Delhi District Court
State vs . Hari Om Fir No.118/2012 Ps Aman Vihar on 26 July, 2022
-:: 1 ::-
IN THE COURT OF MR. NEERAJ GAUR : ASJ-05 : NORTH-
WEST : ROHINI COURTS/DELHI
In the matter of :-
(Sessions Case No.52263/2016)
CNR No. DLNW01-000986-2013
FIR No. : 118/2012
Police Station : Aman Vihar
U/s : 341 IPC & 307/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
Hari Om
S/o Sh. Ram Babu
R/o H. No. D 2/52, Hari Enclave-I
Aman Vihar, Delhi.
The accused Teja and Bholu were
convicted vide judgment dated 09.03.2017
u/s 307/34 IPC. Accused Teja was further
convicted u/s 341/34 IPC. Both the said
convicts were sentenced on 05.04.2017.
Accused Hari Om was re-arrested as PO
on 29.01.2020.
......Accused
Date of institution : 01.02.2014
Date of arguments : 19.01.2022
Judgment Pronounced on : 26.07.2022
Decision : Accused Hari Om held guilty
and convicted u/s 341 IPC &
u/s 307/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 1 of 14
-:: 2 ::-
PROSECUTION CASE
1. Three accused persons have been initially charge-sheeted with the allegations that on 03.05.2012, all 3 of them attacked the complainant Ankit and stabbed him with a knife with the intention to kill him.
CHARGE
2. Vide order dated 26.07.2013, charge u/s 307/341/34 IPC was framed against the 3 accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial.
3. It is pertinent to note at this stage that accused Hari Om was declared a PO after all PWs were examined. The accused Teja and Bholu were convicted vide judgment dated 09.03.2017 u/s 307/34 IPC. Accused Teja was further convicted u/s 341/34 IPC. Both the said convicts were sentenced on 05.04.2017. Accused Hari Om was arrested on 29.01.2020.
State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 2 of 14
-:: 3 ::-
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined total 9 witnesses.
Material/Public Witnesses
5. PW-1 Ankit deposed that on 30.05.2012, he had gone outside his house for some work and when at about 9:00 pm he reached near J.N, School, Hari Enclave, Phase-I, accused Hari Om and Teja obstructed his way on which he had the right to proceed misbehaved and abused him. Accused Hari Om told PW1 "achhe achhe ko seedha kiya hai, aaj kal tu badi dadagiri me rehta hai, tujhe theek karna padega". On this, PW-1 requested Hari Om and Teja to behave properly. Both of them caught hold of his collar and then started beating him. PW-1 somehow rescued himself and ran away from there. Hari Om and Teja chased him while saying, "aaj tujhe khatam karke hi rahenge". When Ankit reached near his house, Hari Om, Teja reached there. Accused Bholu also reached there. Hari Om and Teja then caught hold of PW-1 and accused Bholu a took out a knife and gave a knife blow on the right side of his abdomen. On raising an alarm by the PW-1, all 3 accused fled away from the spot. PW-1 deposed that he was shifted to Sanjay State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 3 of 14
-:: 4 ::-
Gandhi Memorial Hospital by his family members and neighbors where his statement Ex. PW1/A was recorded by PW-5 HC Harphool on 04.05.2012.
6. PW-2 Aslam Khan and PW3 Razia Begum deposed that they were sitting on the Chabutari of staircase in the street outside the house of complainant/PW-1. On hearing the noise of 'Bachao Bachao' of Ankit, they went to spot and saw that the accused persons were beating PW-1. They tried to save/rescue PW-1 but accused Hari Om and Teja had caught hold of PW-1 and accused Bholu gave knife blows on the right side of abdomen of Ankit. They further deposed that PW-1 fell on the ground. PW-2 deposed that that with the help of other persons, they shifted PW-1 to SGM Hospital.
7. PW-5 HC Har Phool and PW-6 Ct. Devender deposed that on receipt of DD NO. 50A, they went to JNM School, Hari Enclave where public persons informed them that PCR Van had shifted the injured to SGM Hospital. PW-5 alongwith PW-6 reached SGM Hospital and PW-5 obtained the MLC of PW-1 and recorded his State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 4 of 14
-:: 5 ::-
statement. He prepared Tehrir Ex. PW5/A and sent PW-6 Ct. Devender to Police Station for registration of FIR.
8. PW-9 HC Rajesh Kumar deposed that while working as duty officer, he registered the present FIR through computer operator on the basis of rukka brought by PW-6 Ct. Devender. Computerized copy of FIR is Ex. PW9/A. PW9 also made his endorsement Ex. PW9/B on the rukka and handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to PW-6 for handing over the same to PW-8 ASI Satyavir Singh to whom the further investigation was marked.
9. PW8 ASI Satyavir Singh deposed that he along with PW 6 Ct.
Devender reached SGM Hospital where PW-5 handed over to him the sealed pulanda of clothes of injured along with seizure memo Ex. PW5/B. PW-8 prepared site plan Ex. PW8/A of the spot at the instance of PW-2.
10. PW-3 Dr. Brijesh Singh deposed that he medically examined PW-
1 Ankit vide MLC Ex. PW3/A and observed one incised wound 4cmX1cm over right iliac fossa. He opined the injury as grievous- State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 5 of 14
-:: 6 ::-
dangerous. Blood soaked white T-shirt of victim was also sealed and handed over to IO.
11. During the evidence, the prosecution proved the arrest and personal search memos of the accused persons as Ex. PW5/C, Ex.
PW5/D, Ex. PW8/B, Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW7/A. The prosecution also proved the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW7/E. The memo regarding the non- recovery of knife is Ex. PW7/D. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE
12. The entire incriminating evidence was put to the accused Hari Om u/s 313 CrPC. The accused denied the evidence and claimed that he was falsely implicated. The accused opted not to lead the defence evidence.
ARGUMENTS AND FINDINGS
13. It is argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that it was the complainant and his friends who were abusing in drunken state and who State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 6 of 14
-:: 7 ::-
attacked the accused persons with sticks. It was the family of the accused Hari Om who had rescued him from the complainant and made a 100 number call. Hari Om himself sustained injuries on his head and was examined at SGM Hospital on 03.05.2012. No action was taken by the police despite a complaint made by the father of the accused Hari Om. The police however registered the present FIR in collusion with the complainant. It is submitted that IO/PW-8 SI Satyaveer Singh stated in his cross-examination that accused Hari Om also sustained injuries but it was simple injury as per MLC. PW-8 further admitted that it came to his knowledge that FIR No.289/12 PS Aman Vihar was registered on a complaint u/s 156 (3) CrPC made by the father of Hari Om. It is argued that the fact that Hari Om himself sustained injuries and an FIR has been registered on the complaint of his father, emboldens the case of Hari Om that it was him who had suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant.
14. Ld. APP for the State argued that the version of PW-1 Ankit has been corroborated by PW-2 Aslam and PW-4 Razia Begum. The accused Hari Om has been identified by the complainant as well as State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 7 of 14
-:: 8 ::-
by PW-2 & 4. It is further submitted that as per the MLC of complainat Ex.PW-3/A, he had suffered deep stab wounds on his ILIAC FOSSA. The nature of the injury has been opined as dangerous/greivous by PW-3 Dr. Brijesh Singh. It is argued that the intention of the accused persons is quite evident that they had intended to kill PW-1 and that they had the knowledge that such injury could be fatal. The common intention of the 3 accused persons can be gathered from the conduct of the accused persons at the time of committing the crime.
15. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision of law which is as under:-
Section 307 IPC - Attempt to murder. - Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--
2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] section 339 IPC Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 8 of 14
-:: 9 ::-
direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
section 341 IPC Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
16. I have considered the rival submissions and gone through the record. PW-1 supported the prosecution case. He categorically deposed about the specific role played by each of the accused person including that of accused Hari Om. PW-1 succeeded to rescue himself from accused Hari Om and Teja when they had initially caught him. Accused Hari Om and Teja still chased him and accused Bholu also reached near the house of the complainant. Accused Hari Om and Teja then caught hold of PW-1 and accused Bholu stabbed him with a knife. The testimony of PW-1 could barely be shaken during cross-examination. An attempt was made during the cross-examination of PW-1 to suggest that he was drunk at the time of incident. The MLC Ex.PW-3/A of the contemporary time is silent as regards any alcohol content in PW-1. PW-2 Aslam and PW-4 Razia Begum are independent witnesses who have corroborated the version of PW-1 regarding the quarrel. Nothing State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 9 of 14
-:: 10 ::-
has come in the cross-examination of PW-2 to doubt his testimony. Similarly, PW-4 has not at all been cross-examined on behalf of the accused persons.
17. A defence has been propounded during the arguments that the family members of accused Hari Om saved accused Hari Om from PW-1 and his associates. One suggestion has been given to PW-1 on this line of defence but no further material has been brought on record in support of such a defence. The nature of injuries on PW- 1, as dangerous/grievous, as opined by PW-3, has not been challenged during the cross-examination of PW-3. On the other hand, even if it is presumed that Hari Om sustained injuries, the said injuries were simple (as deposed by PW-8 in cross- examination). The mere fact that accused Hari Om was examined at the hospital with an injury on his head is not a sufficient proof of the fact that he was inflicted the injuries by PW-1. The possibility that accused Hari Om was beaten up by the public persons at the spot can also not be ruled out. It is pertinent to note that in the statement recorded u/s 313 CrPC, not only the co-accused Bholu State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 10 of 14
-:: 11 ::-
and Teja but accused Hari Om himself did not state about Hari Om being beaten up by PW-1 Ankit.
18. By way of suggestion to PW-2, it has also been propounded by the accused that PW-1/Ankit had suffered injuries by slipping on the road when PW-1 & 2 were running away after hitting accused Hari Om. PW-2 denied the suggestion. It is pertinent to note that no such suggestion has been given to PW-1 during his cross examination. PW-3 Dr. Brijesh Singh has also not been suggested during his cross-examination regarding his opinion as to the nature of the injuries or suggesting that such injuries could be caused by falling on the road. The injuries mentioned in MLC Ex.PW-3/A clearly mention that it was an incised wound and such injury is not likely to be caused by falling on the road.
19. It is further argued by Ld. Defense counsel that PW-3 Dr. Brijesh Singh only examined the injured Ankit initially and prepared his MLC. The depth of the incised wound has not been mentioned by PW-3 in the MLC. Only the Dr. who had performed the surgery was in a position to know the nature of the injury but the opinion State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 11 of 14
-:: 12 ::-
as to the nature of the injuries has been given by PW-3. It is argued that the opinion given by PW-3 as to the nature of the injuries as grievous is not reliable.
20. I have considered the above submissions. It is pertinent to note that no question has been put to PW-3 during cross-examination to challenge his opinion as to the nature of injuries. As such, the opinion given by him cannot be discarded.
21. It is further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per PW-5/ HC Harphool, the injured Ankit was taken to the hospital by PCR officials. However, as per the MLC Ex.PW-3/A, Ankit was brought by Priyanka. The said Priyanka has not been cited as a witness.
22. In my opinion, because PW-5 stated that Ankit was taken in the PCR Van, does not necessarily implying that the injured was not accompanied by any other person. Ankit/PW-1 deposed that he was accompanied by other persons besides the PCR officials. So there is nothing strange or suspicious that the name of one such person is mentioned in the MLC. The non-citing of the said person State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 12 of 14
-:: 13 ::-
as a witness is not fatal to the investigation or to the prosecution case as such person may not have witnessed the incident.
23. After appreciation of the evidence proved on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has proved that the accused Hari Om and Teja wrongfully restrained the complainant Ankit and prevented him from proceeding in the direction in which he had right to proceed. The ingredients of section 341 IPC are duly proved on record beyond reasonable doubts. The common intention of the accused persons can be gathered from the facts that (a) the accused Hari Om and Teja chased Ankit by saying "aaj tujhe khatam karke hi rahenge", (b) accused Bholu also reached near the house of the complainant, (c) accused Hari Om and Teja caught hold of Ankit and (d) giving knife blows by co-accused Bholu. From these facts, it can also be gathered that the accused persons possessed the intention or knowledge that the injuries could be fatal and if fatal, they all would be guilty of murder. The charge u/s 307/34 IPC is also proved against the accused Hari Om.
State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar Page No. 13 of 14
-:: 14 ::-
CONCLUSION
24. In view of the discussion made herein above, I hold accused Hari Om guilty and accordingly convict him u/s 341 IPC & u/s 307/34 IPC.
Announced in the Open Court (Neeraj Gaur)
On : 26.07.2022 ASJ05/NorthWest District
Rohini Courts/Delhi/26.07.2022
State Vs. Hari Om FIR No.118/2012 PS Aman Vihar
Page No. 14 of 14