Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Lali & Anr. on 13 February, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Ram Lali & Anr.
FIR No. 742/99
PS: Saraswati Vihar
U/s 323/341/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
A) The date of commission : 30/10/1999
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Sh. Rajender
S/o. Sh. Jai Singh
D) Name of the accused : 1. Smt. Ram Lali
W/o. Sh. Sh. Hukum Singh
2. Rambir
S/o. Sh. Hukum Singh
E) Offence complained of : under Section 323/341/34 IPC
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Both the accused Smt. Ram Lali
and Rambir have been convicted.
H) The date of such order : 13/02/2013
Date of Institution : 09/06/2000
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 13/02/2013
State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/9
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 30.10.1999 at 11:30 pm at H. No. K-3/181, J.J. Colony, W.P, within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar, Delhi, both the accused in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant Rajinder s/o. Sh. Jai Singh from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed and caused simple injuries on the person of complainant.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 323/341/34 IPC of which cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor of this court.
3. Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused persons.
4. Vide order dated 06/07/2001 charge for the offence under Section 323/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses to prove the guilt of accused persons. A brief scrutiny of the examined witnesses is as below:-
State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/9PW-1 Sh. Rajender is the complainant/injured. He deposed that on 30.10.1999 at about 11:30 pm after taking dinner when he came outside his house for walk, he saw that accused Ram Lalli, was urinating in front of his shop. He deposed that when he forbid her, she started abusing him and caught his hand and called her son Rambir. He deposed that her son Rambir came there with a danda and started saying that why he had forbidden her mother and started beating him with danda on his hand, legs, head and body due to which he sustained injuries. He further deposed that someone called police, PCR van came there and PCR van took him to Bara Hindu Rao hospital. He proved his statement as Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that IO prepared site plan mark X at his instance. He further deposed that on 31.10.1999 IO arrested accused Ram Lalli vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that on 03.11.1999 IO arrested accused Rambir, vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C at his identification. He correctly identified both the accused in the court.
PW-2 HC Surajbhan proved the copy of FIR No. 742/99 as Ex. PW-2/A and his endorsement as Ex. PW-2/B. PW-3 Smt. Sumitra @ Munni has deposed that on 30.10.1999 at about 11:30 pm her husband Rajender after taking dinner had gone outside the house for walk and that after some time she heard noise and she came outside her house and saw that accused Rambir and accused Ram Lalli, were beating her husband. She further deposed that accused Rambir was beating her husband with danda due to which her husband sustained injuries. She deposed that public persons gathered there. She deposed that she along with her husband reached at PP Wazirpur, J.J. Colony where IO recorded the State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/9 statement of her husband. She deposed that IO also inquired the matter from her.
PW-4 Dr. Ritu Kaushik has proved the MLC No. 15352/99 of patient Rajender prepared by Dr. Anshu Sharma as Ex. PW-4/A.
6. P.E. was closed vide order dated 19.11.2012 and statement of accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded to which both the accused persons denied all the allegation against them but preferred not to lead DE. Thereafter the matter was fixed for arguments.
7. It is submitted by both the accused that they have been falsely implicated by the complainant.
8. Per contra Ld. APP for the State has submitted by that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It has been further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/910. After going through the material on record and having heard the arguments advanced, I am of the I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused persons.
Section 341 IPC provides: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month. or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Wrongful restraint has been defined by section 339 IPC. It provides:
"Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person. "
Section 323 IPC provides "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. "
11. The testimonies of all the witnesses examined by the prosecution has gone unrebutted. Both the accused have not cross examined any of the witnesses. The identity of both the accused stand established as the perpetrator of the crime, since they have been identified by the complainant State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/9 Rajender who was examined as PW-1 as well as PW-3 in the court. Their testimonies further finds corroboration from the the arrest memos Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C. The allegations of the accused persons restraining the complainant and assaulting him has been proved by the complainant whose testimony in the absence of any cross examination by the accused cannot be discarded and there is nothing in it to look upon with suspicion.
12. The MLC of patient Rajender (PW-1/complainant) is quite explicit regarding the nature of injuries received by him. Though the doctor who prepared the MLC did not herself come to the witness box to prove the same but the fact that the complainant received injuries, which has been proved by testimonies of other witnesses squarely covers the same within the definition of hurt under Section 319 I.P.C. Section 319 IPC, defines the term hurt. Under section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. In the present case from the ocular and medical evidence, it is clear that complainant has suffered simple injuries in this case and to that extent the charge stand proved.
13. As held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a criminal case, the testimony of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, by itself is a sufficient and sound basis, in fact the best basis, for convicting accused person because, injuries guarantee the presence of such witnesses on the place of incident and once that is ensured, the limited question which remains is whether they are credible or not. It is only where the testimony of such witnesses is found incredible and untrustworthy vis-a-vis the core of the prosecution case that it should be State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/9 discarded. This norm of appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses is based on the trite that injuries only guarantee their presence but, do not ensure their truthfulness and no Court ever convicts accused persons unless the evidence of witnesses is truthful and inspires confidence, on the material aspects of the prosecution case.
14. Further, during their examination 313 Cr.P.C the accused persons gave evasive answers. The accused persons led no defense evidence to prove that the they did not restrain or beat the complaint. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. All the prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by each other about complainant being restrained and being caused simple hurt on his person. There being no history of any previous animosity between the accused persons and the victim, there is no reason for the victim to have falsely implicated the accused persons.
15. Now adjudicating upon whether both the accused persons had common intention to beat the injured and that if Sec 34I.P.C can be attracted to fix their liability.
In Virender Pal @ Neelu v. State (Delhi)(D.B.) 2011 CriLJ 3082Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed :
" Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence. It simply states that if State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/9 two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. The constructive liability under this Section would arise if following two conditions are fulfilled :- (i) there must be a common intention to commit a criminal act and (ii) there must be participation of all the persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention . Common intention requires a prior concert or pre-planning. Common intention to commit a crime should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop at the instant when such crime is committed.
48. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence of common intention . In most cases it has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused persons and other relevant circumstances of the case. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence. In other words, intention has to be gathered from the acts of the accused persons and the attendant relevant circumstances enwombing the act. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which he could be convicted."
Since both the accused had actively participated in the commission of the offence it can be safely concluded that both the accused persons were having common intention to restrain and hurt the complainant/injured.
16. In view of the above discussion, observations and evidence on record, in my opinion the prosecution has successfully proved its case. Accordingly, both the accused Ram Lali and Rambir are held guilty and convicted for State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/9 offence U/s. 323/324/34 IPC in the present case.
17. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused persons free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on February 13th, 2013.
It is certified that this judgment contains 9 pages and each page is signed by me.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Date: 13/02/2013 State V/s Ram Lali & Anr. FIR No. 742/99 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/9