Delhi District Court
State vs . Subhash Singh 1 Of 12 on 27 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL,
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT: ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.05/2013
FIR No.1471/2007
U/s 307/506/120B/34 IPC
PS Sultan Puri
State
Versus
1. Subhash Singh,
S/o Gurbah Singh,
R/o A5/64, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
2. Roshan Lal, : Convicted vide
S/o Subhash Singh, Judgment dated
R/o A3/166, Sultan Puri, 17.04.2010.
Delhi.
3. Babloo : Proclaimed
S/o Subhash Singh Offender
R/o A3/166, Sultan Puri,
Delhi.
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 08.06.2012
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT : 17.01.2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 27.01.2014
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Amicus Curiae for accused.
State Vs. Subhash Singh 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. Accused has been forwarded to face trial u/s 307/506/120 B/34 IPC. Initially chargesheet was filed against a person namely Roshan Lal who is the son of the present accused. He was convicted u/s 307 IPC by the court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, ld. ASJ, Outer District, Rohini Courts, vide judgement dated 170410. Another son namely Bablu of the accused is still proclaimed offender. It is pertinent to mention that present accused was also PO, he was arrested later and his case was committed to the Sessions court on 080612. So this judgement shall decide case only against accused Subhash Singh.
2. Facts are that one Parveen Kumar Gupta resident of H. No.3/161 was running a grocery shop on the ground floor of the house. On 111007 at about 11.00 P.M., accused accompanied by his younger son (Bablu) came to his shop and demanded grocery items on credit but Parveen Gupta refused saying that first they would have to clear the arrears. Both persons threatened him to teach him a lesson. After some time another son namely Roshan (convicted) came to Parveen Gupta and asked why he had not given grocery items to his father on credit. Mr. Gupta replied that he had already given them grocery items of a lot of money on credit and that he would not give more goods on credit. Hearing this, Rohsan took out an ustra from his pocket and hit Gupta's foot.
State Vs. Subhash Singh 2 of 12 Thereafter several blows were given on his back. At that time his wife namely Shobha Gupta was also present. Police team reached the hospital and found Parveen Gupta admitted there. Statement of eye witness Shobha Gupta was recorded and case FIR was registered.
3. Charge u/s 120 B and 307 read with 120B IPC was framed against accused on 190313 to which he claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the allegations, prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Accused did not examine a single witness in the defence.
5. PW1 Shobha Gupta is eye witness and PW2 Parveen @ Pappu is injured and husband of PW1.
PW3 Ct. Sanwarmal deposed that on 111007 he was posted as DD writer in PS Sultanpuri. On that day at about 10.30 PM, on receipt of information from Wireless Operator to the effect that a quarrel had taken place at A3/361 Sultanpuri, Mangal Bazar, he recorded DD 73B Ex.PW3/A. PW4 Ct. Manoj Kumar accompanied SI Rajesh to the house of injured on 111007 after receipt of DD 73 B. After reaching there, PW4 and SI Rajesh came to know that injured has been shifted to SGM hospital and so both police official went there. PW4 further deposed that SI collected MLC of the injured in which he had been declared unfit to make the statement. Incidentally State Vs. Subhash Singh 3 of 12 Shobha Gupta was present in the hospital, IO recorded her statement, prepared rukka and handed it over for registration of FIR. PW4 further deposed that he got the case FIR registered and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. He further deposed that blood stained pant, waist and underwear of the injured were handed over by the doctor to the IO and same were sealed with the seal of RK and were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW8/A. He further deposed that Shobha pointed out the spot and at her instance, IO prepared rough site plan. The accused was arrested and his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/B was recorded. In pursuance to the disclosure statement, the accused got recovered 'ustra' Ex.P1 from his house No.A3/161. Sketch Ex.PW8/C of the 'ustra' was prepared, 'ustra' was sealed with the seal of RK and was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/C. Accused was arrested and personal search was taken vide memos Ex.PW8/D and Ex.PW8/E respectively.
After examining four witnesses APP made a statement that she had examined 12 witnesses in the trial held against convict Roshan Lal and that if defence did not want to crossexamine any of those witness, she would tender those witnesses in evidence without any addition or omission. Thereafter joint statement was made by Amicus Curiae for accused and by the accused to the effect that they did not want to crossexamine Dr. Satpal, Dr. V.K. State Vs. Subhash Singh 4 of 12 Jha, Ct. Bijender, Manoj, HC Mahavir, SI Rajesh, HC Ramesh Kumar and HC Jai Singh. Further statement was that they have no objection if examination in chief of those witnesses was read into evidence. Last submission was that they were adopting the cross examination done by thethen counsel for convict Roshan Lal. In this background, above said witnesses were tendered in evidence and were not called for crossexamination.
PW13 SI Parveen Kumar deposed that accused Subhash was declared proclaimed offender on 270109 by the court of Ms. Barkha Gupta, ld. ASJ and thereafter he was arrested in kalandra u/s 41.1(C) of Cr. PC by HC Raj Kumar and HC Raj Kumar informed him about his arrest. PW13 further deposed that he moved an application u/s Ex.PW13/A before the ld. MM and for the interrogation of the accused and permission was granted to him. Thereafter he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex.PW13/B and recorded his statement Ex.PW13/C. PW14 HC Raj Kumar and PW15 HC Jai Kumar are witnesses to the arrest of accused in kalandra Ex.PW14/C u/s 41.1 (C) Cr. PC vide arrest and personal search memos Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B and thereafter recorded DD 9 Ex. PW14/D and gave intimation of his arrest to the DO of PS Sultanpuri.
In the trial held against convict Roshan, witness number PW1 was given to Dr. Satpal whereas in the trial against State Vs. Subhash Singh 5 of 12 accused Subhash that number has been given to Shobha Gupta. Dr. Satpal had examined Parveen Gupta and prepared MLC Ex.PW1/A. He opined the injury as serious in nature.
PW4 Manoj had admitted the injured in the hospital on 111007 at 10.0010.15 PM. On that day he was returning home after completing duty from bus stand Sultanpuri. While returning, he saw his neighbour Parveen screaming as he was bleeding from the back. He took him to SGM hospital on his bike. This witness was declared hostile and he denied the suggestion that Parveen and his wife Shobha told him that it was convict Roshan had given 'ustra' blows on the back of the injured. PW6 Dr. V.K.Jha deposed that he had opined the nature of injury on the person of Parveen as grievous. He further deposed that police had moved an application Ex.PW6/A on 131007 regrading weapon of offence. Weapon sealed with the seal of RK was produced before him. He broke open the seal and parcel was found containing 'ustra'. He prepared sketch Ex.PW6/B of the 'ustra' and thereafter examined it and gave opinion Ex.PW1/A that injuries mentioned in the MLC can be caused by that ustra or similar such weapon. His opinion is Ex.PW6/C. PW7 Ct. Bijender was posted as duty constable in SGM hospital on 111007. He came to know on that day at 11.00 P.M. that Parveen Gupta had been admitted there by Manoj. He State Vs. Subhash Singh 6 of 12 further deposed that the doctor, after medical examination of Parveen, handed him over MLC and he sent intimation to PS regarding admission of the injured consequent to which DD 74 B Ex.PW7/B was registered.
PW9 HC Mahavir Singh registered FIR Ex.PW9/A on 121007 at 12.15 AM on receipt of rukka sent by SI Rajesh brought by Ct. Manoj.
PW11 HC Ramesh was the MHC(M) in PS Sultanpuri on 121007 when case property in the form of 'ustra' sealed with the seal of RK was deposited with him. On the same day SI Rajesh had deposited with him another pullanda sealed with the seal of RK containing blood stained clothes of Parveen Gupta. On 1311 07 SI Rajesh took a sealed pullanda from him in order to take opinion from the doctor of SGM hospital. PW11 further deposed that on 280108, he handed over both pullandas alongwith sample seal SGMH to Ct. Jai Singh vide RC No.492/21/07 for depositing at FSL Calcutta. The result from FSL was received on 170309. He proved the copy of register no.19 as Ex.PW11/A. PW12 HC Jai Singh had taken both the pullandas to the FSL Calcutta vide RC Ex.PW12.A and after deposit, he handed over to MHC(M) receipt acknowledgment Ex.PW12/B. PW10 SI Rajesh Kumar is the IO and his testimony is verbatim to the testimony of PW4 Ct. Manoj Kumar. He identified State Vs. Subhash Singh 7 of 12 the 'ustra' Ex.P1 and blood stained clothes of the injured as Ex.P2, P3 and P4 respectively.
6. Ms. Shobha Gupta was examined as PW2 in the trial held against convict Roshan Lal wherein she deposed that on 11/10/2007 at 10.00 P.M., her husband was present at the grocery shop bearing No.A3/161, Sultan Puri and she was little away from the shop. At that time, accused Subhash came to the shop and there was an altercation between her husband and accused as accused Subhash was asking household goods on credit whereas her husband was saying him that he should first clear the balance and in this way, her husband refused to give him goods due to which accused got agitated and started abusing her husband. Hearing the noise, family members of accused Subhash also reached there. These persons included both sons Roshan Lal(convict) and Babloo(P.O.). She further deposed that accused Subhash and Babloo caught hold of her husband Praveen Gupta and Roshan Lal attacked him on back with ustra and caused him multiple injuries. She further deposed that her statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded by the police in the hospital. In the fresh trial, Shobha Gupta deposed as PW1 on the same lines deposed in the trial held against Roshan Lal. She identified the accused Subhash.
In the trial held against Roshan Lal convict, injured State Vs. Subhash Singh 8 of 12 Praveen Kumar Gupta was examined as PW5 wherein he deposed that on 11.10.2007 at 10.00 P.M., accused Subhash and his son Babloo(P.O.) came to his shop and asked to give grocery articles on credit which he refused because they had not cleared the balance. Both left his shop threatening "abhi aakar tujhe batate hai" and accused Subhash threatened that he was going to call his another son. Thereafter, both sons and father came to his shop and Roshan Lal gave him ustra blows on the back.
7. Ld. APP argued that coaccused Roshan Lal, who is the son of the present accused, has already been held guilty u/s 307 IPC by the Predecessor of this Court and so, there is no escape route for accused Subhash also. On the other hand, Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused argued that convict Roshan Lal was the main accused as it was he who had given ustra blows on the back of the injured. She further submitted that accused Subahsh was implicated in the case with the help of Section 120B IPC and prosecution did not examine any witness or tender into evidence any document to show criminal conspiracy between convict and accused. She submitted that injuries on the person of Praveen Gupta cannot be said to be dangerous to life.
NATURE OF INJURIES
8. Injured Praveen @ Pappu Gupta was medically State Vs. Subhash Singh 9 of 12 examined by PW1 Dr. Satpal and prepared MLC Ex.PW1/A. As per the MLC, Praveen Gupta was bleeding profusely. He was having a long cut injury on the back. He was referred for surgical opinion. PW6 Dr. V.K. Jha had given the opinion that injuries on the person of Praveen Gupta were grievous in nature. So much blood had oozed from the wounds that his pant and underwear were also smeared with the blood. When he was brought in the hospital, he was unfit to make statement. So, it is held that injuries on the person of Praveen Gupta were grievous in nature.
WHETHER CRIMINAL COSPIRACY MADE OUT OR NOT ?
9. FIR was registered on the statement of PW1 Shobha Gupta. In that statement, she had stated that it was Roshan Lal who came first to her husband to purchase household articles on credit and when he refused, Roshan Lal took out ustra from pocket and gave several blows on his back. When she tried to intervene, Roshan Lal threw her aside, and thereafter, threatened that he would not spare her husband. In that statement, there was no whisper about accused Subhash and his second son Babloo(P.O.). In testimony, she made extensive improvements by deposing that it was accused Subhash who came first to the shop of her husband and he was followed by his sons Roshan Lal and Babloo. When her State Vs. Subhash Singh 10 of 12 husband refused to give goods on credit basis, they started beating him. In the trial held against Roshan Lal, she had deposed that it was accused Subhash who first came to the shop of her husband and asked goods on credit and when her husband refused to do so, there was altercation between both. On hearing noise, both sons of accused came there. Accused Subhash and his son Babloo(P.O.) caught hold of her husband and convict Roshan Lal gave ustra blows on his back. All these are major improvements as she had not stated those facts in her statement Ex.PW2/A. All these improvements have been confronted to her by the defence counsel. Due to so many improvements, the credit of Shobha Gupta has been impeached and so, she is an untrustworthy witness and her evidence is ignored.
Only other witness remaining is PW2 Praveen Kumar. He had deposed in the trial held against Roshan Lal and also in the present trial that accused Subhash started quarreling with him when he refused to give him goods on credit on 11.10.2007 at 10.00 P.M. as the family of the accused had not cleared the balance. At that time, he was accompanied by his another son Babloo. Both these accused went away threatening that they would call another son Roshan. Thereafter, convict Roshan came there and gave him several blows on the back. In the trial held against accused Subhash Singh, Praveen Gupta deposed that State Vs. Subhash Singh 11 of 12 accused Subhash and his son Babloo(P.O.) caught him hold from the front and convict Roshan Lal stabbed him with ustra on the back side. This version dated 03.06.2013 of Praveen Gupta is in stark contrast to his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. It is pertinent to mention that in the statement u/s 161 Cr.PC, he had stated to the police that convict Roshan alone had caused him injuries. Before causing him injuries, accused Subhash had come to his shop to purchase grocery articles on credit but he had refused. So many improvements are making Praveen Kumar Gupta an unbelieveable witness. Prosecution has deviated a lot from its original case. Its original case was that when accused Subhash was denied grocery items by Praveen Gupta on credit, he and his son went in huff threatening that they would teach him a lesson and that they would bring Roshan Lal and thereafter, Roshan Lal caused him injuries. Prosecution did not examine any witness to prove as to what transpired between both sons and father when they met in their house after denial of goods on credit by injured. That was the main part of the case against accused Subhash Singh and prosecution did not examine a single witness on their part.
10. In view of above discussion, the accused Subhash Singh is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. Personal and surety bond stands discharged.
Announced in the Open Court
on 27th day of January, 2014 (UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State Vs. Subhash Singh 12 of 12