Delhi District Court
State vs . Raju @ Vinod on 26 April, 2012
/ 1 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02 CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI ID NO: 02401R0274932011 SC NO: 30/2011 FIR NO: 57/2011 PS PRASAD NAGAR U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC & 25 / 27 of Arms Act STATE vs. Raju @ Vinod JUDGMENT1 Sl. No. of the Case SC 30/2011
2 Date of Committal to Sessions 11/07/11 3 Date of Receiving by this Court 11/07/11 3 Name of the complainant HC Sadhu Ram 4 Date of commission of offence 11/04/11
5 Name of accused, parentage and Raju @ Vinod S/o Shri Chand R/o
address 16/870 H , Pyare Lal Road, Bapa
Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Age:
38 yrs
Offence complained of U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC & 25 / 27
6 of Arms Act
Offence charged of U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC & 25 / 27
7 of Arms Act
8 Plea of guilty Pleaded not guilty
9 Final order Convicted U/s 186/332/353 IPC.
10 Date on which order reserved 25.4.2012
11 Date on which order announced 25.4.2012
BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 11.4.2011 DD No.32A Ex. PW4/A was
received at PS Prasad Nagar at 11.15 am to the effect that Ct. Pravinder , Ct. Vijay, HC Mukesh , Ct.Ajit , Ct. Dalbir , HC Sadhu Ram and Ct. Jugal Kishore Page 1 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 2 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR left for patrolling in different beats. At 8.30 PM vide DD No.30A Ex.PW6/A HC Sadhu Ram informed that Raju @ Vinod has injured him and Ct. Jugal Kishore by a dragger and thread cutting scissor at Road No.3 near Gurudwara Road. It was also reported that both the police officials have apprehended accused Raju and this DD was assigned to SI Pawan who left for the spot with Ct.Bhoor Singh.
2. At the spot SI found HC Sadhu Ram and Ct. Jugal Kishore with injuries and blood stains on their uniform. HC produced before SI a dragger with blood stained and Ct. produced a thread cutting scissor. HC Sadhu Ram got his statement Ex.PW2/A recorded to the effect that while on patrolling duty at beat no.9 at 8.20pm , he and Constable Jugal Kishore heard some commotion from towards Gurudwara. 1012 steps close to Gurudwara , they saw a person holding a black colour dragger in his right hand. He was abusing and threatening people . HC identified that person being BC of the area namely Raju @ Vinod. Accused Raju @ Vinod was asked to behave properly but he continued to wave the dragger. Both police officials tried to catch hold of him upon which he stated that since they do not allow him to carry on his illegal activities he will eliminate them. Accused also stated that he already has 1520 criminal cases against him and addition of one or two more cases would not make any difference. Then accused assaulted the two police officials and hit on the right hand of HC and chest of Constable.
Page 2 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 3 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR Accused was disarmed upon which he took out a thread cutting scissor from the right side pocket of his pant and assaulted Ct. Jugal on his left cheek and right hand. Accused was disarmed again with the help of one Gautam Kumar. However, despite being disarmed, accused tried to free himself by giving bite injuries on the two police officials. Injured police officials were taken to Lady Harding Medical College Hospital where they both were examined as per which injured Sadhu Ram suffered simple sharp injuries vide MLC Ex.PW9/A and Ct. Jugal suffered simple injuries vide MLC Ex.PX1 and you were also medically examined vide MLC Ex.PX2.
3. On this statement ruqqa Ex.PW8/A was sent, FIR Ex.PW6/B U/s 307/186/332/353 IPC and 25 of Arms Act was registered, endorsement on ruqqa is Ex.PW6/C. SI prepared site plan Ex.PW8/B. SI seized dragger vide memo Ex.PW2/C, its sketch Ex.PW2/B. Seizure memo of cutter is Ex.Pw1/D and sketch is Ex.PW1/C.
4. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/A and his personal search was conducted vide Ex.PW1/B. SI seized blood stained uniform vide memo Ex.PW1/D and F. SI seized your Tshirt vide Ex.PW2/D. Blood sample of police officials were seized vide Ex.PW2/E and F. Malkhana entries are Ex.PW7/A, exhibits were sent to FSL and report is Ex.PW8/L, PW8/D , complaint U/s 195 Cr.PC. is Ex.PW10/A.
5. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC & Page 3 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 4 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR 25 / 27 of Arms Act was filed. After compliance of 207 Cr.P.C, case was committed to Sessions. During the course of trial accused was charged for commission of offence punishable U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC & 25 / 27 of Arms Act.
6. To prove its case prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. It was followed by recording of Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement of accused vide which accused denied allegations against him and opted to lead evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State and Ld. Counsel Ms.Chitramal, Advocate from Legal Aid for accused. I have also carefully perused the entire case file.
8. At the onset it would be appropriate to have glance at the gist of deposition made by PWs.
9. PW1 Gautam Kumar is a public witness who saw injured police officials at the spot .
10. PW2 HC Sadhu Ram is one of the injured and complainant . He narrated on the lines of aforementioned details apart from identifying accused and weapon of offence i.e. dragger as Ex.P1 .
11. PW3 Ct. Jugal Kishore is injured and he narrated on the lines of PW2 apart from identifying accused and weapon of offence as Ex.P1.
12. PW4 Ct. Parmila proved the relevant DD entry regarding the departure of Page 4 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 5 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR police officials in the Beats.
13.PW5 Ct. Vijay Singh visited spot and took both the injured and accusedto hospital. He also deposed that you accused sustained injuries while accused tried to run away after jumping from the Police Gypsy.
14. PW6 HC Vikas Rana was Duty Officer on 11.4.11 and he has proved the registration of case FIR .
15. PW7 HC Manoj was MHCM on 12.4.2011 and he has proved the relevant entry of Register No.19 vide which case properties were deposited and later on sent to FSL .
16. PW8 SI Pawan Kumar is IO of the case and he has detailed out entire investigational steps taken by him during investigation.
17. PW9 Dr. Gaurav Kochhar proved the MLC of injured Sadhu Ram.
18. PW10 ACP Sh. S.Sarvanana proved the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C.
19.PW11 Dr. Harvender Kaur proved the signature of Dr. Sneha on the MLC of injured Sadhu Ram .
20.In his defence , accused examined his wife Smt. Meena as DW1. In her statement DW1 stated that her husband Raju @ Vinod was lifted by the Police on 11.4.2011 forcibly and he was given beatings mercilessly.
21. At the onset it is observed that even though accused Vinod was charge sheeted U/s 25 & 27 Arms Act for possessing a dragger but close scrutiny of Gazette notification dated 17.02.79 No. F13/203/78, Home (G) reveals that Page 5 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 6 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR it only pertains to "Spring Actuated Knives, Gararidar, Buttondar Knives or other knives which open or close with the any other mechanical devices with a blade of any size or folding knives with a sharp edged blade of 7.12 cm or more in length and 1.72 cm or more in breath in public place should be regularized."
22.Close scrutiny of Seizure Memo Ex. PW 2/C and sketch Ex. PW 2/B reveals that the dragger Ex. P2 is not covered in the description of knives prohibited by the notification. As such by simple volition of Law no offence U/s 25 or for that matter 27 Arms Act can be said to have been committed by accused Vinod.
23.As far as the other charges are concerned, they are U/s 186/332/353/307 IPC. In order to make out a case of conviction U/s 307 IPC prosecution is supposed to prove following ingredients in terms of case titled State of Maharashtra vs. Kashirao, (2003) 10 SCC 434, wherein the apex court opined the following ingredients:
(i)that the death of a human being was attempted;
(ii)that such act was done with the intention of causing death; or that it was done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as : (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or that the accused attempted to cause death by doing an act known to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the Page 6 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 7 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR risk of causing such death or injury.
24.Perusal of the MLCs of complainant PW2 HC Sadhu Ram and PW3 Jugal Kishore Ex. PW 9/A and Ex. PX 1 reveals that they both had received only simple injury. The incised wound suffered by HC Sadhu Ram was shown to be .1 cm sharp cut on the right arm . It is evident that neither of the injured had received any injury on any vital part of the body . Minor abrasions on the cheek of Ct.Jugal Kishore are wholly insufficient to bring home charge U/s 307 IPC. Although accused Raju is shown to have exhorted to eliminate the injured but this plea has not been substantiated by the sole public witness PW1 Gautam Kumar. Even otherwise the claimed presence of blood on the dragger and Scissor stands nullified by the FSL Report in so far as no blood was detected there upon. The blood on the clothes of the injured did not tally with their samples as the samples were reported to have putrefied. In view of this I have no hesitation in concluding that prosecution has failed to bring home the charge U/s 307 IPC.
25.As regards charge of obstruction in duty, assault and causing hurt to public servant it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP that accused Vinod assaulted PW2 HC Sadhu Ram and PW3 Ct. Jugal Kishore while they were on patrolling duty and they tried to make Vinod calm down. It is not denied by accused that he is a registered bad character of the area.
26.While opening her submissions it is argued on behalf of accused by Ld. Page 7 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 8 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR Counsel that the only public witness by prosecution namely PW1 Gautam has not supported the prosecution case in so far as he has maintained that he reached the spot after the accused was apprehended. It is also argued that as per this witness he did not see accused holding any dragger or scissor.
27.Another grievance of the defence is that 7080 persons had collected there but still no other public person was made a witness. It is argued that both the injured police officials admitted that accused had made complaints against PW2 HC Sadhu Ram on 11.03.2011 and 04.04.2011.
28.As far as these complaints are concerned, once it is conceded by the accused in his Section 313 Cr. P.C. statement that he is registered bad character of PS Prashad Nagar area and also that HC Sadhu Ram and Ct. Jugal Kishore used to come and routinely inquire about his movements, the police officials cannot be faulted upon for doing their duty. It goes without saying that movements of registered bad character of the area are supposed to be routinely checked by Beat Constables. Mere sending of complaints against such beat constables does not exonerate of accused of his wrong doings.
29.Although it has come on record that several public persons had gathered there, it cannot be said that police had not examined any one of them. Police did endeavour and joined PW1 Gautam Kumar at the spot. Simply because Page 8 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 9 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR he turned hostile during the trial, it does not mean that no independent public person was joined. Once it has come on record that accused is a registered bad character of the area it is evident that the residents of the locality must be having fearful apprehensions qua becoming witness against him.
30.In the matter in hand, the two witnesses i.e. PW2 & 3 are not only police witnesses but are injured witnesses as well . It is a settled legal preposition that until and unless there are compelling reasons , deposition of police witnesses cannot be discarded or disbelieved in a routine manner.
31. In another case titled Vijay Shankar Shinde Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2008 SC 1198, on the point of injured witness Hon'ble Supreme Court observed "Evidence of such witness lends more credence as normally he would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting the actual assailant ."
32.In case titled, " Kalpnath Rai Vs. State", 1998 AIR (SC) 201 Hon'ble Supreme Court observe that :
"There can be no legal proposition that evidence of police officers, unless supported by independent witnesses, is unworthy of acceptance. Non examination of independent witness or even presence of such witness during the raid would cast an added duty on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinising the evidence of the police officers. If the evidence of the police officer is found acceptable it would be an erroneous proposition that court must reject the prosecution version solely or the ground that no independent witness was examined."
Page 9 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 10 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR
33.Although a suggestion was given by the defence to Doctor that the minor injuries sustained by police officials are also possible by self infliction but this suggestion does not ipso facto mean that the injuries were actually self inflicted. The defence cannot be believed in its assertions that police officials injured themselves just to implead accused in a false case . Even otherwise in his 313 Cr. P.C. statement accused Vinod has not denied the factum of both the police officials receiving injuries. As per him when the two police officials were chasing him, they perhaps fell down and got themselves injured. This suggestion has not been put to either of the witnesses during the entire trial. It is not the case of accused in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement that injuries received by Police were self inflicted. Even the plea of his being arrested from his house was not suggested to either of the witnesses during trial. Even the public witness PW1 Gautam has supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that he had seen accused in the custody of the police on 11.04.2011 at the spot between 8.00 - 8.30 PM when accused HC Sadhu Ram and Ct. Jugal Kishroe, injured were bleeding and there was blood on their uniform. He conceded to have assured the police to become a witness of the incident.
34.All this goes on to show that a scuffle and assault had actually taken place during which accused assaulted the two police officials on duty in so far as DD No. 32 B Ex. PW 4/A categorically shows that the injured were on Page 10 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 11 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR patrolling duty in that beat. The deposition of the injured witnesses is duly corroborated by medical witnesses in so far as MLC of PW2 Ex. PW 9/A also show a mouth bite mark.
35.In view of the discussion I have no hesitation in concluding has prosecution has proved its case against accused Raju @ Vinod for commission of offences punishable U/s 186/332/353 IPC. Accused stands convicted accordingly. However, he shall be heard separately on the point of sentence. ANNOUNCED & DICTATED IN OPEN COURT ON : 25.4.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI) Addl. Sessions Judge02 Central : Delhi Page 11 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 12 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR IN THE COURT OF SHRI SURINDER S. RATHI:ASJ:02:
CENTRAL: ROOM NO.32:TIS HAZARI COURTS :DELHI SC NO: 30/2011 FIR NO: 57/2011 PS PRASAD NAGAR U/s 186/332/353 IPC.
STATE vs. Raju @ Vinod ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide separate judgment dated 25.4.2012 accused Raju @ Vinod was found guilty of commission of offence punishable U/s 186/332/353 IPC and he was convicted accordingly.
2. I have heard arguments of Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K. Negi for State and Ld. Defence Counsel of Legal Aid Ms. Chitramal, Advocate for convict . I have also perused the entire file.
3. On the point of sentence it is argued by Ld. Addl. PP Sh. V.K.Negi for State that convict assaulted HC Sadhu Ram and Ct. Jugal Kishore, both the police officials at public place and also obstructed them from doing their public duty and as such convict does not deserve any leniency
4. It is submitted on behalf of convict Raju @ Vinod that lenient view be taken as he is a married man and a sole bread earner in the family. He belongs to poor strata of society and earns his livelihood by undertaking chair repair jobs. He has four minor school going children and aged ailing widow mother to take care. It is also stated that he is in J/c in this case for the last more than one year.
Page 12 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012 / 13 / FIR NO: 57/2011 U/s 307/186/353 IPC PS PRASAD NAGAR
5. In view of the submissions, nature of offence and considering the poor background of the convict, convict is sentenced to undergo SI for the period of three months U/s 186 IPC. U/s 332 IPC, convict is sentenced to undergo SI for the period already undergone by the convict in this case i.e. one year and fourteen days w.e.f. 12.4.2011 till date. For commission of offence punishable U/s 353 IPC, convict is sentenced to undergo SI for one year. All the sentences shall run concurrently and convict shall be given benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. as he is in J/c since 12.4.2011.
6. Warrants be prepared accordingly. Copy of the judgment of conviction and order on sentence is being given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED AND DICTATED
IN OPEN COURT ON 26.4.2012 (SURINDER S. RATHI)
Addl. Sessions Judge02
Central Delhi
Page 13 / 13 of Judgment & Order on Sentence State Vs. Raju dt. 25.4.2012 & 26.4.2012