Delhi District Court
Sc No. 14/01, Fir No. 96/99 1 State vs Jagbir Singh Etc. on 6 December, 2007
SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 1 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc.
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS jUDGE, NEW DELHI
SC No. 14/01
FIR No. 96/99
PS Dwarka
U/s 147/149/307/34 IPC
State Vs 1. Jagbir Singh @ Jaggi
S/o Ram Singh
R/o Palam Village, New Delhi.
2. Narender Kumar @ Sonu
S/o Darshan Singh
R/o W2-678, Badal Mohalla,
Palam Village, New Delhi.
Date of arguments 6.12.2007
Date of judgement 6.12.2007
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution version in brief is that on 17.5.1999 at 10:00 am complainant Rajesh Kumar (PW1) was standing in front of his House No. A-69, J. J. Colony, Sector 7, Harijan Basti, Pappan Kala, New Delhi. His mother Smt. Phoolwati (PW2) was also standing there. Accused Jagbir Singh a resident of village Palam along with Pradeep came there and told the complainant that he creates hurdle in his work and acts like a DADA. Accused Jagbir Singh opened a knife and put it on Rajesh Kumar complainant. In the SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 2 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. meanwhile Pradeep and few more assailants caught complainant Rajesh Kumar and accused Jagbir Singh hit Rajesh in his belly with the knife. The intestine of complainant Rajesh came out and blood started oozing from his belly. When Smt. Phoolwati tried to save him, accused Jagbir Singh hit her on her hand. On hearing noise of complainant other persons of the locality also reached there and therefore accused Jagbir Singh and his accomplices escaped. Police received this information and the same was recorded as DD No. 28A. SI Rajiv Yadav reached at the spot and he came to know that PCR van had taken the injured to hospital. HC Amar Singh reached Safdarjang hospital and he recorded the statement Ex. PW1/A of Rajesh Kumar and thereafter he also recorded the statement of Smt. Phoolwati. On the statement Ex. PW1/A, the present FIR was got registered. Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex. PW6/B and he arrested accused Jagbir Singh from his house. Investigating Officer recorded the disclosure statement Ex. PW5/A of accused Jagbir Singh and in pursuance of that disclosure statement one broken knife Ex. P1 was recovered vide recovery memo Ex. PW5/B. A sketch Ex. PW5/D of knife was prepared. Later on Narender @ Sonu was also arrested. His disclosure statement Ex. PW6/C was also recorded. SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 3 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the court. As per the charge sheet, further investigation revealed that Pradeep S/o Bedal named by him in FIR is in fact accused Narender @ Sonu and that the name was wrongly written.
2. After committal of the case to Sessions Court, a charge under Section 148/324/307 read with Section 149 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW1 Rajesh the complainant. PW2 Smt. Phoolwati is the mother of the complainant. PW3 ASI Shambhu Shah recorded FIR Ex. PW3/A. PW4 HS Sheotaj Singh, who was posted with the PCR vehicle received an information about the incident and he reached there and removed both the injured persons to Safdarjang hospital in PCR van. PW5 HC Kishan Chand and PW6 Ct. Bhagwat Sarup took part in investigation.
4. PW7 Dr. Rekha Bharti proved the MLC Ex. PW7/A, prepared by Dr. Deepak Mathur. As per MLC one incised wound at index finger base of left hand 2 cm long was seen. PW8 Dr. Dr. P. Rama Kishan CMO X-ray Department, Safdarjang Hospital proved X-ray report Ex. PW8/A of injured Rajesh. PW10 Dr. Dev Singh CMO SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 4 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. Safdarjang Hospital proved MLC Ex. PW10/A of injured Rajesh and he found CLW 1-1/4 over left hypochondriun. As per his opinion the injurey was of simple nature. PW9 SI Rajeev Yadav is the Investigating Officer.
5. In statement under Section 313 CrPC both the accused persons denied the accusations. Accused Jagbir examined DW1 Ram Singh in his defence. DW1 testified that one night police arrived at his house and inquired about his son Jagbir stating that he was involving in a stab case. On this police was told that Jagbir was not present in the house and thereafter DW1 himself took his son to the police station where police arrested him. Accused Narender @ Sonu did not examine any witness in his defence.
6. In his testimony PW1 Rajesh has testified that accused Jagbir and Narender along with two more boys had attacked him. Although in cross examination he has stated that there was 4 or 5 boys. However to my mind a doubt is created as to whether the accused persons were 5 or less than 5. Therefore I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused persons were there in an unlawful assembly. I accordingly acquit both the accused persons under Section 148 IPC.
SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 5 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc.
7. The complainant in his statement has stated the name of Pradeep. During investigation complainant Rajesh and his mother Smt. Phoolwati told that Pradeep S/o Beydel was wrongly mentioned by her and in fact one of the assailants was Narender @ Sonu. Accordingly police arrested accused Narender @ Sonu also. In cross examination PW1 explained that he wrongly stated the name of Pradeep and later he came to know that there was no Pradeep S/o Beydel and that the name of the so called Pradeep was accused Sonu. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused Narender @ Sonu has been falsely implicated. I am of the opinion that there might be confusion in the name of the accused. However it is clear that although he had written a wrong name in his complaint but later on he gave the correct name of the accused and identified him in the court also. There is no reason as to why complainant Rajesh would name and identify a wrong person. Even his mother PW2 Smt. Phoolwati has identified Sonu as the same person who had caught Rajesh. Cross examination of PW1 and PW2 would show that it is no where suggested by accused Narender that he was not the same person, who had caught Rajesh. It is also no where suggested by accused Narender in cross examination that Pradeep S/o Bedal mentioned in the SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 6 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. rukka was a different person than himself. Therefore I am not left in any doubt about the identity of the assailants namely accused Narender @ Sonu.
8. Ld. APP argues that a stab injury stomach amounts to attempt to commit murder and therefore both the accused persons should be convicted under Section 307 IPC. On the other hand Ld. Defence Counsel argues that the injury is simple in nature and therefore accused persons should be convicted under Section 324 IPC.
9. I have considered all facts and circumstances and I am of the opinion that the MLC Ex. PW10/A of injured Rajesh shows the nature of injury as simple. Similarly the X-ray Ex. PW8/A also does not show any grievous injury. the MLC of Smt. Phoolwati also shows the nature of injury to be simple caused with a sharp edged weapon. Had there been any intention to commit murder, accused Jagbir would have used the knife with greater force. Therefore it is doubtful that accused persons had intended to cause death of Rajesh. I am of the opinion that prosecution has been able to prove a case under Section 324 IPC only against the accused persons.
10. Ld. Defence Counsel has drawn my attention to a few contradictions and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses. To my mind the same are very minor to be SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 7 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. considered. Testimony of PW1 Rajesh and PW2 Smt. Phoolwati is worthy of credence and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies.
11. I therefore convict accused Jagbir under Section 324 IPC for having caused simple injury on the person of Rajesh and his mother Smt. Phoolwati.
12. I further convict accused Narender @ Sonu under Section 324/34 IPC for having acted in furtherance of common intention with co accused Jagbir Singh. Announced in the open court on 6.12.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 8 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR ADDITIONAL SESSIONS jUDGE, NEW DELHI SC No. 14/01 FIR No. 96/99 PS Dwarka U/s 324/34 IPC State Vs 1. Jagbir Singh @ Jaggi S/o Ram Singh R/o Palam Village, New Delhi.
2. Narender Kumar @ Sonu S/o Darshan Singh R/o W2-678, Badal Mohalla, Palam Village, New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 7.12.2007 Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Both convicts with counsel Sh. S. K. Sharma, adv. and Sh. Ramesh Kumar, adv.
Arguments on sentence heard. Ld. APP argues that although there is no case against convict Narender @ Sonu. However there is one more case against convict Jagbir Singh, which is FIR No. 232/99, under Section 341/323/34 IPC, PS Dwarka and in view of the nature of offence they should be given full dose of sentence. Ld. APP argues that the convicts should be given full dose of sentence because SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 9 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. there is a stab wound on the belly of the injured and that after causing injury to complainant, convict Jagbir Singh also hit the mother of complainant.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar, adv. for convict Jagbir Singh submits that accused has been acquitted in the said case and there is no other criminal record against convict Jagbir Singh. Sh. S. C. Sharma also argued that convict Narender @ Sonu is leading a life of a law abiding citizen.
I have considered all facts and circumstances. I am of the opinion that both the convicts are now leading their lives peacefully and are gainfully employed. Both the appellants have been married during the trial and after the year 1999 no other criminal act has been attributed to the convicts.
Considering all facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of benefit of probation to both the convicts subject to award of the compensation as well as cost of litigation.
I therefore order release of both the convicts on probation of good behaviour for a period of two years on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with SC No. 14/01, FIR No. 96/99 10 State Vs Jagbir Singh etc. one surety in the like amount each subject to the condition that during this period they shall keep peace and shall not repeat the offence and receive the sentence as and when called by this court. Apart from this convict Jagbir Singh shall pay a compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- to injured Rajesh and Rs.5000/- to injured Smt. Phoolwati.
Convict Narender @ Sonu shall make payment of Rs.25,000/- to injured Rajesh.
Apart from this both the convicts shall deposite a sum of Rs.5000/- each to the state as cost of litigation. The punishments in default of above stated payments shall be announced if the convicts fail to deposit the compensation and cost of litigation. After release of compensation to the injured persons, the file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 7.12.2007.
(VINOD KUMAR) Additional Sessions Judge Patiala House Courts New Delhi