Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

State vs . Ravi Prakash on 29 August, 2019

     IN THE COURT OF MS. NUPUR GUPTA, MM­11, SOUTH EAST
              DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI

FIR No.      : 289/2011
PS           : Jaitpur
No.          : 93529/16
U/s          : 341/325 IPC


                           STATE VS. RAVI PRAKASH
                               JUDGMENT

A    Case Identification Number         02406R0073292012

B    Name of the Complainant            Smt. Parvati Devi W/o Sh. Laxmi Chand

C    Name of the accused & their        Ravi Prakash S/o Jaipal Singh, R/o
     parentage and address              H.No.479, Gali No. 13, Om Nagar
                                        Meethapur, New Delhi.
D    Offence complained of              341/325 IPC
E    Date of commission of offence      19.10.2011


F    Date of Institution                28.03.2012
G    Offence Charged                    341/325 IPC
H    Plea of accused                    Pleaded not guilty
I    Order Reserved on                  22.08.2019
J    Date of Pronouncement              29.08.2019

K    Final Order                        Conviction

BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE

1. Brief facts of the present case as per the prosecution is that on 19.10.2011 at about 11am accused had wrongfully restrained the FIR No. 281/2011 1 /13 complainant Parvati Devi and her daughter­in­law Rupa and caused grievous injuries to complainant Parvati Devi. After the investigation, a Final Report in the form of Chargesheet was forwarded to the court for trial of the accused. After taking cognizance of the offence and compliance of Section 207 Cr. PC, on 17.07.2012 a formal charge u/s 341/325 IPC was framed against the accused.

2. In order to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:­

i) PW1 Smt. Parvati Devi (complainant) deposed that she does not remember the exact date, however, on the day of incident at about 11 am, when she was taking bath on the first floor of the house and her daughter­in­law, namely, Roopa was also sitting near the main door inside the house. Suddenly, PW1 heard noise that accused Ravi Prakash and his wife had beaten her daughter­in­law. When PW1 had come downstairs and had asked Ravi Prakash and his wife not to beat her daughter­in­law as she was eight months pregnant. PW1 further deposed that thereafter, accused Ravi Prakash went to his house and brought one lathi and hit on her head with the lathi due to which she became unconscious. PW1 further deposed that her son Ram Singh was not present and he was also beaten by accused Ravi Prakash. Thereafter, PCR van took her to the hospital and she does not remember who had recorded her statement. She went to the police station and police had inquired her on police statement and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. Witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court.

ii) PW2 Roopa Devi deposed that she does not remember the exact date, however, on the date of incident, at about 10­11 am, when she was inside her house, accused Ravi Prakash came outside her house and FIR No. 281/2011 2 /13 abusing them. Thereafter, her husband Ram Singh had asked the accused as to why he was abusing them and accused Ravi Prakash alongwith his wife had pulled PW1 out of her house and started beating her with hands, legs, fists and blows. PW2 further deposed that her mother­in­law came downstairs and tried to save her, in the meantime, Ravi Prakash had also hit her mother­in­law with lathi on her head. Thereafter, PCR van was called by husband of PW2, PCR van took her mother­in­law and her husband to the hospital. Accused Ravi Prakash was identified by the witness in the Court.

iii) PW3 Ram Singh stated that he does not remember the exact date, however, on the date of incident when he was sitting near a factory, he heard noise that Ravi Prakash and his wife were abusing her wife. Thereafter, PW3 stated that accused Ravi Prakash went to his house and brought a lathi from his house and hit him with lathi 2­3 times. In the meantime, mother of PW3 Ram Singh was also trying to save them, but accused Ravi Prakash had also hit on her head with lathi due to which she became unconscious. Thereafter, accused Ravi Prakash and his wife had fled away from the spot. PCR was called by PW3 and they took them to the hospital.

iv) PW4 HC Jose C. deposed that on 20.10.2011 he had joined the investigation with IO HC Krishan Kumar and they went to the house of complainant. Thereafter, IO had prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at the instance of complainant, namely, Parvati Devi Ex.PW4/A. PW4 further deposed that thereafter, they went to the house of accused where IO had interrogated the accused and arrested him and conducted his personal search vide memos Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively. Thereafter, medical examination of the accused was got conducted and produced before the Court. IO had recorded his statement.

v) PW5 HC Kanwar Singh deposed that on 19.10.2011 he was duty officer in PS Jaitpur from 8 am to 4pm and he had received the DD Entry No. 48B regarding the fight Ex.PW5/A and DD No. 65B regarding that injured had been admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center and MLCs had been conducted Ex.PW5/B (OSR).

vi) PW6 Dr. Sidharth Dubey, senior Resident, Orthopedics has brought certified copy of MLC and discharge summary Ex.PW6/A (Colly). PW6 after seeing the same, deposed that there is a laceration 3x1 cm on forehead left side and the nature of injury as opined in the MLC record was grievous by blunt weapon. PW6 further deposed that as per discharge summary, injured had sustained fracture injury in fifth rib right side. MLC and discharge summary of injured are Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C.

vii) PW7 Kartar Singh, MRT, JPNATC, AIIMS has brought the certified copy of attendance register of doctors including Dr. Vijay Kumar Kashyap vide Ex.PW7/A. After seeing the MLC of injured Parvati Devi Ex.PW6/B deposed that the said MLC had been prepared in supervision of Dr. Vijay Kumar Kashyap and signed by him at point A. Witness has correctly identified the signatures after going through his signatures on record in his office and the certified copy brought by him.

viii) PW8 ASI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 19.10.2011 he was on emergency duty alongwith Constable and his duty hours were from 8 am to 8 pm. He stated that on receiving of DD no. 48B in respect of quarrel Ex.PW5/A, he alongwith one Constable reached at the spot, that is, H.No. B­483, B Block, Om Nagar, Meethapur, Tanki Road. At the spot, no one was found and he had inquired nearby persons and thereafter, he came to know that injured had already been taken to an unknown hospital by PCR. PW8 further deposed that thereafter, he had received DD No. 65B in FIR No. 281/2011 4 /13 respect of MLC of injured persons and thereafter, he alongwith one constable reached in AIIMS Trauma Center where he had collected MLC of injured Parvati Devi. After searching of injured Parvati Devi as well as eye witness of the alleged incident in the hospital but no one could be found. PW8 further deposed that on 20.10.2011 injured Parvati came to police station with her family members and recorded her statement Ex.PW1/A. Thereafter, PW8 had made endorsement over the complaint of complainant and prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A and handed over the same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, PW8 alongwith complainant reached at the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW4/A. Thereafter, accused was arrested, personally searched and had made his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively. PW8 further stated that accused was sent to Lock up after medical examination, MLC of injured Parvati Devi obtained and after completion of investigation, charge­sheet was filed in the Court. Witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court.

Thereafter, ld. APP had sought permission to ask some leading questions from the witness. PW8 had stated that when he reached at the spot, he could not obtain the MLC of injured Ram as it was not prepared and later on, it was cancelled by the concerned doctor. PW8 stated that accused Sunita was not charge­sheeted in this case or he had not recorded the statements of any nearby persons whom he had inquired regarding the involvement of Sunita in the alleged incident.

3. All the witnesses were cross­examined at length by ld. Counsel for the accused.

4. In statement recorded U/s 294 Cr.PC, accused had admitted genuineness of FIR No. 289/2011 Ex.P/A/1.

5. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr. PC wherein all the incriminating facts led in evidence against him were put to him, affording an opportunity to give his explanation, if any.

6. Despite opportunity, the accused preferred to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, vide a separate statement of accused, DE was closed on 07.08.2019. Accordingly, the matter was posted for final arguments.

7. The argument of Ld. APP is that there is enough material on record to prove the case against the accused persons. Ld. Defence counsel on the other hand has argued that the accused persons have been wrongly associated with the offence in question and as such the accused are entitled to acquittal in the present case.

Relevant Law:­

8. The settled propositions of criminal are :

(A) Prosecution is required to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. (B) In order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused.

(C) The burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused. (D) The accused is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.

Law relating to requirement of independent witness

9. Sections 100 Clause 4 & 5 Cr.PC: Requirement of FIR No. 281/2011 6 /13 independent witnesses only when search is made on the person of the accused or at some place from where the incriminating articles is recovered and not when corroboration of happening of event in which accused is alleged to be involved is concerned.

10. Regarding the non­joining of independent witnesses it has been stated in judgment titled as Appabhai v. State of Gujrat, 1988 Supp 241 : AIR 1988 SC 696 that "11...... Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One can not ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused. This has also been relied upon in judgment titled as Kathi Bharat Vasjur v. State of Gujarat in AIR 2012 SC 2163 (Para 22). Minor contradictions do not effect the credibility of the prosecution case.

11. It was held in the judgment titled as Ravi Kapoor V. State of Rajasthan, 2012 VIII AD (S.C) 73 that "Minor variations are bound to occur in the statements of the witnesses when their statements are recorded after a considerable lapse from the date of occurrence".

Overall context of the case is to be seen.

12. It also the settled law laid down in Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana AIR 2002 SC 3462 that Courts have a duty to undertake a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all the vital features of the case and entire evidence with reference to broad and reasonable probabilities of the case in their attempt to find out proof beyond reasonable doubt.

13. I have perused the record carefully and have considered the arguments advanced by the ld. APP as well as the defence counsel.

Relevant Provisions of Law:

14. Section 325 IPC Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

15. Section 325 IPC provides punishment for grievous hurt. The expression hurt has been defined under section 319 and it means causing bodily pain, causing disease in the victim, causing infirmity in the victim. Section 321 lays down the meaning and import of "voluntarily causing hurt".

What is Grievous hurt?

16. Under section 320 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860, the following kinds of hurt only are designated as "Grievous": S.320 IPC. Grievous hurt.­­The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":­­ (First) ­­ Emasculation.

(Secondly) ­­Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) ­­ Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) ­­Privation of any member or joint. (Fifthly) ­­ Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

(Sixthly) ­­ Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. (Seventhly) ­­Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth. (Eighthly) ­­Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. S.322 IPC Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.­­ Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt."

Explanation.­­A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing him¬self to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.

What is fracture?

17. As was held in Hori Lal and Anr vs State of U.P, 1970 AIR 1969, fracture has not been defined in the penal code. In the case of Po Yi FIR No. 281/2011 9 /13 Maung v. Ma E Tin(A.I.R. (1937′) Rang 253) that the meaning of the word fracture would imply that there should be a break in the bone and that in the case of a skull bone it is not merely sufficient that there is a crack but that the crack must extend from the. outer surface of the skull to the inner surface. In Mutukdhar Singh v. Emperor (A.I.R. (1942) Pat. 376) it was observed that if the evidence is merely that a bone has been cut and there is nothing whatever to indicate the extent of the cut, whether a deep one or a mere scratch on the: surface of the bone, it will be difficult to infer that the injury is a grievous hurt within the meaning of s. 320 of the Panel Code. Considering these two rulings, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that both these assumptions are misleading. And it was held that It is not necessary that a bone should be cut through and through or that the crack must extend from the outer to the inner surface or that there should be displacement of any fragment of the bone. If there is a break by cutting or, splintering of the bone or there is a rupture or fissure in it, would amount to a fracture within the meaning of cl. 7 of s. 320. What we have to see is whether the cuts in the bones noticed in the injury report are only superficial or do they effect a break in them.

18. PW­8 ASI Krishan Kumar was the IO of the case. PW­1 Parvati Devi, PW­2 Roopa Devi and PW­3 Ram Singh are the victims and the main witnesses of the prosecution.

19. The defence putforth by the Counsel for accused is that no public witness has been joined in the present case. He also argued there are material inconsistencies in the testimony of the victims. He argued that the accused have been falsely implicated as there was a previous enmity between both the parties and since all the witnesses are interested witnesses, their testimony could not be relied upon.

Discussion on merits:

20. PW­1 Parvati devi, complainant, has deposed that she heard the noise that accused Ravi Prakash and his wife were beating her daughter in law Roopa upon which she came down and objected to it as her daughter in law was eight months pregnant at that time. She further stated that accused then brought a lathi from his home and hit on her head due to which she became unconscious.

21. PW­2 also deposed on the same lines and stated that accused entered her house and started abusing and beating her. She further stated that her mother in law came downstairs to save her, however, accused hit her mother in law on her head.

22. PW­3 also deposed that on the day of incident accused entered their house and abused her wife. When his mother tried to save his wife, accused hit her with lathi on head due to which she became unconscious.

23. In the present case, there is no material contradiction in the testimony of PW­1, PW­2 & PW­3 vis­a­vis their statements U/s 161 Cr.PC by the IO during investigation. There are only certain aspect of deposition of the witness which do not find mention in their previous statements U/s 161 Cr.PC. The statements of witnesses U/s 161 Cr.PC are otherwise inadmissible in evidence. They can only be used for the limited purpose of contradicting or corroborating the testimonies of the relevant witnesses. In the present case, there are certain aspects which have come in their deposition of PW1, PW­2 & PW3 which had not been recorded in their statement U/s 161 Cr.PC. The statement U/s 161 Cr.PC are recorded by the Investigating Officer. The witness only answers the questions which are FIR No. 281/2011 11 /13 put to him by the IO. It could very well be the case that the IO had not put the relevant questions to the witness and the examination of the witness by the IO was not comprehensive. However, mere non examination of the witness on certain aspects by the IO or certain contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses which are not as such very essential is not a ground to discredit the entire testimony of witness which otherwise inspires confidence.

24. The victim was medically examined on the same date as the alleged incident. The injuries suffered by the victim has been duly corroborated by the oral testimonies of the witnesses as well as her MLC. Defence has not produced any evidence to show that the injuries were self inflicted or caused otherwise.

25. As far as the defence of previous enmity is concerned, the accused have not produced any witness to substantiate the same. They have also not been able to prove the existence of previous enmity through the cross examination of PW­1, PW­2 & PW­3. In these circumstances, in the absence of any material on record, the defence taken by the accused persons does not inspire any confidence.

26. PW­1 Parvati Devi, PW­2 Roopa Devi and PW­3 Ram Singh have corroborated and reinforced the testimony of each other on all material aspects and have withstood the test of cross examination. The contradictions pointed out by ld. defence counsel are minor in nature and does not hit the roots of the prosecution's case and have been otherwise explained by the prosecution. The injuries sustained by the victims have been duly proved by their oral testimonies and stands further corroborated by their medical documents which have been duly proved on record. The defence counsel was unable to prove that the injuries sustained by the FIR No. 281/2011 12 /13 victims were self inflicted or caused otherwise as alleged by accused. All the accused persons were correctly identified by the witnesses before the Court. Otherwise also, the victims and the accused were known to each other prior to the incident and their identities were not in dispute. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of these eye witnesses. In these circumstances, it is held that Prosecution has been able to discharge the necessary burden as mandated by law and has proved beyond the pales of reasonable doubt that accused Ravi Prakash had wrongfully restrained Parvati Devi and Roopa and voluntarily caused grievous injuries to Parvati Devi. The defence could not raise any reasonable doubt in the case put forth by the prosecution. Accordingly, accused Ravi Prakash is hereby convicted for offences U/s 325/341 IPC.

Announced in the Open                            (NUPUR GUPTA)
Court on 29th August, 2019                 MM­11/SED/ Saket Courts/ND




FIR No. 281/2011                                    13 /13