKESH DR KUMAR RAKESH Date:
2024.10.19 KUMAR 18:27:18 +0530 Pronounced in the open court (DR. RAKESH KUMAR) th on 19 of October, 2024. Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC)-02 South East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi SC No.335/2018 PS Govind Puri State v. Kumar Dev @ Debu & Ors. Page 61 of 61