Delhi District Court
State vs Jai Govind Singh And Ors on 29 May, 2024
:1:
IN THE COURT OF MS.SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05, WEST, TIS HAZARI
COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT01- 000884-2017
Sessions Case No. 62/2017
FIR No. 534/16
PS Patel Nagar
State
v.
1) Jai Govind Singh
S/o Sh. Daroga Singh
R/o H.No. T-563/CS/1, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi.
2) Vinay Kumar
S/o Sh. Damodar Singh
R/o H.No. T-563/CS/1, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi.
3) Avinash Kumar
S/o late Sh. Nawal Kishor Singh,
R/o H.No. T-563/CS/1, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi.
4) Dharmender Kumar
S/o Sh. Arun Kumar,
R/o H.No. T-563/CS/1, 2nd Floor,
Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar,
Delhi.
FIR No: 534/2016 Page 1 of 33
State v. Jai Govind & ors
PS - Patel Nagar
:2:
5) Sunny Deol,
S/o Sh. Damodar Singh,
R/o H.No. 2666, Pakore Wali Gali,
Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi.
6) Nirved Kumar
S/o Sh. Amrika Singh,
R/o H.No. 2666, Pakore Wali Gali,
Ranjeet Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution 28.12.2016
Date of committal 31.01.2017
Date of Charge 20.03.2017
Charge framed under 147/148/149 IPC alongwith
section 452/323/308/34 and 394 IPC
Date of reserving 27.05.2024
Judgment
Date of Decision 29.05.2024
Final Judgment All accused persons namely Jai
Govind Singh, Vinay, Avinash
Kumar, Dharmender Kumar,
Sunny Deol and Nirved Kumar
convicted U/s 148/149/452/323/
308 IPC and acquitted U/s 147
& 394 IPC.
JUDGMENT
Brief facts of the case :
1. Accused persons namely Jai Govind, Vinay Kumar, Avinash Kumar, Dharmender Kumar, Sunny Deol and Nirved Kumar have been facing FIR No: 534/2016 Page 2 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :3: trial on the basis of allegations putforth by the prosecution that on 31.10.2016 at about 09:45 pm at H.No. T-563, C-5/1, Gali No.2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Patel Nagar, they all in pursuance to incidents which took place at 05:00 PM and at 09:00 PM, on the same day, in reference to water dispute formed an unlawful assembly having iron rod, dandas and belts, with common object to deprive complainant of his right of use of water and thereafter, they all committed house trespass in the house of complainant and caused hurt to him as well as Ranjeet Singh and Sheshnath.
Investigation conducted :
2. On 30.10.2016, on receipt of information of quarrel vide DD no. 41A, IO/ASI Virender Singh reached at the spot of occurrence, that is, house number T-563/CS/1, Gali no.2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi, where he came to know that the injured persons have already been taken to hospital. No eye witness met at the spot and hence, he returned to police Station.
Thereafter, on receiving of DD no.9A, ASI Virender Singh alongwith constable reached at RML hospital, where three injured persons namely Manish Kumar Singh, Sesh Nath and Ranjeet Kumar Singh were found admitted in the hospital vide MLCs no. E/294890/16, E/294893/16 and E/294894/16 respectively. All the abovesaid injured persons did not give their statements in the hospital and stated that they will come in the Police Station and get their statements recorded. Thereafter, injured Sh. Manish Kumar Singh reached the Police Station and got recorded his statement, wherein he has stated that he is residing at T-563/CS/1, FIR No: 534/2016 Page 3 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :4: Gali no.2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi alongwith his uncle Sh. Sesh Nath on the ground floor and he is a permanent resident of Bihar. He is doing the job in Ram Manohar Lohia hospital. Accused Jai Govind is residing on the 2nd floor of the abovesaid house. He further stated that on 30.10.2016, at about 05:00 PM, he was filling the water and in the meantime, accused Jai Govind come there and asked to let him fill the water first however, he refused the same, upon which accused Jai Govind started hurling abuses; threw the water pipe and went to his room at second floor. After about half an hour, the wife of accused Jai Govind came to him and he complained her about the abovesaid incident and told her that accused Jai Govind had taken the water pipe with him and asked her to make accused Jai Govind understand. Thereafter, at about 09:00 PM, accused Jai Govind came in his room and stated that 'ज्यादा दादा बनते हो और मेरी शिकायत करते हो'. Thereafter, he started scuffling (धक्का मुक्की) with him and his brother Sheshnath. His nephew Vinay caught hold accused Jai Govind and took him to second floor. Accused Jai Govind while going to his floor threatened him with dire consequences.
3. On the same day, at about 09:15 PM, his brother namely Ranjeet Kumar Singh, who is residing in his neighbourhood came to him for giving cash of Rs.10,500/- for 'Chhatth Pooja' and they all were watching T.V. At about 09:45 PM, accused Jai Govind alongwith his nephew Vinay Kumar came in his room alongwith 7-8 boys, carrying iron pipes, Dandas and Belt and started giving beatings to them. Accused Jai Govind hit on his head with danda due to which blood had started FIR No: 534/2016 Page 4 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :5: oozing out from his head. Accused Vinay Kumar hit on the head of his brother Sheshnath with iron pipe due to which he received head injury on his head. Thereafter, one of the associate of accused persons hit on the hand of Ranjeet Kumar due to which he had also received injury on his hand. After hearing noise, public persons had gathered there and one of them had called the police at 100 number. Thereafter, all the accused persons ran away from there after snatching Rs.10,500/- of his brother Ranjeet Kumar. They also threatened them not to make complainant otherwise they will kill them. Some public persons took the injured persons to RML hospital and got them treated there.
4. Thereafter, on the basis of statement of injured Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, FIR of the present case was registered for the offences punishable u/s 308/452/392/34 IPC against all the accused persons. During investigation, at the instance of Sh.Manish Kumar Singh, site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant/injured Manish Kumar Singh, all the six accused persons were arrested from their house who disclosed about their involvements in the present case. Accused Vinay Kumar got recovered one iron pipe from his room. Thereafter, opinion on the MLCs of injured persons were collected upon which the nature of injury on the injured persons were opined as 'simple injury'. Later on, IO had added the section 147/148/149/394 IPC in the present case. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against all the accused persons.
FIR No: 534/2016 Page 5 of 33State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :6: Charge :
5. Charge for the offences punishable under sections 147/148/149 IPC alongwith sections 452/323/308/394/34 IPC was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court on 20.03.2017 against all the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Prosecution evidence :
6. The prosecution in support of its case had examined eight witnesses. PW-1 Sh.Ranjeet Kumar Singh (injured), PW-2 Sh.Manish Kumar Singh (complainant/injured), PW-3 Sheshnath (injured), PW-4 ASI Kanwar Singh (DD writer), PW-5 Dr.Sumedh Sandanshiv (opined the nature of injury on the MLC of Ranjeet Kumar Singh ), PW-6 ASI Raj Pal (duty officer), PW-7 Dr. Mohd. Ali, (proved the MLC of injured Ranjit Kumar Singh), PW-8 ASI Jasbir Singh (DD writer), PW-9 HC Shailender (witness of investigation), PW-10 ASI Virender Singh (witness of investigation), PW-11 Dr.H.K.Khowal (given opinion on the MLC of injured Manish Kumar), PW-12 Ms.Lakshmi (proved the MLC of injured Manish Kumar Singh and Sheshnath alongwith opinion on the MLC of Sheshnath) and PW-13 Dr.Rani Sharma (given opinion on the MLC of injured Ranjeet Kumar Singh). The relevant portion of their testimonies are under the succeeding paragraphs.
7. PW-1 Sh.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, injured has deposed that on 30.10.2016 at about 09.15 PM, he had visited the room of his cousin namely Sheshnath, who was residing in house just 200 meters away from his FIR No: 534/2016 Page 6 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :7: house. He went there to hand him over money for sending it to his village Fatehpur in Bihar as Sheshnath was leaving for the village on the next morning on the occasion of 'Chhath' Festival. He was having Rs.10,500/- to send the same to his home through his cousin Sheshnath. After reaching in the room of Sheshnath, he joined him in watching television programme. While they were watching T.V, all the accused persons, who were 7-8 in number suddenly came inside the room. They all were having rods, dandas, belts etc in their hands and had started beating them with those weapons. At that time, his another cousin Manish was also there and all accused persons had beaten all of them. All the accused persons had suddenly attacked them. They had beaten him, Manish and Sheshnath. He had sustained injuries on his back and left hand. Head injury was caused to Sheshnath as well as Manish. Arm of Sheshnath was also injured.
7.1. Later on, while he was in hospital for treatment of his injuries, he came to know that accused Jai Govind was residing on the second floor of the house of Sheshnath, whereas Sheshnath was residing on the ground floor and that during the day time, there was a dispute between Manish and Jai Govind on the issue of water. He also came to know that Jai Govind had damaged and plucked off the water pipes meant for supply of water in the portion of Manish. They were taken to hospital by the neighbours who had gathered there on their alarm after the accused persons had fled away. They were taken to RML hospital. Police met him in the hospital itself. Next day, when he was discharged from the hospital, he had accompanied the police to the place of FIR No: 534/2016 Page 7 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :8: incident from where outside the room, one rod was recovered which was having blood stains. Police had seized that rod having length of around 02 feet. However, the witness could not identify the pipe Ex.P.1, due to passage of time.
7.2. The witness was cross-examined by the Ld.Addl. P.P. for the State as he was not deposing the complete true facts wherein he denied all the suggestions put to him by the Ld. Prosecutor except that he admitted that due to passage of time, he is unable to recollect complete facts and sequence of events as as had taken place.
7.3. The witness has correctly identified all the accused persons before the Court while under examination. However, he could not tell which of the accused person had given which blow.
8. PW-2 Sh.Manish Kumar, complainant/injured has deposed that at the time of incident, he alongwith his brother Sheshnath Singh was residing in T.Block, Gali No.2, Baljit Nagar, Delhi, on the ground floor. The incident took place on 30.11.2016, it was night of Diwali festival. On that day, he was on night duty, so he had to leave the house at about 07:00 PM for attending his duty starting from 08:00 PM. At about 06:30 PM, he started the water Tap installed in his Washroom for filling the water to take a bath. In the meantime, accused Jai Govind came to his floor and asked him to put off the water Tap. He knows accused Jai Govind as he used to reside on the second floor of the same house. (the accused Jai Govind was correctly identified by the witness) He told accused Jai Govind that he would put off (close) the water Tap after filling the water in drum because he had to take a bath. Accused Jai FIR No: 534/2016 Page 8 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar :9: Govind removed the Pipe which was fixed by him on the Water Tap for filling the drum. At that time, accused Jai Govind was appearing under the influence of liquor and he was abusing him. Thereafter, accused Jai Govind left his house.
8.1. After about half an hour, wife of accused Jai Govind came to his floor and he informed her about the behaviour of accused Jai Govind. He also informed her that he was not filling the water at that time and asked her to store water for herself and family and informed him, when she is done.
8.2. In the meantime, he received telephonic call from RML hospital regarding changing of shift of his duty and he was directed to report on duty in the morning. On that day, Ranjit Kumar Singh hailing from his Village came to his house. At about 09:00 PM. He alongwith his brother Sheshnath and Ranjit Kumar were watching T.V. in the room. In the meantime, accused Jai Govind alongwith his relative Vinay and other 7-8 persons entered his house. He knew accused Vinay. Accused Jai Govind was carrying one Danda, accused Vinay was carrying one Iron Pipe while their associates were carrying Belts, Rods etc. The witness has identified three other accused persons by their faces stating that they are the same persons who were alongwith accused Jai Govind and Vinay who came to his house with weapons. However, he did not know their names. These three accused persons informed their names as Avinash, Dharmender and Sunny Deol. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether or not the other accused (witness has pointed towards one of the accused Nirved Kumar) was alongwith FIR No: 534/2016 Page 9 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 10 : accused Jai Govind and Vinay on the date of incident. Accused Jai Govind and Vinay attacked on his brother Sheshnath while the other two accused persons (who informed their names as Avinash and Sunny Deol) attacked on him. All the accused persons gave beatings to him, his brother Sheshnath and Ranjit Singh. He sustained injuries on his forehead. Blood started oozing from the injuries sustained by him on his forehead and he started feeling dizziness. He noticed that all the accused persons fled away from the spot after causing injuries to him, his brother and Ranjit Singh.
8.3. Neighbours collected at the spot. Someone had informed the police at number 100. His neighbours removed him and other injured persons to RML hospital. Police met him in the hospital. In the morning, he was discharged from the hospital. His statement was recorded by the Police at police station , proved as Ex.PW-2/A. He further deposed that he had gone to the Police Station directly from the hospital. After recording his statement, he alongwith Police went to spot. The neighbours had locked his house after his removal to the hospital. Room was opened in the presence of Police. Police inspected the spot and also took the photographs. Police asked him about the house of accused Jai Govind. He took the police to second floor, where accused Jai Govind used to live with his family. At the time of examination, the witness had pointed towards accused Dharmender and Avinash and stated that at that time, these two accused persons were present in the house of accused Jai Govind. Police interrogated both the accused persons and arrested them vide arrest memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/B (that of accused FIR No: 534/2016 Page 10 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 11 : Avinash) and Ex.PW-2/C (that of accused Dharmender) pursuant to their personal search memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/D (that of accused Avinash) and Ex.PW-2/E (that of accused Dharmender). He further deposed that both these accused persons produced an Iron Pipe by stating that this Pipe was used at the time of commission of Offence. The Pipe was seized vide seizure Memo, proved as Ex.PW- 2/F. He further deposed that accused Jai Govind and Vinay came to Police Station on the same day in his presence. They were also arrested in the present case vide Arrest Memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/G (that of accused Jai Govind) and Ex.PW-2/H (that of accused Vinay). Their Personal searches were conducted vide memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/I (that of accused Jai Govind) and Ex.PW-2/J (that of accused Vinay). On the next day. he again went to Police Station and identified the other two accused persons. He has further deposed that accused Sunny Deol and Nirved Kumar were arrested by the Police in his presence vide Memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/K (that of accused Sunny Deol) and Ex.PW-2/L (that of accused Nirved Kumar). Their Personal searches were conducted vide memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/M (that of accused Sunny Deol) and Ex.PW-2/N (that of accused Nirved Kumar). He has further deposed that Ranjit Singh came to his house for giving cash around Rs.10,000/- for the occasion of Chhath Pooja. After the incident, he did not find the abovesaid money in his house. The witness has correctly identified the Iron pipe as Ex.P.1 before the Court. 8.4. During leading question asked by the Ld. Prosecutor after seeking permission of the Court, the witness had admitted that it was night of FIR No: 534/2016 Page 11 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 12 : Diwali festival and it is possible that date of incident may be 30.10.2016. He also admitted that accused Jai Govind hit danda on his head.
9. PW-3 Sh.Sheshnath, another injured has deposed that earlier he used to reside in Baljeet Nagar, Delhi about 7-8 years prior to the incident and he had shifted to Bihar after registration of the present case. He used to reside with his brother Manish in Baljeet Nagar, near Balak Nath Mandir, Delhi at ground floor. He has further deposed that on 30.10.2016, at about 08:30 or 08:45 PM, his cousin /PW-1 Ranjit had come to his house and at that time he alongwith his brother Manish/PW- 2 was present in their room. PW-1 Ranjit had come to their room in order to give some articles and cash of around Rs. 10,500/- to him as he had to go to Bihar for Chath-Pooja.
9.1. He has further deposed that at about 09:15 -09:30 PM, accused Jai Govind, whom he knew as he used to reside on the second floor of the same house, came to their room and started quarreling with him and his brother PW-2 Manish, as on the same day in the evening some quarrel had taken place between PW-2 Manish and accused Jai Govind. After about 1-2 minutes of the arrival of accused Jai Govind in their room, accused Vinay alongwith 7-8 other persons also entered their room. He has further deposed that accused Vinay was having danda in his hand and accused Jai Govind was having iron pipe in his hand and 7-8 other associates were also carrying dandas and belts with them. He again said that accused Vinay was carrying iron pipe and accused Jai Govind was FIR No: 534/2016 Page 12 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 13 : carrying danda. He had identified the other four co-accused persons by their faces and stated that he did not know their names, however these four co-accused persons were accompanying accused Vinay and Jai Govind and were carrying dandas and belts. He has further deposed that accused Jai Govind attacked on him with danda and he in order to save himself from the blow, he put his hand on his head and accordingly sustained injury on his hand. He has further deposed that accused Vinay caused injuries on his head with iron pipe and PW-2 Manish was also inflicted injuries on his head with iron pipe and PW-1 Ranjeet had also been inflicted injuries on his hand. He has further deposed that all the accused persons were beating him, his brother Manish (PW-2) and Ranjit (PW-1) with the weapons which were carried by them and thereafter, they all fled from the spot after causing injuries to them. 9.2. He has further deposed that people from the neigbourhood gathered and informed the police and the neigbours took them/all the injured to hospital and police met him at the hospital, however he was not in condition to give any statement and therefore, police again met him at his tenanted room and made inquires from him. He has further deposed that all the accused persons were arrested by the police though he is not aware when they were arrested. He had not gone to the police station to identify the accused persons as he was not called. He has further deposed that iron pipe Ex.P.1. was recovered by the police from the verandah/lobby outside his room and the witness has correctly identified the said iron pipe before the Court.
FIR No: 534/2016 Page 13 of 33State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 14 : 9.3. The witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Prosecutor wherein he stated that as he had sustained injuries on his head prior to PW-2 Manish, therefore, he could not see whether PW-2 Manish sustained injuries on his head by danda or iron pipe; that he did not remember whether or not accused Vinay produced iron pipe Ex.P-1 from the room of accused Jai Govind as he had sustained injuries on his head and was having pain and therefore, could not say whether pipe was recovered from the room of accused Jai Govind or from the Verandah.
10.PW-4 ASI Kanwar Singh has deposed that in the intervening night of 30.10.2016 and 31.10.2016, at about 04:05 AM, duty constable Hari Singh at RML hospital informed regarding admission of three injured persons namely Manish, Sheshnath and Ranjit Kumar with the alleged history of quarrel. He recorded this information vide DD no. 9A, proved as Ex.PW-4/A in the DD register.
11.PW-5 Dr. Sumedh Sandanshiv, SR (Ortho) RML hospital has deposed that on 15.10.2016, police officials produced the MLC of Ranjeet Kumar Singh dated 30.10.2016 which was prepared by the CMO Dr. Titiksha Goel. After examining the MLC and X-ray reports of patient Ranjeet Kumar Singh, he opined the nature of injuries as 'simple'. He made his endorsement in the encircled portion A, proved as Ex.PW-5/A regarding nature of injuries on the MLC of Ranjeet Kumar Singh.
12.PW-6 ASI Raj Pal has deposed that on 31.10.2016, at about 12:45 PM, ASI Virender gave him rukka and on the basis of the same, he got registered the present FIR through computer operator, proved as Ex.PW-6/A and made endorsement on the rukka vide endorsement, FIR No: 534/2016 Page 14 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 15 : proved as Ex.PW-6/B. Thereafter, original rukka and copy of FIR were handed over to Ct.Shailender to dispatch the same to ASI Virender. He also proved the certificate U/s 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW-6/C.
13.PW-7 Dr. Mohd.Ali, Medical Officer, RML hospital has deposed that he has been deputed by the MS to depose on behalf of Dr. Titishka Goyal who has since left the hospital and her present whereabouts are not known. He had identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Titishka Goyal as he had seen her while writing and signing during the course of his service. He has further deposed that as per record, on 30.10.2016, at about 11:00 PM, one injured namely Ranjit Kumar Singh was brought to the casualty with the alleged history of assault. Dr. Titishka Toyal medically examined the injured vide MLC No. E/294894/16, proved as Ex.PW-7/A. Thereafter, injured Ranjit was referred to Orthopedics emergency.
14.PW-8 ASI Jasbir Singh has deposed that on 30.10.2016, at about 10:28 PM, an information was received from the control room regarding quarrel in street no.2, near H.No. 563, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi and the same was recorded by him vide DD no. 41A, proved as Ex.PW-8/A.
15.PW-9 HC Shailender has deposed that on 31.10.2016, duty officer handed over the copy of FIR of the present case alongwith rukka to him and directed to handover the same to the IO/ASI Virender Singh, who was present at the spot i.e. Street No. 2, near H.No. T-532, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. He went to the spot, where ASI Virender Singh was present. He handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO.
FIR No: 534/2016 Page 15 of 33State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 16 : 15.1. Complainant Manish was also present with IO. He took them to the second floor of H.No. T- 532, where accused persons were residing. Complainant used to reside at the first floor of the above said house. At the second floor, there were six persons present. Complainant identified all of them by stating that these persons gave beatings to him. He identified them as accused Jai Govind, Vinay, Sunny, Dharmender and Avinash, however, he was not able to recollect the name of sixth accused who was identified by the complainant on that day. He interrogated all the six accused persons. The witness has correctly identified accused Jai Govind, Dharmender, Vinay and Sunny. However, he had identified accused Nirved Kumar as accused Avinash Kumar. He has further deposed that IO arrested all the six accused persons and prepared their arrest memos and personal search memos. The same are proved as Ex.PW-2/G (that of accused Jai Govind); Ex.PW-2/H (accused Sh.Vinay Kumar) Ex.PW-2/B that of accused Avinash Kanmar): Ex.PW-2/C (that of accused Dharmender); Ex.PW- 2/A (that of accused Sunny) and Ex.PW-2/L. (that of accused Nirved Kumar). The personal search memos of all the accused persons are proved as Ex. PW-2/1 (that of accused Jai Govind); Ex.PW-2/J (that of accused Vinay Kumar); Ex.PW-2/D (that of accused Avinash); Ex.PW- 2/E (that of accused Dharmender); Ex.PW-2/M (that of accused Sunny) and Ex. PW-2/N (that of accused Nirved Kumar).
15.2. He has further deposed that accused Vinay disclosed that he could get recover the weapon of offence i.e. an Iron Pipe which was used by him at the time of commission of offence and accordingly, he got FIR No: 534/2016 Page 16 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 17 : recovered one iron pipe, which was lying in the corner of their house situated at the second floor. The length of the said pipe was about 02 feet. IO seized the said pipe vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-2/F. Thereafter, all the accused persons were brought to PS. Case property was also brought in the PS by the IO. This witness has identified the pipe as Ex.P.1 before the Court.
15.3. In response to leading question put to him by the Ld. Prosecutor, this witness admitted that the house in question was T-563 and not T-
532. Inadvertently, he has deposed the H.No. T-532. He also admitted that IO recorded the disclosure statements of all the accused persons after their arrests and he had signed the same. The disclosure statements of accused Jai Govind, Vinay Kumar, Avinash Kumar, Dharmender, Sunny and Nirved Kumar are proved as Ex.PW-9/A to Ex.PW-9/F.
16.PW-10 ASI Virender Singh (Investigating Officer) has deposed that he was on night emergency duty in the intervening night of 30 & 31.10.2016. At about 10:28 PM, he received DD no.41A regarding quarrel at Street No. 2, near H.No. T- 563/CS-1, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. There he came to know that quarrel took place however, injured had already been taken to hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot at that time. He has further deposed that during the same night, he received DD no. 9A from RML hospital regarding admission of injured and went to RML hospital where he collected MLC of injured Manish Kumar, who was declared 'fit for statement'. There were total three injured persons namely Manish Kumar, Ranjit Kumar Singh and FIR No: 534/2016 Page 17 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 18 : Sheshnath. All the three injured persons were admitted in the hospital. He collected the MLCs of other two injured persons also and made inquiries from all the three injured persons but none of them gave statement. They informed that they were not in a position to give statement due to pain. Thereafter, he returned to PS. 16.1. On 31.10.2016 at about 12 noon, injured Manish came to PS. He recorded his statement in which he levelled allegations against six persons who gave beatings to him, Ranjit Kumar and Sheshnath. He specified names of three of the assailants namely Jai Govind, Vinay and Sunny and stated that the others were associates of above named three persons. He made an endorsement, proved as Ex.PW-10/A on the statement of Manish Kumar, proved as Ex.PW-2/A and handedover rukka to the duty officer for registration of the FIR. Thereafter, he alongwith injured Manish Kumar went to the spot i.e. Gali No. 2, near H.No. T-563, Baljit Nagar, Delhi. Ct. Shailender reached at the spot with copy of FIR and original rukka, which he handed over to him. He prepared site plan, proved as Ex.PW-10/B at the instance of complainant. The complainant informed that the assailants were available at the second floor of H.No. T-563. Then he alongwith complainant and Ct. Shailender went to the second floor of the abovesaid house. There were six persons present at the second floor. Complainant identified all the six persons by stating that they had assaulted him.
16.2. He interrogated all the six accused persons who informed their names as Jai Govind, Vinay Kumar, Sunny Deol, Avinash, Dharmender FIR No: 534/2016 Page 18 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 19 : and Nirved. He arrested all the six accused persons vide arrest memos, proved as Ex.PW-2/G (that of accused Jai Govind); Ex.PW-2/H (accused Vinay Kumar); Ex.PW-2/B (that of accused Avinash Kumar); Ex.PW-2/C (that of accused Dharmender); Ex.PW-2/A (that of accused Sunny) and Ex.PW-2/L (that of accused Nirved Kumar). The personal search memos of all the accused persons are proved as Ex.PW-2/I (that of accused Jai Govind); Ex.PW-2/J (that of accused Vinay Kumar); Ex. PW-2/D (that of accused Avinash); Ex.PW-2/E (that of accused Dharmender): Ex.PW-2/M (that of accused Sunny) and Ex.PW-2/N (that of accused Nirved Kumar). The witness has correctly identified the accused persons except accused Nirved.
16.3. He has further deposed that accused Vinay disclosed that he could get recover the weapon of offence i.e. an Iron Pipe which was used by him at the time of commission of offence and he got recovered one iron pipe, which was lying in his room situated at the second floor. The length of the said pipe was about 02 feet. IO seized the said pipe vide seizure memo, proved as Ex.PW-2/F. He recorded supplementary statement of Manish Kumar. During investigation, he recorded the statements of other two injured namely Ranjit and Sheshnath. He also recorded statement of Ct. Shailender. He has further deposed that he deposited the MLC of all the three injured persons for seeking opinion regarding nature of injuries. The nature of injuries was opined as "Simple" by the doctor on all the three MLCs. After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet. The witness has correctly identified the Iron Pipe as Ex.P.1 before the Court. The witness has FIR No: 534/2016 Page 19 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 20 : replied to the leading question put to him by the Ld. Prosecutor that he recorded the disclosure statements of al the accused persons, proved as Ex.PW-9/A to Ex.PW-9/F.
17.PW-11 Dr.H.K.Khowal, Consultant Venkteshwar hospital, Dwarka, Delhi has deposed that he gave opinion regarding nature of injuries as 'Simple' on the MLC of Manish Kumar Singh in the encircled portion X of the MLC, proved as Ex.PW-11/A. The patient Manish Kumar Singh was brought to hospital on 30.10.2016 and his MLC was prepared in the casualty department of the hospital by Dr.Navita Yadav.
18.PW-12 Ms.Lakshmi, Record Clerk, RML hospital, has deposed that MLCs of injured Sheshnath and Manish Kumar Singh were prepared by Dr.Neeraj Kumar, who had since left his services from the hospital and his present whereabouts are not available. She has further deposed that being record keeper, she can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr.Neeraj Kumar. Both the MLCs are in the handwriting of Dr.Neeraj Kumar. She also proved the MLC of injured Manish Kumar Singh as Ex.PW-11/DA and the MLC of injured Sheshnath is proved as Ex.PW- 12/A. She has also identified the signatures of Dr.Madhurima Prasad, who had given the nature of injury as 'simple' in the encircled portion B on the MLC Ex.PW-12/A. Dr. Madhurima Prasad had also left the hospital and her whereabouts are not available in the hospital record.
19.PW-13 Dr.Rani Sharma, Asstt.Professor (Radiology), RML hospital, Delhi has deposed that on 30.10.2016, he had examined the X-ray plate no. 139935 in MLC no. P/294894/16 of the patient. After examination, he had given his opinion that in the MLC X-ray, there was no FIR No: 534/2016 Page 20 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 21 : fracture/obvious bone injury was detected and the same is proved as Ex.PW-13/A.
20.Prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 28.07.2022 on submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined.
Statements of accused persons :
21.Statement of accused Jai Govind under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 15.09.2022; statements of accused persons namely Vinay Kumar and Avinash Kumar were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 14.10.2022; statements of accused persons namely Dharmender Kumar and Nirved Kumar were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 16.11.2022 and on 06.12.2022, statement of accused Sunny Deol u/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all the incriminating material on record were put to all the accused persons and they all stated that an incident had taken place on that day, however, not as per the version of the prosecution witnesses. They did not know whether Sheshnath Singh was also residing at the said address, however, Manish Kumar Singh was residing at the said address. No recovery had taken place at their instance or from their possession and the alleged recovery was planted. A minor dispute had taken place between Jai Govind and PW Manish on the issue of water at around 05:00 PM. Complaint Ex.PW-2/A is false. They further stated that a small dispute had arisen between Jai Govind and Manish on the issue of water. In order to take revenge, after getting drunk Manish alongwith his brother Sheshnath and Ranjeet stopped their way when FIR No: 534/2016 Page 21 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 22 : Jai Govind alongwith accused Vinay were going from the stairs to the market and tried to pull Jai Govind inside their room. They pushed them as a result of which Sheshnath fell down as he was drunk. Thereafter, Jai Govind alongwith Vinay went to the market and all three persons namely Manish, Sheshnath and Ranjeet were drunk and were standing near iron stairs and tried to drag Jai Govind in their room situated at ground floor. Meanwhile, Jai Govind pushed them and Sheshnath and other two persons fell down on the iron stairs. Later then, Jai Govind alongwith Vinay went to the market. They did not hit them. From market, they both went back to their respective rooms. All the accused persons led the evidence in their defence and examined DW-1 Ruby Devi and DW-2 Ajit Kumar Singh in their defence.
22.DW-1 Ruby Devi has deposed that on 30.10.2016 at 08:30 PM, while her husband and Vinay were going to market, in the meanwhile, Manish dragged her husband into their house while pushing them. They were under influence of liquor and went towards staircase. Sheshnath fell down and thereafter, she did not know what happened as she was watching from the staircase. She called Ajit, who came to her. They were pushing each other under the influence of liquor. 22.1. In the morning, police took her to the police station. Dharmender and Avinash were also taken to the police station by the police officers. In the PS, Sheshnath, Manish and Ranjeet were also present. Police made call to Jai Govind and called him at PS. Sunny and Narved were also called at PS to get release her husband on bail. Police had noted down the name and address of all the persons. Jai Govind, Vinay, FIR No: 534/2016 Page 22 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 23 : Sunny, Narved, Avinash, Dharmender were sent to the lock up. 22.2. However, during her cross-examination, she admitted that an altercation took place on the issue of water between her husband Jai Govind and Manish.
23.DW-2 Ajit Kumar Singh has deposed that on 30.10.2016, he was present in his room at H.No. 563, gali no.2, Baljeet Nagar, Delhi. One lady namely Ruby called him and he reached there and saw that in the iron staircase, pushing (धक्का मुक्की) were going on between Manish, Sheshnath, Ranjeet, Vinay and Jai Govind. He saw that Jai Govind and Vinay were going to market. He also saw that Manish, Sheshnath and Ranjeet were under influence of liquor. Thereafter, Jai Govind and Vinay left from there. Thereafter, he also returned to his room. 23.1. On the next day in the morning, police had come to his room. He was residing with three other persons in his room namely Vinay, Dharmender and Avinash. Police had made inquiry from them and asked whether anything happened there. He told to the police officer that nothing had happened. Thereafter, police officials took him, Vinay, Dharmender, Avinash and one lady namely ruby to the police station. At the Police Station, police officers made inquiry from them. Narved and Sunny were also called at Police station by the police officers by making phone call. Police had made inquiry from him and he had told the abovesaid facts to the police as well. The identity was got conducted by the police officers from Manish, Sheshnath and Ranjeet Singh of the accused persons. Narved, Sunny, Dharmender, Avinash were remained at PS. FIR No: 534/2016 Page 23 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 24 : Final Arguments:
24. The court heard the final arguments as advanced by Ld. Addl. P.P. for the State and Sh.R.M.Bhargav, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons and have gone through the entire material available on record.
25.It is argued by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts against all the accused persons. The prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have supported the case of the prosecution in totality except few minor contradictions which are bound to happen due to passage of time as the FIR was registered in the year 2016 whereas, the witnesses were examined in the year of 2017/18. Thus, it is stated by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused persons be convicted for all the offences for which they have been charged.
26.Per contra, it is argued by Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons that accused persons are innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case. He has further argued that all the accused persons were already known to the complainant. Police did not obtain any CCTV footage of the incident. There was no intention of the accused persons to commit the present incident which is the first ingredient of the section 308 IPC however, admittedly some altercation took place between the complainant and accused Jai Govind on the issue of water supply but in order to take revenge the present case has been registered against the accused persons. Thus, it is prayed that accused persons be acquitted from all the offences for which they have been charged. He FIR No: 534/2016 Page 24 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 25 : has also filed case laws in support of his arguments which are as under :
(1) Ashok Kumar & others v. State of Delhi, 2015 DHC 1636 in Crl.Appeal no. 17/2011 order dated 20.02.2015; (2) Sunil @ Dev v. State NCT Delhi 2018(1) LRC (Delhi) High Court of Delhi, Crl.Appeal No. 404/2011 decided on 04.01.2018; (3) Ramesh v. State in Crl.Appeal No. 965/2009, 2010 (1) JCC 796; (4) Bishan & Anr. v. State, 2007 Legal Eagle (SC) 1128 and (5) Manu Sao v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 310.
However, the abovesaid judgments are only on the standard of proof with different facts and circumstances, which do not fit in the present matter.
Appreciation of law & evidence :
27.It is a fundamental doctrine of criminal law that the onus to prove its case lies on the prosecution. Thus, in a criminal trial, the onus to prove the commission of offence by the accused is always upon the prosecution and the same never shifts upon the accused. The prosecution has to establish before the Court that the accused had committed the offence beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts.
28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nanjundappa and Anr. V. State of Karnataka, decided on 17th May, 2022 has reiterated its view taken in the judgment titled as S.L.Goswami V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Crl.L.J.511 SC that :
'....the onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage, does it shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook. Even in cases, where defence of the accused does not appear to be FIR No: 534/2016 Page 25 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 26 : credible or is palpably false, that burden upon the prosecution does not become any less. It is only when this burden is discharged that it will be for the accused to explain or controvert the essential elements in the prosecution case, which would negative it. It is not however for the accused even at the initial stage to prove something which has to be eliminated by the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence with which he is charged, and even if, the onus shifts upon the accused and the accused has to establish his plea, the standard of proof is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution'.
29. In the present matter, all the accused persons have been charged for the offences punishable under section 147/148/149 IPC alongwith 452/323/308/394/34 IPC. Therefore, before going into the merits of the matter, it is pertinent to mention what is unlawful assembly as per the provisions of Law.
30. Section 141 of the Indian Penal Code defines 'Unlawful assembly' as - 'An assembly of five or more persons is designated an 'unlawful assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is -
First - xxxxx Second - xxxxxx Third - to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence;
Fourth - xxxxx Fifth - xxxxx'
31.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held in case titled as Roy Fernandes v. State of Goa, AIR 2012 SC 1030 that 'to determine the existence of common object, the Court is required to see the circumstances in which the incident had taken place and conduct of members of unlawful assembly including the weapon of offence they FIR No: 534/2016 Page 26 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 27 : carried or used on the spot.'
32.Section 142 of the Indian Penal Code defines who is the member of Unlawful Assembly as - 'whoever, being aware of fact which render any assembly and unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.'
33. Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code describes the punishment for rioting and section 148 of the Indian Penal Code describes the punishment for rioting armed with deadly weapons. Hence, the section 148 of the Indian Penal Code is aggravated form of rioting for which enhanced punishment has been prescribed.
34.Further, section 149 of the Indian Penal Code defines that every member of unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object.
35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that section 149 of the Indian Penal Code does not create separate offence but only declares vicarious liability of all members of unlawful assembly for acts done in common object (reference made to Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel v. Rajeevbhai Dudabhai Patel, AIR 2018 SC 2472).
36.Reverting to the present matter, all the injured persons examined by the prosecution i.e. PW-1 Sh.Ranjeet Kumar Singh, PW-2 Sh. Manish Kumar Singh and PW-3 Sh.Sheshnath have specifically deposed on Oath while under examination that while they were watching television in the room of Sh.Manish Kumar Singh on 30.10.2016 at about 09:15 PM, all the accused persons trespassed into their room while carrying FIR No: 534/2016 Page 27 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 28 : rods, dandas, belts etc. in their hands, attacked them and started beating them with the said weapons. All the three injured sustained injuries and they were medically treated.
37.All the accused persons were correctly identified by PW-1 and PW-3 before the Court while under examination. All the accused persons were also correctly identified by PW-2 also except accused Nirved Kumar however, PW-2 has not stated that accused Nirved Kumar was not present but has only expressed his doubt upon his presence whereas, PW-1 and PW-3 have correctly identified all the accused persons including Nirved Kumar as the assailants who assaulted them on the day of incident though they were not able to tell the name of each of the accused persons specifically and their specific role, however thhe same is not at all fatal to the case of the prosecution since the identity and presence of all the accused persons is established on record.
38.Even PW-2 and PW-3 have correctly identified the iron rod/pipe by which they were attacked and later on recovered at the instance of one of the accused persons. PW-2 and PW-3 have even stated that while trespassing in their room, accused Vinay was carrying the said iron rod/pipe while accused Jai Govind was carrying a danda.
39. Moreover, the MLC of PW-1 Sh.Ranjeet Kumar conducted at RML hospital has been proved as Ex.PW-5/A, where alleged history of assault has been mentioned. On local examination, restriction of movement of left wrist and tenderness has been stated. Pain in back of FIR No: 534/2016 Page 28 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 29 : neck and left wrist has also been mentioned in the MLC with prescribing X-ray of Cervical Spine, left forearm and wrist. The nature of injury is stated to be blunt simple. PW-1 has specifically deposed that he sustained injury on his back and left hand when he was attacked by the accused persons. Hence, the ocular evidence of PW-1 is well corroborated by his medical record.
40.The MLC of PW-2 Sh.Manish Kumar Singh has been proved as Ex.PW-11/A, wherein alleged history of physical assault has been mentioned with history of loss of consciousness and nasel bleeding. On local examination, CLW of size 3 x 1 cm over right side of forehead was found and nature of injury is stated to be blunt simple. Even the PW-2 has deposed specifically that he sustained injuries on his forehead and blood started oozing out. Hence, the ocular evidence of PW-2 is well corroborated by his medical record.
41.The MLC of PW-3 Sh.Sheshnath has been proved as Ex.PW-12/A with alleged history of physical assault on 30.10.2016 and on local examination, CLW of size 7 x 1 cm. over right parietal region and swelling, tenderness with painful movement in right forearm was found. The nature of injury is stated to be blunt simple. Even PW-3 has specifically deposed that accused Jai Govind attacked him with danda and in order to save himself, he had put his hand on his head and accordingly sustained injury on his head. Thereafter, accused Vinay caused injuries on his head with iron pipe. Hence, the ocular evidence of PW-3 is well corroborated by his medical record.
FIR No: 534/2016 Page 29 of 33State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 30 :
42.Ld.defence counsel has argued that the injuries were sustained by the injured persons as they fell from the staircase, as also deposed by the defence witnesses. However, there is no suggestion to the same either to PW-1, PW-2 or PW-3 and even contused lacerated wound (CLW) of the measurement stated by the prosecution doctors cannot be said to have happened only due to fall when the injury stated to be blunt in nature and there is no occasion to doubt the testimony of the prosecution witnesses who are themselves injured persons.
43.Ocular evidence is considered as the best form of evidence in a criminal trial, given that it is duly corroborated by other evidences and there is no reason to doubt it. It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness, in as much as, he sustains injuries in the incident. As such, there is an inbuilt assurance regarding his presence at the scene of the crime and it is unlikely that he will allow the real culprit to go scot free and would falsely implicate any other person.
44.In the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [(2010) 10 SCC 259], it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under:
'Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built−in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness."FIR No: 534/2016 Page 30 of 33
State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 31 :
45. Further, in the case reported as Jarnail Singh & others v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719, also it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that testimony of an injured witness will have a special evidentiary status. It was held as under :
'.....the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.'
46.Hence, in view of the abovesaid Judgments as well as from the ocular evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons committed house trespassed into the room of the complainant and have committed the offence punishable u/s 452 IPC.
47.From the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses/injured persons coupled with medical evidence proved on record, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons voluntary caused hurt to PW-1 Sh.Ranjeet Kumar and committed the offence punishable u/s 323 IPC.
48.From the ocular evidence of prosecution witnesses/injured persons namely PW-2 Sh.Manish Kumar Singh and PW-3 Sh.Sheshnath coupled with medical evidence proved on record, it has been proved FIR No: 534/2016 Page 31 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 32 : beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons caused hurt with iron rod to Sheshnath and Manish Kumar Singh with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they caused their death, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder since the injuries to both the aforesaid injured persons were on their vital parts i.e. CLW of size 7 x 1 cm over right parietal region of PW-3 Sh.Sheshnath and CLW of size 3 x 1 cm over right side of forehead of PW-2 Sh.Manish Kumar Singh and thereby committed the offence punishable u/s 308 IPC.
49.It has also been specifically deposed by all the three prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that PW-1 came to the room of PW-2 and PW-3, i.e. the spot of incident, with cash of Rs.10,500/- approx. in order to hand over the same to PW-3 Sheshnath to be sent to the native village of PW-1 as PW-3 was traveling to the village on the very next day on account of 'Chhathh Pooja'. However, none of the witnesses has deposed that the said cash of Rs.10,500/- was robbed by the accused persons and it is only stated by PW-2 that after the accused persons left the spot, Rs. 10,500/- (approx.) were not found. Hence, the ingredients of Section 394 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution by any stretch of imagination.
Conclusion/Findings :
50.Keeping in view the facts & circumstances as already discussed above, the ocular and medical evidence proved on record, all the accused persons namely Jai Govind, Vinay Kumar, Avinash Kumar, FIR No: 534/2016 Page 32 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar : 33 : Dharmender Kumar, Sunny Deol and Nirved Kumar are held guilty and convicted of the Charge under section 148 IPC and 452/323/308 IPC read with section 149 IPC. Further, all the abovesaid accused persons are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 147 & 394 IPC. As they are on bail in the present matter, they be taken into custody.
51.Let they be heard separately on the point of sentence. Copy of the Judgment be provided to the convicts free of cost.
SHEFALI Digitally signed by
SHEFALI BARNALA
BARNALA TANDONDate: 2024.05.29
TANDON 17:03:01 +0530
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON)
COURT ON: 29.05.2024 ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi.
It is certified that this Judgment contains 33 pages and each page Digitally signed bears my signatures. SHEFALI by SHEFALI BARNALA BARNALA TANDON TANDON Date: 2024.05.29 17:03:07 +0530 (SHEFALI BARNALA TANDON) ASJ-05 (West), THC, Delhi 29.05.2024 FIR No: 534/2016 Page 33 of 33 State v. Jai Govind & ors PS - Patel Nagar