Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder on 31 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGEII (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 131/2013
Unique Case ID: 02404R0120482013
State Vs. Ravinder
S/o Attar Singh
R/o H. No. B85, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
(Acquitted)
FIR No. : 280/2012
Police Station : Subhash Place
Under Section : 326/307/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 08.07.2013
Date on which orders were reserved : 31.10.2013
Date on which judgment pronounced : 31.10.2013
JUDGMENT (Oral)
BRIEF FACTS (1) As per the allegations on 20.7.2012 between 10:45 PM to 11:10 PM at Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur, the accused Ravinder along with his two associates (not arrested) gave beatings to the complainant Bhanu Pratap and gave a knife blow on his stomach.
State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 1 of 17 CASE OF PROSECUTION IN BRIEF (2) The case of prosecution in brief is that on 20.07.2012 on receipt of DD No. 66A, SI Amit along with Ct. Krishan reached at the spot i.e. Samrat Cinema where he came to know that the injured was already shifted to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital by the PCR Van on which he along with Ct. Krishan went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and obtained the MLC of the injured. Thereafter, SI Amit came to know that the injured has been referred to DDU hospital and hence he along with Ct. Krishan reached at DDU hospital where also the doctor declared him not fit for statement. On 21.07.2012 when the doctors declared the injured fit for statement, he recorded his statement. The injured Bhanu Pratap alleged in his statement that on 20.7.2012 at about 9:30 PM he along with his friends namely Bhanu Pratap S/o Nawal Singh and Ravi had gone to watch movie in Samrat Cinema and while he was sitting on the first seat near the entry gate his two friends were sitting after two seats in the same row. He further alleged that at about 10.15 PM he had vomitted on which the safai karamchari namely Ravinder who was already known to him came there and started abusing him on which he (complainant) slapped him after which Ravinder went away. The complainant further alleged that after some time Ravinder returned back having some sharp edged thing in his hand along with his two associates, Ravinder gave a blow of that sharp edged thing on his stomach after which his friends Ravi and Bhanu Pratap shifted him to the hospital. State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 2 of 17 (3) On the basis of the statement of complainant, SI Amit prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered. During investigations, the accused Ravinder was arrested and after completing the investigations, the charge sheet was filed in the court.
EVIDENCE (4) In order to discharge the onus upon it, the prosecution has examined as many as twelve witnesses, as under:
Public Witnesses:
(5) PW7 Bhanu Partap S/o Suran Bhan is the victim / injured who has turned hostile on the identity of the accused and also on the manner in which the incident took place. He has deposed that in the year 2012 he had gone to see the movie at Samrat Hall, Shakurpur, Delhi and was watching the movie in the hall in the night show from 9.00 PM to 12.00 midnight when 23 persons came and exhorted "kursi se khada ho"
and they took out some sharp edged object and they assaulted on him on which he become unconscious and he thereafter he does not know anything. The witness has deposed that he cannot identify those assailants, whether they are present in the court or not. The witness was asked to look into the court room and to identify the assailants but he failed to identify the assailants after seeing in the court room. The witness has however admitted that when he regained his consciousness in State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 3 of 17 the hospital his statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW7/A which bears his signatures at point A. (6) This witness has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP as he was resiling from his earlier statement given to the police. In his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP, the witness has admitted that Bhanu Pratap S/o Naval Singh and Ravi S/o Bhuri Singh are his friends. He further admits that both had gone with him to watch the movie and that both his friends were sitting in the first row ahead off his row. The witness has denied that while was watching the movie at about 10.45 PM, he was to vomiting and when he vomited, the accused Ravinder came and assaulted him and asked why he had vomited in the hall. The witness has further denied that the accused who was present the court was the watchman in the hall and when he vomited, he (accused) had assaulted on him. He further denied that he knew accused Ravinder earlier or that the accused Ravinder started abusing him while he vomited. The witness has further denied that on account of the behaviour of accused, he slapped him. The witness has deposed that thereafter accused left the Cinema Hall and he came after some time along with his two associated and then he assaulted him with some sharp edged object as a result of which he received injuries. The witness has denied that as he has been won over by the accused on the material aspect that is why he is concealing from the material contents of his statement Ex.PW7/A. The witness has further denied that the accused Ravinder was known to him earlier and he is State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 4 of 17 intentionally not identifying him or that the contents of Ex.PW7/A were read over and explained to him and then he signed the same. The witness has also denied that he is deliberately concealing the material aspect as told by him before the IO when his statement was recorded. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity. (7) PW8 Bhanu Partap S/o Sh. Naval Singh has deposed that on 20.07.2012 he had gone to watch the movie along with his friend Bhanu Pratap S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan @ Sujan Singh and Ravi at Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur in the show 9.00 to 12.00 night and it was an English Movie and Bhanu Pratap was sitting behind his sitting row. According to the witness after some time he and Ravi heard the screams of Bhanu Pratap and they noticed that he was injured and they took him to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. The witness has deposed that he cannot identify the person who had caused injuries on the person of his friend Bhanu Pratap, he is also not able to identify the person whether he was present in the court. He has further deposed that even his statement was not recorded and he was never interrogated.
(8) The witness has cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP wherein the statement Mark A was read over to the witness which he denied having made before the police from point A to A. The witness had admitted that Bhanu Pratap S/o Suraj Bhan and Ravi S/o Bhuri Singh are his friends. He denied that while they were watching the movie at about 10.45 PM his friend Bhanu Pratap vomited due to some physical problem due to which State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 5 of 17 accused Ravinder came and asked him as to why he had vomited in the hall and he started abusing Bhanu Pratap and due to anger Bhanu slapped the watchman. The witness has deposed that thereafter accused Ravinder left from there and he came there after some time along with two other persons. He has denied that thereafter the accused Ravinder assaulted Bhanu Pratap with a sharp edged weapon and he and Ravi witnessed while assaulting on Bhanu Pratap. The witness has denied that as he has been won over by the accused on the material aspect that is why he is concealing from the material contents of his statement Mark A. The witness has denied that the contents of Mark A were read over and explained to him and then he signed the same. He further denied that he is deliberately concealing the material aspect as told by him to the IO when his statement was recorded. The witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity. (9) PW9 Ravi has deposed that on 20.07.2012 he had gone to watch the movie along with his friend Bhanu Pratap S/o Sh. Suraj Bhan @ Sujan Singh and Suraj Bhan S/o Naval Singh at Samrat Cinema, Shakurpur in the show 9.00 to 12.00 night and it was an English Movie and that Bhanu Pratap S/o Suraj Bhan was sitting behind his sitting row. The witness has further deposed that after some time he and Bhanu Pratap heard the screams of Bhanu Pratap and they noticed that he was injured and they took him to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. The witness has deposed that he cannot identify the person who had caused injuries State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 6 of 17 on the person of his friend Bhanu Pratap and he cannot identify the person whether he was present in the court. The witness has deposed that his statement was never recorded or his was not interrogated. (10) This witness has been cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP wherein the statement Mark A was read over to the witness which he denied having made so before the police from point A to A. He admits that Bhanu Pratap S/o Suraj Bhan and Bhanu Pratap S/o Naval Singh are his friends. The witness has denied that while they were watching the movie at about 10.45 PM his friend Bhanu Pratap vomited due to some physical problem due to which reason the accused Ravinder came and asked him as to why he had vomited in the hall and he started abusing Bhanu Pratap, due to anger Bhanu slapped the watchman. According to the witness thereafter accused Ravinder left from the there and he came there after some time along with two other persons. The witness has denied that thereafter accused Ravinder assaulted on Bhanu Pratap with a sharp edged weapon and he and Ravi witnessed while assaulting on Bhanu Pratap. He has also denied that as he has been won over by the accused on the material aspect that is why he is concealing from the material contents of his statement Mark A. The witness has further denied that the contents of Mark A were read over and explained to him and then he signed the same. He has also denied that he is deliberately concealing the material aspect as told by him before the IO when his statement was recorded. The witness has not been cross examined on State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 7 of 17 behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
Medical Evidence:
(11) PW5 Dr. Bhavna Gupta has deposed that on 20.07.2012 he was posted as CMO in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital, Pitampura, Delhi and on that day Dr. Saurabh was on duty as SR Surgery when at about 11:30 PM patient Bhanu Partap was attended by him vide MLC No. 1178 which is Ex.PW5/A, when he was brought to the hospital in injured condition, which bears his signatures at point A. According to the witness when the patient was examined by him, then he was referred to SR surgery and he was attended by Dr. Saurabh, SR Surgery who was on duty at that time. The MLC of injured Bhanu Partap is Ex.PW5/A which bears his findings from point X to X. The witness has deposed that after examining the patient he referred him for SR surgery. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity. (12) PW6 Dr. Prabhat Kumar has deposed on behalf of Dr. Saurabh and being well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Saurabh has identified his signatures on the MLC of the injured Bhanu Partap who was examined by Dr. Saurabh on 20.07.2012. The findings of Dr. Saurabh which is from point Y to Y is Ex.PW6/A bearing signatures of Dr. Saurabh at point A showing the nature of injury was grievous. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 8 of 17
Official / Police Witnesses:
(13) PW1 Ct. Krishan Kumar has tendered his examinationin chief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 wherein he has stated that on 20.7.2012 he was on emergency duty at police Station Subhash Place and on receiving the DD No. 66A by SI Amit, he along with SI Amit reached at the spot where they came to know that the injured was shifted to Bhagwan Mahavir hospital on which they reached at the hospital and collected the MLC of injured Bhanu Pratap who was admitted there and was unfit to make statement. The witness has further stated that later he along with SI Amit reached at DDU hospital where the inured was referred and SI Amit recorded the statement of Bhanu Pratap and prepared the rukka on the basis of which the FIR was registered. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
(14) PW2 HC Ram Karan has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 wherein he has stated that on 20.7.2012 he was working as DD Writer and at about 11:25 PM on receipt of PCR call he lodged the DD No. 66A copy of which his Ex.PW2/A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
(15) PW3 Ct. Devender has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 wherein he has stated that on 20.7.2012 he was posted at Police Control Room and at about 23.24 hours State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 9 of 17 on receipt of a call on 100 number from Chater Pal he transmitted the said call to District Control Room North West. He has relied upon the PCR form which is Ex.PW3/A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
(16) PW4 HC Niranjan has tendered his examinationinchief by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/1 wherein he has deposed that on 20.7.2012 he was working as Duty Officer and at about 11:50 AM SI Amit produced a rukka before him and he made Kayami on the same vide DD No. 12A copy of which is Ex. PW 4/A on the basis of which he recorded the present FIR copy of which is Ex.PW4/B and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW4/C. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity. (17) PW10 Ct. Dinesh has deposed that on 21.07.2012 he was posted at Police Station Subhash Place and on that day he joined the investigations along with IO SI Amit and went to house No. BP85, JJ Colony, Shakurpur where they met the accused Ravinder who was identified by victims Bhanu and Ravi who had also joined them. The witness has deposed that Ravinder was interrogated and thereafter the IO arrested him vide memo Ex.PW10/A, his personal search memo is Ex.PW10/B and his disclosure statement was also recorded vide memo Ex.PW10/C. The witness has deposed that the accused then led them to the spot of incident i.e. Samrat Cinema E block Shakurpur after which IO State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 10 of 17 prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW10/D. The witness has identified the accused Ravinder.
(18) In his cross examination the witness has deposed that he did not mention to the IO while his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. was recorded that the eye witness Bhanu Paratap was also with them when the accused Ravinder was apprehended and accused Ravinder was pointed out by him to them and has voluntarily stated that actually Bhanu Partap and other eye witnesses were not with them at that time when they went to the house of Ravinder to apprehend him and they were only present when the site plan was prepared. According to the witness the site plan was also prepared in his presence but it does not bear his signatures. He has denied that the site plan was not prepared in his presence and that is why he did not mention this fact in his examination in chief nor this fact is mention in his statement U/s 161 Cr. P.C. which is Ex.PW10/DX1. He admits that even in the police station neither the complainant Bhanu Pratap nor the eye witnesses Bhanu Partap and Ravi were called for the purposes of ascertaining and confirming the identity of Ravinder, the boy who had been arrested as the same person with whom the incident had taken place.
(19) PW11 SI Amit has deposed that on 20.07.2012 he was posted at police Station Subhash Place and on that day he was on Emergency Duty from 8PM to 8AM and on receipt of PCR call vide DD No. 66A, which is Ex.PW2/A he along with Ct. Krishan reached to the spot i.e. State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 11 of 17 Samrat Cinema but he did not find any eye witness or any injured at the spot. The witness has deposed that from there he came to know that the PCR van had already shifted the injured to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital on which he along with Ct. Krishan went to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital where he met the injured who was not declared fit for statement by the doctors. He obtained the MLC of the injured from the doctor and thereafter went back to the spot to find out any eye witness. According to the witness he received a phone call from Ravi claiming to be friend of injured who informed him that the injured is going to be referred DDU hospital and thereafter he along with Ct. Krishan reached at DDU hospital where also doctor declared him not fit for statement. The witness has deposed that on the next day i.e. on 21.07.2012 at about 10:30 AM doctors declared him fit for statement and he recorded his statement which is Ex.PW7/A attested by him at point B and thereafter he made his endorsement on the same which is Ex.PW11/A and converted the same into a tehrir and handed over the same to Ct. Krishan with the directions to take the same to the police station for getting the case registered. The witness has deposed that thereafter he along with Ct. Dinesh and friends of the victim namely Ravi and Bhanu Partap went to the spot of incident and prepared the site plan at the instance of Ravi and Bhanu Partap which site plan is Ex.PW11/B. The witness has further deposed that on the same day he along with Ct. Dinesh went to house No. B85, JJ colony, Shakurpur Delhi from where he apprehended accused Ravinder at 5:10 State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 12 of 17 PM on the basis of his name and address disclosed by the injured in his complaint. The witness has deposed that he arrested accused Ravinder vide memo Ex.PW10/A his personal search memo was also prepared which is Ex.PW10/B and accused made his disclosure statement which is Ex.PW10/C and in his disclosure statement accused Ravinder had disclosed that he had given the knife used in the incident to one of his associates who had ran away from the spot. The witness has deposed that thereafter accused led them to the spot of the incident and pointed out the place of incident after which he prepared the pointing out memo which is Ex.PW10/D. According to the witness he also interrogated the accused thoroughly in respect of his two other associates but he did not disclose anything about them and told that the said associates met him in Samrat Cinema only 23 times when they had come to watch movie at Samrat Cinema as accused Ravinder was working in Samrat Cinema as Safai Karamchari. The witness has deposed that thereafter accused was brought to the Police Station after getting him medically examined from Bhagwan Mahavir hospital. According to the witness, on the next day accused Ravinder was produced before the illlaka magistrate and one day PC remand was obtained. The witness has deposed that during his PC remand, accused Ravinder did not disclosed anything about their other two associates and about the above said knife. According to the witness during his PC remand accused was again taken to the spot i.e. Samrat Cinema for the search of his other associates but did not find them. He State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 13 of 17 has deposed that on the next day i.e. on 23.07.2012 accused was produced before the illaka magistrate and was remanded to JC. He has further deposed that after injured was discharged from the hospital, he accompanied injured Bhanu Partap to the spot i.e. Samrat Cinema in search of other accused persons but could not find them. The witness has identified the accused Ravinder in the court.
(20) In his cross examination the witness admits that when Ravinder was arrested neither the complainant Bhanu Partap nor the eye witnesses Ravi and Bhanu Partap were with him and he arrested him on the basis of the address given to him by the complainant. He further deposed that he did not get the identity of Ravinder confirmed from the injured after taking Ravinder to the PS because the complainant Bhanu Partap was still admitted in the hospital and the other eye witnesses namely Bhanu Partap and Ravi were not aware of the identity of the accused as they had not seen the actual incident happening. The witness has admitted that no weapon of offence has been recovered from accused Ravinder. He has denied that he did not conduct free and fair investigations or that the accused Ravinder has been apprehended only to work out the present case. He has also denied that accused Ravinder did not make any disclosure statement or that same was recorded by him of his own.
(21) PW12 SI Jai Bhagwan has deposed that on 11.04.2013 he was posted at PS Subhash Place and on that day he was handed over the State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 14 of 17 investigations of the present case by the SHO. The witness has deposed that the draft had already been prepared by the first IO. The witness has further deposed that he examined Ct. Devender from PCR and thereafter removed objections and finalized the challan and charge sheet and filed the same in the court. He has not been cross examined on behalf of the accused despite opportunity.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED (22) The star witnesses of the prosecution i.e. Bhanu Pratap S/o Suran Bhan (PW7), Banu Pratap S/o Naval Singh (PW8) and Ravi (PW9) not having supported the case of the prosecution and having turned hostile on the allegations against the accused and there being no incriminating evidence against the accused either in the form of ocular or circumstantial or medical or forensic, statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with.
FINDINGS:
(23) At the very Outset I may observe that the complainant / injured Bhanu Pratap (PW7) has turned completely hostile on the allegations and identity of the accused Ravinder. He has not identified the accused Ravinder as the assailant and has also stated that he cannot identify the assailants. Secondly at the time of apprehension and arrest of the accused neither the victim nor any eye witness were there to State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 15 of 17 confirm the identity of the assailant nor any Judicial TIP was conducted thereafter to confirm the identity of the accused Ravinder as the assailant.
Even in the court when a specific suggestion was put to the victim Bhanu Pratap S/o Suran Bhan that he has been own over by the accused, he has denied the same and has also denied that Ravinder is the person who had inflicted injuries upon him and has no connection with the incident. Thirdly the clothes of the injured were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer nor any blood stains were lifted from the spot of incident and there is no forensic evidence to connect the accused Ravinder with the alleged offence. Fourthly the case of the prosecution is that on the date of incident the accused Ravinder was working as Watchman in the Samrat Cinema but the Investigating Officer has not collected the relevant documents / evidence to confirm his employment at the spot and also that he was on duty at the relevant point of time. Neither his employment details nor the duty roaster has been placed on record. Lastly the case of the prosecution is that the accused Ravinder was known to the victim even prior to the incident and therefore had been named by the victim a fact which the victim Bhanu Pratap has denied in his testimony before the court. He has denied that he was previously known to the accused or that he had named him as such in the complaint made by him to the police.
(24) This being the background and all the material eye witnesses having turned hostile and there being no incriminating material against State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 16 of 17 the accused Ravinder either direct or circumstantial or medial or forensic or otherwise, his statement under Section 313 Cr.PC has been dispensed with and benefit of doubt is being given to the accused Ravinder who is hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 307 Indian Penal Code.
(25) File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU)
Dated: 31.10.2013 ASJII(NW)/ ROHINI
State Vs. Ravinder, FIR No. 280/12, PS Subhash Place Page 17 of 17