Delhi District Court
State vs . Atul Sharma & Etc. on 15 April, 2011
State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc.
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/S 325/506/34 IPC
State V/S Atul Sharma & etc.
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997
Date of Institution: 18.02.1997
Name of the Complainant Sh. Aman Kumar s/o Sh. Tirath
Ram.
Name and address of accused 1. Atul Sharma
s/o Rajendra Pal,
2. Anil Bhardwaj
s/o Late Sh. Megh Raj,
3. Sachin Sharma
S/o Sh. Rajender Pal
4. Ramesh s/o MeghRaj
All r/o r/o C-43, Nehru Road,
Adarsh Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 325/506/34 IPC
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Acquitted U/S 506 IPC
Convicted U/S 323 IPC.
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 1
State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc.
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
Date of reserve for orders 15.04.2011
Date for announcing the orders 15.04.2011
Brief facts and pre trial procedure
1. On 12.08.96 PW1/ complainant, Aman Kumar lodged a
complaint with the police alleging therein that he was running a dry-
cleaning shop at C-43/3, Adarsh Nagar , Nehru Road as a tenant of one
Meg Raj Sharma. Accused Anil and Ramesh who are sons of
aforementioned Meg Raj Sharma wanted to forcibly evict the complainant
and they had been constantly threatening the complainant. On 11.08.96
accused Anil and Ramesh along with their nephews i.e. Atul and Sachin
came to the shop who were armed with iron rods, chains and hockey.
They started beating the complainant due to which the the bone of the arm
got fractured. They also threatened the complainant to vacate the shop
failing which they will kill him.
2. On the aforementioned complaint, the instant FIR was lodged
and investigation was conducted. During investigation, the complainant
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 2
State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc.
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
as well as accused Ramesh were medically examined, site plan was
prepared. On competition of investigation, the four accused persons were
sent up for trial for the offence u/s 325/506/34 IPC.
3. After necessary compliances, charge u/s 325/506/34 IPC were
framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
TRIAL
4. During trial, prosecution examined five witnesses in total
whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:
(i) PW-1, Sh. Aman Sharma supported the prosecution case and
deposed in consonance with his complaint marked as Ex.PW1/A. He
categorically stated that accused Ramesh caught hold of him from the
neck, Atul and Sachin caught hold of his hands and accused Anil gave
blows with lathi. He identified the accused persons in the court. The
material portion of his cross-examination is noted down as under:
It is correct that MLC was conducted on 11.08.96 which is
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 3
State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc.
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
Ex.PW2/A.
X-ray was conducted upon me which was not filed , I do not
know whether HRH filed the X-Ray or not.
I got the complaint typed myself.
There is no proof of lodging any complaint prior to the
incident.
He denied that no X-Ray was conducted or that he filed a false
case in connivance with the police or that he had demolished the left
pillar of the shop on 11.08.96 without prior intimation or permission of
the landlord or that accused Ramesh merely inquired as to the
demolition of pillar to which PW-1 and his servant starting beating
Ramesh.
He was confronted with various portions of his statement made
to police which were not recorded therein but deposed to during
examination.
(ii) PW-2 Sh. Devender Kumar is the record clerk from Hindu Rao
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 4
State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc.
FIR No. 381/96
PS Adarsh Nagar
Hospital who stated that the MLC of PW-1 was prepared by Dr. Sonu
Aggarwal which is marked as Ex.PW2/A and the opinion as to the nature
of injury was given by Dr. Lalit Maheshwari as grievous. The MLC of
accused Naresh is marked as Ex.PW2/B was prepared by Dr. Ram Sharma
and Dr. Pankaj Anand opined the nature of injury as simple.
(iii) PW-3 ASI Om Singh is a witness of formal nature who proved
the FIR as Ex.PW3/A.
(iv) PW-4 SI Shanker Banerjee is the second IO of the case who
merely stated that he formally arrested the accused persons who were
already on anticipatory bail.
(v) PW-5 retired ASI Chander Pal is the first IO of the case who
supported the prosecution case qua investigation part. The rukka is
marked as Ex.PW5/A, site plan as Ex.PW5/B.
Facts in issue:
The following facts are in issue in the instant case:
(a) Whether the four accused persons voluntarily caused grievous C/No. 241/97 Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 5 State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc. FIR No. 381/96 PS Adarsh Nagar hurt on the person of PW-1?
(b) Whether the accused persons intended to cause or knew themselves to be likely to cause a grievous hurt ?
(c ) Whether the injury suffered by PW-1 was grievous in nature as defined u/s 320 IPC?
(d) Whether the accused persons criminally intimidated PW-1 of causing any injury to his person or reputation with intent to cause alarm to him or to cause PW-1 to vacate the shop which he was not legally bound to do?
(e) Whether the four accused persons had common intention to commit the aforementioned offences?
Findings on the aforementioned facts in issues after appreciation of evidence in the light of rival contentions.
5. The first contention of the Ld. defence counsel is that the prosecution has failed to prove the nature of injury because the concerned Doctor has not been examined. I agree with this contention because in absence of examination of the expert himself, the nature of injury could C/No. 241/97 Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 6 State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc. FIR No. 381/96 PS Adarsh Nagar not be proved by a Record Clerk.
6. Next submission of Ld. defence counsel was that the statement of PW-1 suffers from various improvements and hence, PW-1 is not a reliable witness. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-1 reveals that he was confronted with his statement made to police on various aspects which were deposed to by him during chief examination which were in fact not mentioned in his statement made to police. It is settled proposition of law that the informant is not required to give every minute details while giving the complaint . The so-called improvements are not in fact be termed as 'the improvement', rendering PW-1 as unreliable witness. Statement of PW-1 is trustworthy and reliable.
7. From the statement of PW-1 it is firmly established that the accused persons attacked him due to which he sustained injuries. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the element of common intention can be inferred. It is accordingly proved that the accused persons, with their common intention caused hurt on the person of PW-1. The C/No. 241/97 Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 7 State Vs. Atul Sharma & etc. FIR No. 381/96 PS Adarsh Nagar ingredients of Section 323 IPC are proved beyond reasonable doubt. As already discussed, the nature of injury as grievous could not be proved hence, no conviction can be recorded u/s 325 IPC. However, by virtue of Section 222 CrPC a conviction u/s 323/34 IPC can still be recorded. In these circumstances, I hold all the accused persons guilty u/s 323/34 IPC.
8. PW-1 has not deposed to with any amount of assertiveness that the accused persons threatened him with any kind of injury, hence, the ingredient of Section 506 IPC are not proved beyond pale of doubts. Accordingly I hold the accused persons not guilty u/s 506 IPC.
Conclusion
9. In view of the above discussion, accused persons are convicted u/s 323/34 IPC and are acquitted u/s 506 IPC.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 15.04.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate-IV/NW
Rohini Courts Delhi
C/No. 241/97
Unique ID No. 02401R0051931997 Page No. 8