Delhi District Court
Sc No. 59098/16; Fir No.928/15; Ps. S. P. ... vs . Satish@ Rana Page No. 1 Of 14 on 3 October, 2018
-1-
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV AGGARWAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02, NORTH
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
STATE CASE No..................................59098/16
FIR No. 928/15
PS S. P. Badli
U/s: 308 IPC
State
Versus
Satish @ Rana
S/o Sh. Tare,
R/o H. No. A12, MCD Colony,
Samaipur Badli, Delhi.
Date of institution: 01.07.2016
Judgment reserved on: 18.09.2018
Judgment delivered on: 03.10.2018
ORDER/JUDGMENT: The accused is convicted of the
offence(s) u/S 308 IPC.
J U D G M E N T
1.Brief facts, as stated in the chargesheet are that on 01.08.2015, DD No. 34A was marked to HC Chander Singh, who alongwith Ct. Chander Bhan went to the place of occurrence I.e Jhanda Chowk, MCD Colony. At the said place of occurrence, it was revealed to the aforesaid police officials that injured after taking first aid from Bharat Hospital Samaypur Chowk had gone to BSA Hospital. Accordingly, SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 1 of 14 -2- both the aforesaid police officials went to BSA hospital, Rohini, Delhi, where HC Chander Singh had collected MLC No. 9097/15 of injured Vijender as well as MLC No. 9179/15 of injured Angrez. In the said hospital, HC Chander Bhan found injured Angrez S/o Bhup Singh under treatment. In the hospital itself, HC Chander Singh recorded the statement of injured Vijender which reads as under:
"That he has been working as safai karamchari with MCD and posted with Civil Line Zone, Azadpur. On or about 8:00 pm, he along with his friend Angrez were present at Jhanda Chowk. They were talking to each other. After some time, Satish @ Rana, who has been residing at MCD Colony, near Jhanda Chowk came to them and said that he had been searching for both of them for the last many days at that time Satish @ Rana was armed with rod and without any reason he started using abusive language and assaulted him as well as Angrez, as a result of which they both bleeded from their heads and after causing injuries, Satish @ Rana ran away from the spot. He further alleged that his family members took them to Bharat Hospital at Samaypur Chowk, from where after first aid, they went to BSA Hospital and were medically examined. He also alleged that Satish Rana without any reason had assaulted them with iron rod and caused injuries to SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 2 of 14 -3- them."
2. On the said statement, endorsement was made by HC Chander Singh, who handed over rukka to Ct. Chander Bhan, who went to PS and got FIR no. 928/15 registered from DO and investigations were marked to HC Chander Singh.
3. During investigations, IO HC Chander Singh prepared the rough site plan at the instance of complainant Angrez and made efforts for the search of accused Satish @ Rana. On 18.08.2015, on the identification of injured persons namely Vijender and Angrez, accused Satish @ Rana was arrested from Jhanda Chowk, MCD Colony. During investigations, efforts were made for the search of the rod, but in vain. During investigations, IO had recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained result on the MLCs of injured persons.
4. After completion of investigations, a chargesheet for offence punishable u/s 308 IPC was filed against the accused Satish @ Rana.
5. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, vide detailed order dated 02.11.2016, a charge(s) u/s 308 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 3 of 14 -4-
6. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case has examined 10 witnesses :
a) PW1 is Dr. Satya Ranjan Panda under whose supervision MLCs Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B of both the injured persons were prepared by Dr. Prasun Kumar, JR.
b) PW2 is ASI Gangadhar, who was working as a duty officer, who had recorded FIR Ex. PW2/A and also made endorsement Ex.
PW2/B on rukka and also issued certificate Ex. PW2/C u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act.
c) PW3 is injured Vijender, who deposed about the manner in which accused Satish @ Rana had assaulted him as well as his friend Angrez. He also exhibited the statement made by him before IO as Ex. PW3/A. He also exhibited the site plan as Ex. PW3/B which IO prepared at his instance. He also exhibited the arrest memo as Ex. PW3/C of accused Satish @ Rana and also exhibited the personal search memo Ex. PW3/D of accused Satish @ Rana.
d) PW5 is Dr. Brijesh Pathak, who medically examined both the injured persons from surgical side and made endorsement from portion X to X1 on both the MLCs Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. He also opined the nature of injuries on the MLCs as simple.
e) PW6 is injured Angrez, who deposed about the manner in which accused Satish @ Rana had assaulted him as well as his friend Vijender. He also exhibited the arrest memo as Ex. PW3/C of accused Satish @ Rana and also exhibited the personal search SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 4 of 14 -5- memo Ex. PW3/D of accused Satish @ Rana.
f) PW7 is Ct. Rajesh in whose presence, accused Satish @ Rana pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW7/A.
g) PW8 is HC Chander Bhan (Ct.), who had accompanied IO HC Chander Singh on receipt of DD No. 34A to the place of occurrence and thereafter to the hospital. He also took rukka to PS and got FIR registered from DO and after registration of FIR handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO.
h) PW9 is Ct. Bijender in whose presence accused Satish @ Rana was arrested on 18.08.2015 vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C and personal search memo Ex. PW3/D of accused Satish @ Rana was prepared.
i) PW10 is Sh. Sunder who deposed himself to be the witness of occurrence and had seen accused Satish @ Rana assaulting Angrez and Vijender with an iron rod on their head.
j) PW11 is IO ASI Chander Bhan (HC) who deposed regarding the investigations conducted by him. He also exhibited the rukka as Ex. PW11/A, rough site plan prepared by him as Ex. PW3/B, arrest memo of accused Satish @ Rana as Ex. PW3/C, personal search memo of accused Satish @ Rana as Ex. PW3/D, disclosure statement made by accused Satish @ Rana as Ex. PW11/D and pointing out memo as Ex. PW7/A. (It is pertinent to mention here that no witness as PW4 has been SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 5 of 14 -6- examined in the present case.)
7. I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Arjun Mehta, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
8. It was contended by Ld. Defence counsel that the testimonies of PW3 Vijender and PW6 Angrez are not trustworthy, as there are number of material contradictions in their testimonies which shows that they are not trustworthy witnesses. He has further argued that there is no independent witness to the alleged occurrence besides PW3 and PW6 to lend corroboration to their story. He further submits that both the injured persons even otherwise had received simple injuries on their scalp, therefore, no offence u/S. 308 IPC is made out.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State had strongly controverted the above allegations and had argued that from the testimonies of PW3 Vijender, complainant and that of PW6 Angrez, the prosecution has been able to establish the time, place as well as the manner of the incident, the identity of the accused is not in doubt as he was previously known to PW3 and PW6 being resident of the same locality. The incident took place without any provocation on the part of the above witnesses.
He further submits that in fact the Ld. Defence counsel has not SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 6 of 14 -7- chosen to crossexamine PW6 Angrez, whose testimony has gone unrebutted. Similarly, their testimonies have been corroborated by independent witness PW10 Sunder, who was selling street food at the place of the incident, who has also not been crossexamined. He further submits that as per the MLCs of the injured both of them had suffered injuries over parietal region of the head and they had been given sutures, therefore, the accused can be attributed with the intention or knowledge, that such injuries are likely to cause death of the above injured persons, if their death had been actually caused due to the said injuries. Therefore, attempt thereof, would be punishable u/S. 308 IPC.
10. I have gone through rival contentions.
11. PW3 Vijender in his testimonial deposition before the Court has deposed as under :
I am residing at the aforesaid address along with my family. I am working as a sweeper in MCD at Civil Line Zone, Azadpur. On 01082015, at about 8 PM, I along with my friend Angrej were talking each other while seating at Jhanda Chowk, Delhi. In the meanwhile accused Satish @ Rana, who is present in the court today, correctly SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 7 of 14 -8- identified by the witness, to whom I knew previously being a resident of same locality came there and started quarreling and abusing with me and my friend Angrej. All of sudden, he assaulted me and my friend Angrej with Iron Rod. I was hit with Iron Rod on my hands and other part of body. My friends Angrej was also assaulted by accused Satish @ Rana and hit the Iron Rod on his head. Blood was oozing from my head. Accused left the spot . We were taken to nearby Bharat Hospital by our family member. After taking the first aid at Bharat Hospital, we were removed to BSA Hospital. Police came in the Dr. BSA Hospital and made inquires from me and recorded my statement Ex. PW3/A, which bears my signatures at point A. On the basis of my statement case was registered. Thereafter, I along with my friend and police official visited the spot and police inspected the spot at my instance and prepared the site plan Ex. PW3/B which SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 8 of 14 -9- bears my signatures at point A. Thereafter we went in search of accused but all in vain. On 18082015, accused Satish @ Rana was arrested at Jhanda Chowk, MCD Colony, vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C bearing my signatures at point A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/D. Thereafter my statement was recorded by the IO.
Accused assaulted us without any reason and caused head injury to myself as well as my friend Angrej.
12. This witness was crossexamined. In his crossexamination regarding identity, he stated that he knew the accused since childhood. Nothing much has come out in his crossexamination which could help the case of the defence barring some suggestions, which were put to the witness, which he denied.
13. PW6 Angrez has more or less deposed on the same lines as has been deposed by PW3 regarding the time, place, the manner of the incident and giving of beatings / assault by the accused with iron rod on their head and other body parts without any provocation. PW3 SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 9 of 14 -10- and 6 have also stated regarding the arrest of the accused at their instance on 18.08.2015. Regarding the identity, PW6 has also stated that he knew the accused as he was the resident of MCD colony. The Ld. Defence Counsel has not chosen to crossexamine PW6 whose testimony has gone unrebutted. The testimony of PW3 converges with the testimony of PW6 regarding the manner of the incident, presence of the accused at the spot, as well as identity.
14. The testimonies of PW3 and PW6 are also corroborated by the testimony of PW10 Sunder, independent witness, who was a street vendor, selling street food, whose testimony is reproduced as under :
In the year 2015, I used to sell chowmein on my rehdi at Jhanda Chowk, MCD Colony, Badli. On that day, Angrez and Bijender were present there and were talking to each there and in the meantime, accused Satish Rana, who is present in the court today (correctly identified by the witness) came there and hit Angrez and Bijender with an iron rod on their head. Thereafter, he ran away from the spot. IO recorded my statement.
SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 10 of 14 -11-
15. The testimony of PW10 independent witness has gone unrebutted unchallenged. His testimony converges with the testimonies of PW3 and PW6 regarding the manner of the incident and presence of the accused, as well as PW3 and PW6, as also the manner of the assault by the accused. He has also reinforced the identity of the accused.
16. The IO has been examined in this case as PW11 namely ASI Chander Singh, who has deposed regarding the investigations as were carried out by him including the arrest of the accused as well as collecting the MLCs of the injured, writing of the rukka and the fact that despite his best efforts, the weapon of offence could not be recovered which is understandable as the incident took place on 01.08.2015 and the accused was arrested on 18.08.2015. Therefore, the accused had sufficient time to dispose off the weapon of offence.
Though IO had admitted in his crossexamination that many public persons were present at the spot at the time of incident, but he had not recorded their statements, at the same time the IO was not bound to record the statement of all the public witnesses present at the spot, as he had recorded the statement of PW10 Sunder, as already discussed above.
SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 11 of 14 -12-
17. Regarding the fact that the IO has admitted in his cross examination that it is not mentioned in the MLC by the injured persons the name of the assailant. The same also does not make any difference to the case of the prosecution, as the MLC is not the encyclopedia of the offence and the victim at that time is in pain and is not bound to disclose everything to the treating doctor.
18. The MLC of the injured Vijender and that of injured Angrez have been proved by PW1 Dr. Satya Ranjan Panda as Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B respectively and the nature of injuries have been proved as simple by PW5 Dr. Brijesh Pathak, SR Surgery. As per the MLC of injured Vijender Ex. PW1/A, following injuries were found :
a) Sutured wound (size 6 cm in length) over parietal region of scale;
b) Multiple abrasions (largest size 4 cm x 1 cm) over back.
Further, as per the MLC Ex PW1/B of injured Angrez, the following injuries were found :
a) Sutured wound (size 5 cm in length) over parietal region of scalp;
SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 12 of 14 -13-
b) Multiple bruises (largest size 4 cm x 1 cm) over right shoulder and back, colour redish.
19. In the present case, the accused had assaulted with an iron rod on the head of both the injured persons PW3 and PW6 due to which they had suffered injuries on the parietal region of their head which is one of the most vital part of the human body and any small injury thereon can be fatal and in fact both of them had to be given sutures to repair their injuries, as is evident from their MLCs., though the injuries were found to be simple in nature, but it is the intention and the knowledge, with which said injuries had been caused by the accused had to be seen and not the result thereof. The accused did what he could do to cause such injuries oblivious of the result.
20. Therefore, the intention or knowledge of the accused could be said to be of the kind or degree as mentioned u/s 299 IPC i.e. the accused can be attributed with the intention of causing such bodily injury, as was likely to cause death or with the knowledge that by such act he was likely to cause death. Therefore, the attempt thereof would be punishable u/s 308 IPC. Therefore, the prosecution has only been able to make out a case u/s 308 IPC.
SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 13 of 14 -14-
21. To sum up :
From the aforesaid analysis of evidence, the probative force of the prosecution evidence, as a whole is touching the point of certainty on the scales, where probability of happening of any event is assessed or measured, whereas the defence version is having very low probative force, which is almost touching the point of disbelief. As a consequence, the accused Satish @ Rana stands convicted u/S. 308 IPC.
Announced in the open Court (Sanjeev Aggarwal) rd on this 03 day of Oct. 2018. Addl. Sessions Judge02,North Rohini Courts, Delhi 03.10.2018 SC No. 59098/16; FIR No.928/15; PS. S. P. Badli; State Vs. Satish@ Rana Page No. 14 of 14