Delhi District Court
State vs . (1) Ranjeet on 31 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SHIVAJI ANAND, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-04 (NORTH), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Session Case No. 59412/2016
CNR No. DLNT01-013643-2016
State Vs. (1) Ranjeet
S/o. Sh. Deep Chand
R/o. Jhuggi No. 116/321/2, J.J. Camp,
Badli, Delhi.
Also at: Mungesar, P. O.-Mungmas, P.S.
Ghosi, District-Mahu (U.P.)
(2) Lalit @ Laila
S/o. Sh. Roop Chand
R/o. Jhuggi No. 116/321/2, J.J. Camp
Badli, Delhi
Also at: Village-Dargaha, P.S. Madhuban,
District-Mahu-(U.P.)
(3) Manish Kumar
S/o. Sh. Jasraj
R/o. N-116/505, J. J. Camp, Badli, Delhi.
FIR No. : 531/2013
Police Station : S. P. Badli
Under Sections : 308/323/34 IPC
Date of institution before Magisterial Court : 19.10.2016
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 01.12.2016
Date of institution before Sessions Court : 06.12.2016
Date of Argument : 27.03.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 31.03.2023
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly stated the case of prosecution is that Ritesh Mishra S/o. Sh. Ghanshyam Mishra was residing along with his family at R/o. Jhuggi No. N-116/319, J. J. Camp, Sector 19, Badli, Rohini, Delhi (Permanent address Dausatiya, Thana Sohnvarsha, District Sitamani, SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 1 of 31 Bihar). He stated that he was a truck driver by profession. He further stated that on 21.10.2013 at about 7.30 pm, while he was preparing himself for leaving his house for his duty, his neighbourers/accused persons namely Ranjeet, S/o. Sh. Deep Chand, Manish S/o. Sh. Jasraj and Lalit @ Laila S/o. Sh. Roop Chand started using abusive language against him and his wife Smt. Pushpa on the pretext as to why they had installed iron staircase in a gali. He further stated that upon this, he went to call Pradhan of the area, but the Pradhan could not meet and he returned back to his house after about 10 minutes. He further stated that when he had returned back to his house, with the intention of killing them accused persons started assaulting him, his brother Rakesh Mishra, his wife Smt. Pushpa and his maternal uncle Sh. Vinod with dandas and iron rods. He further stated that accused Ranjeet had caused danda blow over his head and accused Lalit had hit iron rod over his head twice and Vinod & Rakesh had assaulted by accused Ranjeet with Danda and his wife Smt. Pushpa was assaulted by the daughter of accused Ranjeet with leg and fists blows. Accused Manish had assaulted Vinod and Rakesh with leg and fists blow. All the accused persons namely Ranjeet, Manish and Lalit and family members of Ranjeet committed deadly attack on him and his family members and prayed that legal action may be taken against them.
During the course of investigation on 22.10.2013, the accused persons namely Ranjeet, S/o. Sh. Deep Chand, Manish S/o. Sh. Jasraj and Lalit @ Laila S/o. Sh. Roop Chand were arrested in the present case on the identification of complainant. On completion of investigation charge-sheet u/s 308/323/34 IPC, PS S. P. Badli, Delhi was filed against the accused before the concerned Magisterial Court on 19.10.2016.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 2 of 31
2. Vide order dated 25.01.2017 charge for the offences u/s 308/323/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit @ Laila and Manish, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined fourteen witnesses in all.
The details of said witnesses are as under:-
S.N Name of prosecution Purpose of examination o. witnesses
1. PW 1 Sh. Ritesh He is the complainant/injured in the Mishra present case. He came to prove the incident in question and his statement Ex.PW1/A.
2. PW 2 Smt. Pushpa For proving the incident in question.
3. PW 3 Sh. Rakesh For proving the incident in question.
Mishra
4. PW 4 Sh. Vinod He is also the injured/eye witness in the present case and came to prove the incident in question. He also came to prove the seizure memo Ex.PW4/A, arrest memo of Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D of accused Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish Kumar.
5. PW 5 Dr. Deepti He came to prove the MLCs Ex.PW5/A Bhalla of injured Rakesh Mishra, Ex.PW5/B of injured Vinod and Ex.PW5/C of injured Dr. Paras Singhla.
6. PW 6 ASI Satender He was the duty officer. He came to Kumar prove the computerized copy of FIR EX.PW6/A (OSR), endorsement on SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 3 of 31 rukka Ex.PW6/B and certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW6/C.
7. PW 7 Dr. Vijay He came to prove his opinion Dhankar Ex.PW7/A.
8. PW 8 Ct. Rahul He had joined the investigation with SI Ajay Kumar and came to depose about the investigation conducted by him.
9. PW 9 HC Santosh He came to depose about the investigation conducted by him and also came to prove the personal search memo Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C of accused Ranjeet, Lalit @ Laila and Manish Kumar. He also came to prove the disclosure statement of all the accused persons Ex.PW9/D, EX.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F respectively.
10. PW 10 Dr. Rekha She came to depose on behalf of Dr. Dewan Divya as she can identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Divya as she had seen him writing and signing during the official work. The said doctor has already left the services of the hospital. She had given her opinion on the MLC Ex.PW5/A of injured Rakesh Mishra.
11. PW 11 ASI He was the duty officer on the day of Hukminder incident and came to prove the DD No. 46A Ex.PW11/A. 12 PW 12 SI Krishan He is the second IO in the present case.
Kumar Further investigation of the present case was marked to him. Upon completion of investigation, he prepared the charge-
sheet and filed in the Court.
13 PW 13 Dr. Anshul He had examined the injured Vinod and Garg, ENT Surgeon suggested for X-ray of nasal bone of patient Vinod and after going through the X-ray report, he had opined the nature of injury as grievous. He came to prove his said opinion from point X3 to X4 on SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 4 of 31 Ex.PW5/B. 14 PW 14 Inspector Ajay He is the Investigating officer in the Kumar present case. He came to depose about the investigation conducted by him and came to prove his Tehrir Ex.PW14/A.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the case of prosecution and claimed false implication. However, they chose to lead evidence in defence.
5. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for the State and ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record.
6. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In support of said contention, he heavily relied upon testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 who are eye witnesses/victims in the present case. He argued that all the abovesaid PWs have fully supported the case of prosecution on all the material points. He, therefore, urged that the accused should be convicted in this case.
7. On the other hand, ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons has submitted that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. She has further submitted that accused persons were not involved in the commission of the offences.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 5 of 31
8. PW-1 Sh. Ritesh Mishra has deposed that on 21.10.2013 at about 7.30 p.m, while he was preparing himself for leaving his house for his duty, accused persons namely Ranjeet, Manish and Lalit who were present in the Court being his neighbourers started using abusive language against him and his wife Smt. Pushpa on the pretext as to why they had installed iron staircase in a gali. He further deposed that upon this, he went to call Pradhan of the area namely Ravi, but said Ravi could not meet him and he returned back to his house after about 10 minutes. When he returned back to his house, he had seen that accused persons were assaulting his brother Rakesh Mishra, his wife Smt. Pushpa and his maternal uncle Sh. Vinod with dandas and iron rods. He has further deposed that accused Ranjeet had caused danda blow over his head. He has further submitted that accused Lalit had caused two rod blows over his head. He has further submitted that his wife Smt. Pushpa was assaulted by the daughter of accused Ranjeet and by Manish with fists and blows. He has further deposed that accused Ranjeet and Manish had assaulted his maternal uncle Vinod with dandas. He has further deposed that accused persons had also assaulted his brother Rakesh Mishra. After assaulting them, all the accused persons went to their house. He further deposed that someone had made a call to the police. In the meantime, our neighbours had hired a TSR and they were taken to BSA Hospital, where they were medically examined. He has further deposed that in the hospital, police met him and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A which bears his thumb impression at point A. Police got the FIR registered.
During his cross-examination by ld. defence counsel, he deposed that after the occurrence, he was not in a position to inform his employer to the effect that he could not attend his duty on that day. He SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 6 of 31 voluntarily stated that since he was taken to hospital, he could not inform his employer. He further deposed that when he was preparing for his job, at that time, his wife had just returned back to their house after purchasing household articles. He further stated that accused persons are residing one house away from their house for last many years. He has further deposed that they were on talking terms with the accused persons prior to the incident in question and were having visiting terms. He further stated that were are not on talking terms with accused persons since the occurrence of this case. He further submitted that they had got installed the iron staircase 5-6 days prior to the occurrence and none of the other residents of their gali had objected for the said staircase except the accused persons. He has further stated that he had not taken the permission from their Pradhan/from any Municipal Authority before installing the staircase. He further stated that he had not met the police officials after his discharge from the hospital. Police officials had not recorded the statement of any of the aforesaid injured persons in his presence.
9. PW-2 Smt. Pushpa deposed that on 21.10.2013 at about 7.30 pm, she was present at her house alongwith her husband. At that time, accused Manish, present in the Court had called her outside in order to make some conversation with her. She further deposed when he came outside, accused Manish caught hold of her hand and started beating her. In the meantime, her husband came outside and rushed for calling the Pradhan of our locality. She further deposed that her husband could not find Pradhan and accordingly, returned back. She further deposed that in the meantime, accused Ranjeet and Lalit @ Lalla had also reached there and started assaulting her. When her husband and SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 7 of 31 her brother-in-law Rakesh Mishra and uncle Vinod tried to rescue her from their clutches, accused Ranjeet, Lalit @ Lalla and Manish Kumar being armed with iron rods and dandas, had caused blows with the said objects over the head of her husband. Accused Lalit had caused two rod blows over the head of her husband. She further deposed that she was assaulted by the daughter of accused Ranjeet and by Manish with fists and blows. She further deposed that accused Ranjeet and Manish had assaulted her maternal uncle Vinod with dandas. She further deposed that all accused persons had also assaulted his brother-in-law Rakesh Mishra. After assaulting them, all the accused persons went to their house. Someone had made a call to the police. She further deposed that in the meantime, our neighours namely Gopal and Virender had hired some vehicle and they were taken to BSA Hospital, where they were medically examined. She further deposed that police got the FIR registered. She correctly identified the accused persons Ranjeet, Manish Kumar and Lalit @ Lalla present in the Court. During investigation, IO had also recorded her statement.
During her cross-examination, she deposed that she could not tell the name of employer of her husband. She further stated that her husband used to leave their house for attending his duty on or about 7.00 pm daily and there was no weekly off. She further stated that after the occurrence, her husband was not in a position to inform his employer that he could not attend his duty on that day. She denied the suggestion that at that time she had just returned back to their house after purchasing household articles. She further deposed that accused persons are residing one house away from their house. She further deposed that many public persons of the locality had witnessed the occurrence. She voluntarily stated that they were watching the SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 8 of 31 occurrence while standing in front of their respective houses and nobody dared to save them. She further stated that they were on talking terms with the accused persons prior to the incident in question and were having visiting terms. She further stated that they are not on talking terms with accused persons since the occurrence of this case. She further deposed that they had got installed the iron staircase 5-6 days prior to the occurrence and none of the other residents of their gali had objected for the said staircase except accused persons. She further stated that neither she nor her husband had taken permission from their Pradhan/from any Municipal Authority before installing the staircase. She further stated that she had met the police officials in the hospital. Police official had recorded his statement in the hospital itself. She denied the suggestion that her statement was recorded at PS. She denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as they merely objected the putting of said staircase in the gali.
10. PW-3 Sh. Rakesh Mishra deposed that though he does not remember the exact date, but on one day in the month of October 2013 on or about 7.30 pm, he was present in the neighbouring house as he had shifted in the neighbouring house due to the construction in their house. He further deposed that suddenly, he had heard noises of quarrel and when he came outside, he saw accused Ranjeet and Manish quarreling with his brother Ritesh Mishra on the pretext of iron staircase installed by them in front of their house. Upon this, his brother went to call the Pradhan of the area. In the meantime, he came down stairs and requested the accused persons for not using abusive language, but they started abusing him. He further deposed that his SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 9 of 31 sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Pushpa Devi was also present over there. He further deposed that in the meantime, his brother returned back and informed her that the Pradhan could not meet him. He further deposed that the accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish Kumar were armed with dandas and sarias and they had assaulted them. Accused Ranjeet had assaulted him with a danda. Accused persons had also assaulted his brother Ritesh Mishra with iron saria and caused injury with saria over his head. The said accused persons had also assaulted his sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Pushpa. Someone made a call at 100 number and PCR Van took him to the hospital. He further deposed that he is not aware as to who had taken his brother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) to the hospital.
During his cross examination he deposed that he used to leave his house for work at about 10 am, however, there was no fixed time for his return. He denied the suggestion that he was not present at the place of occurrence or at the time of occurrence. He further deposed that accused persons are residing one house away from their house. Accused persons have been residing in their neighbourhood for last many years. He further deposed that many public persons of the locality had witnessed the occurrence. He voluntarily stated that they were watching the occurrence while standing in front of their respective houses and nobody dared to save them.
He further deposed that they were on talking terms with the accused persons prior to the incident in question and were having visiting terms. He further deposed that they are not on talking terms with accused persons since the occurrence of this case. There are approximately 15-20 houses in their gali. He further deposed that they had got installed the iron staircase 5-6 days prior to the occurrence.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 10 of 31 None of the other residents of their gali had objected for the said staircase except accused persons. He further deposed that they had not taken any permission from their Pradhan/Municipal Authority before installing the staircase. He had met the police officials in the hospital. Police official had recorded his statement in the hospital itself. He denied the suggestion that her statement was recorded at PS. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely or that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case as they merely objected the putting of said staircase in the gali.
11. PW-4 Sh. Vinod deposed that on 21.07.2013 at about 7.15 pm, he alongwith Ritesh and Rakesh had a quarrel with accused Ranjeet, Manish Kumar and Lalit @ Laila. He correctly identified the accused persons present in the Court. He further deposed that accused Ranjeet had objected by saying to Ritesh as to why they had fixed iron staircase in the gali and due to the said issue, a quarrel took place. He further deposed that during the said quarrel, accused Ranjeet had assaulted him with a danda and had also assaulted Ritesh and Rakesh. He further deposed that accused Lalit had also assaulted Ritesh with iron pipe and accused Manish had assaulted him and Vinod with fist and leg blows. He further deposed that he was taken to BSA Hospital by public persons where he was medically examined and he remained admitted in the said hospital for one night and thereafter, he was discharged.
During investigation, the iron pipe and danda were recovered from the jhuggi of accused Ranjeet in his presence and IO had effected the arrest of accused persons on his identification. IO had seized the said iron pipe and danda after sealing the same vide seizure SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 11 of 31 memo Ex.PW4/A. He further deposed that the arrest of accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish Kumar was effected vide memos Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively in his presence by the IO.
This witness has correctly identified the case property produced by MHC(M) i.e. danda Ex.P1 and iron pipe Ex.P2 by which, he and other injured persons were assaulted and the same were recovered from jhuggi of accused Ranjeet in his presence.
During his cross examination he deposed that accused persons are residing in a separate gali and complainant Ritesh Mishra is his nephew and his wife Smt. Pushpa is also his relative. He further deposed that Sh. Rakesh Mishra is also his nephew. Accused persons have been residing in the neighbourhood of his aforesaid relatives for the last many years. He further deposed that his aforesaid relatives are residing at Jhuggi No. N-116/319, J.J. Camp for the last about 10-12 years and his aforesaid relatives are owning the aforesaid house. Accused persons are also owner of the property in which they are residing. He further deposed that many public persons of the locality had witnessed the occurrence. He voluntarily stated that they were watching the occurrence while standing in front of their respective houses and nobody dared to save them. He further stated that he was on talking terms with the accused persons prior to the incident in question and he is not on talking terms with accused persons since the occurrence of this case. He further deposed that there are approximately 7-8 houses in the said gali, where accused persons are residing. He admitted that his nephews had got installed one iron staircase in the gali in front of their house. He admitted that accused persons had objected for the said staircase on the ground that the said staircase was blocking SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 12 of 31 their way to their house. None of the other residents of the gali of his nephews had objected for the said staircase except accused persons. He further deposed that his nephews had not taken any permission from Pradhan/Municipal Authority before installing the said staircase.
12. PW-5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, CMO, BSA Hospital deposed that on 21.10.2013, she had medically examined patient Rakesh Mishra and Vinod and prepared MLCs bearing nos. 11205/13 and 11207/13 respectively and both the said MLCs were in her handwriting and Ex.PW5/A & Ex.PW5/B. She further deposed that after examining the aforesaid patients, patient Rakesh Mishra was referred to S.R. (Surgery) for expert opinion and further management and patient Vinod was referred to S.R. (ENT) for further expert opinion and management.
She further deposed that on the same day, injured Ritesh Mishra was medically examined by Dr. Paras Singhla, the then J.R. under her supervision vide MLC No. 11301/13. The said MLC is in the handwriting of Dr. Paras Singhla and exhibited as Ex.PW5/C. She further deposed that after initial medical treatment, the said patient was referred to S.R. (Surgery) for further management and expert opinion. She identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Paras Singhla as she had seen him writing and signing during the course of her official duty.
During her cross-examination she deposed that the possibility of injuries as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B due to fall could not be ruled out, however, the injuries as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW5/C could not be caused by fall as the said patient had suffered injuries on both the sides of his body. The possibility of injuries as mentioned in MLC Ex.PW5/C by other reasons then assault, cannot be ruled out.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 13 of 31
13. PW-6 ASI Satender Kumar has deposed that on 21.10.2013, he was working as Duty Officer from 12.00 night to 8 am. He further deposed that at about 12.20 am, on the basis of rukka brought by Ct. Rahul, he got recorded the FIR no. 531/13 Ex.PW6/A (OSR). He had also made endorsement on the rukka brought by Ct. Rahul at point-X to X-1. Same is in his handwriting and exhibit Ex.PW6/B. He further deposed that he had also issued Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW6/C.
14. PW-7 Dr. Vijay Dhankar deposed that on 23.02.2016, he received two sealed parcels alongwith three MLCs bearing no. 11301, 11205 and 11207 of patients namely Ritesh Mishra, Rakesh Mishra and Vinod respectively with request to provide opinion regarding the injuries mentioned in the said MLCs. He further deposed that the parcels were opened and found containing a wooden danda and an iron pipe. The MLCs were perused and found mentioned lacerations, abrasions, tenderness and diffuse swellings on the injured persons. He further deposed that he had opined that the injuries mentioned in the aforesaid MLCs can be caused by the weapons i.e. wooden danda and iron pipe examined by him. He further deposed that his detailed opinion in this regard is Ex.PW7/A. He further deposed that he also prepared rough sketch of the wooden danda and iron pipe on the reverse of the opinion sheet at points-X & Y. After examination of weapons, the same were signed, sealed with the seal of department alongwith their covering and handed over to the police official.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 14 of 31
15. PW-8 Ct. Rahul deposed that on 21.10.2013, DD no. 46A was marked to SI Ajay Kumar and accordingly, he had accompanied him to the place of occurrence i.e. J.J. Camp, Sector-19/20, near Lavatory, Badli Village, where they came to know that injured persons have been taken to BSA Hospital. He further deposed that no eye witness met them at the spot. Accordingly, they went to BSA Hospital, where SI Ajay Kumar had collected MLC of injured Ritesh Mishra as well as of Rakesh Mishra. In the hospital itself, SI Ajay Kumar had recorded the statement of Ritesh Mishra and on the basis of statement and contents of MLC, prepared rukka and rukka was handed over to him. Accordingly, he went to PS, got the FIR registered and collected copy of FIR and original rukka from Duty Officer. Thereafter, he returned back to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO SI Ajay Kumar. IO had recorded his statement in this regard.
During his cross examination he deposed that in his presence, IO had not examined any independent witness
16. PW-9 HC Santosh deposed that on 22.10.2013, he had joined the investigation of this case with SI Ajay Kumar. He further deposed that on that day, IO in his presence had effected the arrest of accused Ranjeet, Lalit @ Laila and Manish Kumar from J.J. Camp Jhuggi, vide arrest memos Ex.PW4/B, Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D respectively in the presence of injured Vinod and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW9/A, Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C respectively. He further deposed that all the three accused persons have also made disclosure statements Ex.PW9/D, Ex.PW9/E and Ex.PW9/F . Pursuant to disclosure statement, accused Ranjeet led them to his jhuggi SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 15 of 31 and got recovered one danda and one iron rod. He further deposed that IO had kept them in cloth pullandas and sealed the said pullandas with the seal of AK and seized the same vide seizure memos Ex.PW4/A. IO had recorded his statement in this regard. The said witness had correctly identified the case property produced by MHC(M) i.e. danda Ex.P1 and iron rod Ex.P2, which were recovered at the instance of accused Ranjeet.
During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that no such recovery was effected at the instance of accused Ranjeet. He admitted that similar type of dandas and iron rods/pipes can be procured from open market also.
17. PW-10 Dr. Rekha Dewan deposed that she had been deputed on behalf of M.S. Dr. BSA Hospital to appear and depose on behalf of Dr. Divya, the then Sr. Resident as she could identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Divya as she had seen her signing and writing during the official work. She further deposed that she had seen the MLC No. 11205/13 of Rakesh Mishra. In the said MLC, Dr. Divya had opined the nature of injury sustained by Rakesh Mishra to be simple in nature. She further deposed that the observation made by Dr. Divya in this regard are at portion Y to Y-1 on MLC Ex. PW5/A as well as on the back of MLC at portion Z to Z-1 and the same bear her signatures at points-X.
18. PW 11 ASI Hukminder deposed that on 21.10.2013, he was the Duty Officer from 4 pm to 12 night. He further deposed that on that day, at about 9.05 pm, he received an information regarding a quarrel at Sector-19, Rohini jhuggies. Accordingly, he had recorded the SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 16 of 31 said information in Roznamcha vide DD No. 46A Ex.PW11/A (OSR) and informed the contents of said DD to SI Ajay Kumar by phone.
19. PW 12 SI Krishan Kumar deposed that on 10.06.2015, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He deposed that during investigation, he had recorded the statement of Rakesh Mishra and Pushpa Devi. During investigation on 23.02.2016, he collected two pullandas sealed with the seal of AK from MHC(M) and took the same to BSA Hospital and obtained subsequent opinion from the concerned doctor. He further deposed that on 12.04.2016, he had obtained subsequent opinion from the concerned hospital. Upon completion of investigation, he had prepared the chargesheet.
20. PW13 Dr. Anshul Garg deposed that on 21/10/2013, he was posted as Senior Resident, Dr. BSA Hospital, Rohini, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day, one patient namely Vinod was brought in the emergency department of the hospital with alleged history of physical assault, as told by the patient. He further deposed that the said patient was initially examined by duty CMO and referred to ENT department for further opinion and treatment. After that, the said patient was clinically examined by him and he had suggested for x-ray of nasal bone of the patient. He further deposed that his detailed examination is from point X1 to X2 on the MLC bearing no. 11207 already exhibited as Ex. PW5/B. He further deposed that on 23/11/2013, he had gone through the x-ray report of the said patient, which shows that there was fracture nasal bone and on the basis of the same, he had opined the nature of injury of the patient as grievous. He further deposed that his said SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 17 of 31 opinion is from point X3 to X4.
During his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel who deposed that the injury in question as mentioned in Ex. PW5/B can take place by falling or slipping on hard surface.
21. PW14 Retd. Inspector Ajay Kumar was the first investigation officer in the present case. He deposed that on 21.10.2013 he received information regarding DD No. 46A. He further deposed that on receipt of information of the said DD, he alongwith Ct. Rahul had reached at the place of occurrence which was at JJ camp, Badli, Sector-19, S.P Badli, Delhi. At the spot it transpired that some fight had occurred and that injured persons had already been removed to BSA hospital, Rohini, Delhi. No eyewitness of the incident met him at the spot. He further deposed that he left Ct. Rahul at the spot for its protection and he himself reached at BSA hospital. Three injured persons namely Ritesh, Rakesh and Vinod were found admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that he collected their MLCs. Injured Ritesh was declared fit for statement by the doctor concerned. He further deposed that he got recorded the statement of injured Ritesh Mishra, which is already Ex. PW 1/A. On the basis of statement Ex. PW1/A, Tehrir now Ex. PW14/A, bearing his signature at point Mark A was prepared by him. He further deposed that, thereafter he returned to the spot and Tehrir was handed over to Ct. Rahul for registration of FIR. Ct. Rahul left the spot with Tehrir. He further deposed that Ct. Rahul returned at the spot after about one house and handed over the copy of FIR and original Tehrir to him. He further deposed that even at that time, no eyewitness of the incident was available at the spot, so he alongwith Ct. Rahul returned to the P.S. SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 18 of 31 After some time he returned to the spot alongwith Ct. Santosh and at that time injured Vinod met him at the spot. It was told by injured Vinod to him that he has been discharged from hospital. He further deposed that he prepared site plan of place of occurrence at the instance of Vinod and same was made Ex. PW14/B, bearing his signature at point Mark A. Thereafter, he was told by injured Vinod that the culprits of this case namely Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish were present at their respective houses. Thereafter, he alongwith injured Vinod reached at houses of accused persons and all the accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish were arrested from their respective houses. Arrest memos prepared in that regard are Ex. PW4/B, Ex. PW4/C and Ex. PW4/D respectively. Their personal search was conducted vide personal search memos already Ex. PW9/A, Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW9/C respectively. He further deposed that during interrogation, all the three accused persons had made disclosure statements Ex. PW9/D, Ex. PW9/E and Ex. PW9/F. He has correctly identified all the accused persons.
He further deposed that accused Ranjeet had produced a wooden danda and an iron pipe from his jhuggi stating that those danda and iron pipe were used by him and his accomplishes in causing injuries to Ritesh, Lalit and Vinod. Danda and iron pipe were converted into cloth pullindas and pullindas were sealed with the seal of AK. Both the sealed pullindas were seized vide seizure memo already Ex. PW4/A. Seal after use handed over to Ct. Santosh. He further deposed that thereafter he alongwith accused persons and seized articles returned to the P.S and the said pullindas were got deposited in Malkhana. He further deposed that on 23.10.2013, all the three accused persons were produced before the court and were sent to J.C. During investigation he SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 19 of 31 had deposited the MLCs of injured persons in the hospital for obtaining opinion regarding nature of injuries and opinion was obtained. He has correctly identified the case property produced by MHC(M) i.e. wooden danda Ex.P1 and iron pipe Ex.P2 as the same which had been recovered from jhuggi of accused Ranjeet.
During his cross examination by Ld. defence Counsel, he admitted that the place of incident was a residential area. He did not record the statement of public persons present at the spot when he reached there. He further deposed that the public persons present at the spot told him that injured have been taken to hospital. He did not record the statements of those public persons. No public persons except injured persons met him in the hospital in connection with the present case. He further deposed that he returned to the spot from the hospital after about 1 to 1 ½ hours. He did not make inquiry from the neighbours regarding the incident as it was late night hours. He further deposed that Ct. Rahul left from the spot alongwith Tehrir to P.S for registration of FIR at about 12.05 a.m and returned back at the spot after registration of FIR at about 1.05 a.m. He further deposed that all the three injured persons met him in the hospital. He recorded the statement of Ritesh only in the hospital and recorded the statements of other two injured later on. He was not aware about the previous complaints filed by the accused persons against the complainant and the injured persons in the P.S. He was not aware whether the accused persons also sustained any injury in the present incident.
He admitted that the danda and iron pipe are easily available in the market. He did not notice any blood stain on danda and iron pipe recovered at the instance of accused persons.
SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 20 of 31 DEFENCE WITNESSES PRODUCED BY ACCUSED PERSONS
22. DW1 Sh. Algu has deposed that he did not remember the date and month however it was the year of 2013. He was residing in Jhuggis at village Badli, Dehi. He further deposed that one day, he saw hat one Ritesh were throwing stone upon the children of Ranjeet. He further deposed that brother of Ritesh namely Vinod was trying to stop Ritesh and in the said process Ritesh fell down on the stairs and received injuries on his head. At that time, Ritesh was under influence of the liquor.
During his cross-examination by ld. Addl.PP for the State, he stated that he could not produce any document showing the fact that he had ever resided at in the jhuggis in Badli.
23. DW2 Ms. Guddi deposed that she did not remember the date, month and year but on one day Ritesh was installing iron staircase in front of her house, she requested Ritesh that due to installing of the said iron staircase in the gali they had to face problem for movement in the gali. But, instead of listening his request, Ritesh started abusing her and then gave Danda blow on her head, in the meantime Pushpa, wife of Ritesh who was also present there caught hold her hairs. When her daughters came to save her, accused Ritesh also caused injuries to her daughter Yamini on her head. She further deposed that Ritesh received injuries on her head when her mama and her brother were trying to apprehend him and he fell down on the said iron staircase. Police came at the spot and taken them to hospital where she was medically examined vide MLC marked DW2/A. SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 21 of 31 During her cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP for the State, she deposed that accused Ranji is her husband. She had not filed any complaint regarding the incident as stated by her in her examination-in- chief to the concerned SHO, or any higher police officials or any court prior to the date from today. She admitted that as per MLC marked DW2/A doctor did not found any injury to her.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL WITNESSES
24. As to the quality and the quantity of the testimonies of witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment titled Ranjit Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., 27.10.2010 upheld as under:
"....A similar view has also been taken by this Court in Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 322, wherein the Court has upheld as under:-
"There is no rule of evidence that no conviction can be based unless a certain minimum number of witnesses have identified a particular accused as a member of the unlawful assembly. It is axiomatic that evidence is not to be counted but only weighed and it is not the quantity of evidence but the quality that matters. Even the testimony of one single witness, if wholly reliable, is sufficient to establish the identification of an accused as a member of an unlawful assembly. All the same, when the size of the unlawful assembly is quite large (as in this case) and many persons would have witnessed the incident, it would be a prudent exercise to insist on at least two reliable witnesses to vouchsafe the identification of an accused as a participant in the rioting"
"......22. Thus, from the above, the law on the issue remains that in a case involving an unlawful assembly with a very large number of persons, there is no rule of law that states that there cannot be any conviction on the testimony of a sole eye-witness, unless that the court is of the view that the testimony of such sole eye-witness is not reliable. Though, generally it is a rule of prudence followed by the courts that a conviction may not be sustained if it is not supported by SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 22 of 31 two or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident in a fit case the court may believe a reliable sole eye-witness if in his testimony he makes specific reference to the identity of the individual and his specific overt acts in the incident. The rule of requirement of more than one witness applies only in a case where a witness deposes in a general and vague manner, or in the case of a riot...."
The present case is related with the direct evidence. As upheld in the judgment of Ranjeet Singh (supra) in a case where there is an eye witness, the reliability of the witness has to be testified. It is the quality and not the quantity of witnesses that is required to prove a case. Even a single witness, if he is reliable and trustworthy may be sufficient to convict. In the present case, the prosecution has produced three eye witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Ritesh Mishra, PW2 Smt. Pushpa, PW3 Sh. Rakesh Mishra and PW4 Sh. Vinod. They all came to prove the incident in question.
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW1 Sh. Ritesh Mishra is as under:
"...On 21.10.2013 at about 7.30 pm, while I was preparing myself for leaving my house for my duty, accused persons namely Ranjeet, Manish and Lalit who are present in the Court today (correctly identified) being my neighbourers started using abusive language against me and my wife Smt. Pushpa on the pretext as to why we had installed iron staircase in a gali. Upon this, I went to call Pradhan of the area namely Ravi, but said Ravi could not meet me and I returned back to my house after about 10 minutes. When I had returned back to my house, I had seen that accused persons were assaulting my brother Rakesh Mishra, my wife Smt. Pushpa and my maternal uncle Sh. Vinod with dandas and iron rods. Accused Ranjeet had caused danda blow over my head. Accused Lalit had caused two rod blows over my head. My wife Smt. Pushpa was assaulted by the daughter of accused Ranjeet and by Manish with fists and blows. Accused Ranjeet and Manish had assaulted my maternal uncle Vinod with dandas. Accused persons had also assaulted my brother Rakesh Mishra. After assaulting us, all the accused persons went to their house. Someone had made a call to SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 23 of 31 the police......"
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW2 Smt. Pushpa is as under :
".... On 21.10.2013 at about 7.30 pm, I was present at my house, whereas my husband was preparing himself for leaving for his duty. At that time, accused Manish, present in the Court today (correctly identified) had called me outside in order to make some conversation with me. When I came outside, accused Manish caught hold of my hand and started beating me. In the meantime, my husband came outside and rushed for calling the Pradhan of our locality. My husband could not find Pradhan and accordingly, returned back. In the meantime, accused Ranjeet and Lalit @ Lalla had also reached there and started assaulting me. When my husband and my brother- in-law Rakesh Mishra and uncle Vinod tried to rescue me from their clutches, accused Ranjeet, Lalit @ Lalla and Manish Kumar being armed with iron rods and dandas, had caused blows with the said objects over the head of my husband. Accused Lalit had caused two rod blows over the head of my husband. I was assaulted by the daughter of accused Ranjeet and by Manish with fists and blows. Accused Ranjeet and Manish had assaulted my maternal uncle Vinod with dandas. All accused persons had also assaulted my brother-in-law Rakesh Mishra. After assaulting us, all the accused persons went to their house. Someone had made a call to the police......"
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW3 Sh. Rakesh Mishra is as under :
".....Suddenly, I had heard noises of quarrel. When I came outside, I saw accused Ranjeet and Manish quarreling with my brother Ritesh Mishra on the pretext of iron staircase installed by us in front of our house. Upon this, my brother went to call the Pradhan of the area. In the meantime, I came down stairs and requested the accused persons for not using abusive language, but they started abusing me. My sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Pushpa Devi was also present over there. In the meantime, my brother returned back and informed me that the Pradhan could not met him. The accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit and Manish Kumar were armed with dandas and sarias and they had assaulted us. Accused Ranjeet had assaulted me with a danda. Accused persons had also assaulted my brother Ritesh Mishra with SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 24 of 31 iron saria and caused injury with saria over his head. The said accused persons had also assaulted my sister-in- law(Bhabhi) Pushpa. Someone made a call at 100 number and PCR Van took me to the hospital......"
The relevant portion of the testimony of PW3 Sh. Rakesh Mishra is as under :
"....On 21.07.2013 at about 7.15 pm, myself, Ritesh and Rakesh had a quarrel with accused Ranjeet, Manish Kumar and Lalit @ Laila, who are present in the Court today (correctly identified). Accused Ranjeet had objected by saying to Ritesh as to why they had fixed iron staircase in the gali and due to the said issue, a quarrel took place. During the said quarrel, accused Ranjeet had assaulted me with a danda and had also assaulted Ritesh and Rakesh. Accused Lalit had also assaulted Ritesh with iron pipe and accused Manish had assaulted me and Vinod with fist and leg blows...."
All the PWs/victims have consistently deposed in the same lines. However, there are minor variation in their statements. There is variation in the statement of PW1 and PW2 as to the fact whether PW1 was assaulted by Ranjeet and Lalit as stated by PW1 or was assaulted by Lalit and Manish as stated by PW2. Rest of the testimonies are of similar nature and the kind of incident that had taken place, it would not be possible to state things in exact manner as beatings to the victims took place in quick succession.
MOTIVE OF CRIME
25. In a case where there is direct evidence, there is hardly any need of motive to be proved by the prosecution. The presence of same in such a case, yet, fortify the case of the prosecution. In the present case, the prosecution has also propounded the motive behind the beatings given to the accused persons and in this regard the prosecution had cited four witnesses namely PW1 Ritesh Mishra, PW2 Smt. Pushpa, PW3 SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 25 of 31 Sh. Rakesh Mishra and PW4 Sh. Vinod. Regarding motive of accused persons all the abovesaid PWs deposed in the same lines that the complainant got iron staircase installed in a gali and the accused persons objected to the same and for this reason, accused persons used abusive language against them and stated giving beatings to them.
WHETHER THE TESTIMONIES OF VICTIMS/INJURED GET CORROBORATION FROM THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE.
26. The relevant witnesses produced by the prosecution in this regard were PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, PW7 Dr. Vijay Dhankar, PW10 Dr. Rekha Dewan and PW13 Dr. Anshul Garg.
PW5 Dr. Deepti Bhalla had examined injured PW3 Rakesh Mishra and PW4 Vinod and prepared MLCs bearing no. 11205/13 Ex.PW5/A and 11207/13 Ex.PW5/B respectively. She also came to depose on behalf of Dr. Paras Singhla as she had seen him signing and writing during the official work. She deposed that injured Ritesh Mishra was medically examined by Dr. Paras Singhla vide MLC No. 11301/13 Ex.PW5/C. PW7 Dr. Vijay Dhankar had received two sealed parcels alongwith three MLCs bearing no. 11301, 11205 and 11207 for providing opinion regarding the injuries mentioned in the said MLCs. The parcels were opened and found containing a wooden danda and an iron pipe. He had opined that "....the injuries mentioned in the aforesaid MLCs can be caused by the weapons i.e. wooden danda and iron pipe examined by me....". His detailed opinion in this regard is Ex.PW7/A. PW10 Dr. Rekha Dewan came to depose on behalf of Dr. SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 26 of 31 Divya as the said doctor had already left the services of the said hospital and she had seen her signing and writing during the official work. She had seen the MLC No. 11205/13 Ex.PW5/A and had opined that "...the nature of injury sustained by Rakesh Mishra to be simple in nature...".
PW13 Dr. Anshul Garg, ENT Surgeon had examined the injured Vinod who was brought in the emergency department of the hospital with alleged history of physical assault. The said patient was clinically examined by him and he had suggested for X-ray of nasal bone of the patient. On 23.11.2013, he had gone through the X-ray report of patient Vinod which shows that there was a fracture nasal bone and on the basis of the same he had opined that "...the nature of injury of the patient as grievous..."
The version of of PW1, PW3 and PW4 gets sufficient corroboration from the medical evidence as well. For better understanding the relevant portions of MLCs Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C of injured PW1 Rakesh Mishra, PW3 Ritesh Mishra and PW4 Vinod are reproduced herein:
MLC Ex.PW5/A (Rakesh Mishra) :
a). Tenderness over the (Rt.) hypochondrium and (Rt.) lumbar region of the abdomen.
MLC Ex.PW5/B (Vinod) :
a). Diffuse swelling and tenderness over the nose. An abrasion is over the nose. Clotted
b). Multiple abrasions over the (Lt.) thigh.
MLC Ex.PW5/C (Ritesh Mishra):
1. 3CLWs over scalp :
a) 1 over Rt. frontal area 1.5 x .5 cm SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 27 of 31
b) 1 over Rt. Parietal area 1.5 x .5 cm
c) 1 over Lt.Parietal area 2 x .5 cm
2. Abrasions over (Lt.) shoulder, Lt. upper back, Rt. forearm, Rt. side of chest.
It is also pertinent to mention here that the MLCs are timed as 21.10.2013 at 9:35 p.m. which also support the case of the prosecution being earliest to the incident. Therefore, the prosecution has been successful in proving that the injuries were caused on the person of PW1, PW3 and PW4.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON OF OFFENCE
27. As per the case of the prosecution, at the instance of PW4 Vinod, the danda Ex.P1 and iron pipe Ex.P2 were recovered from the jhuggi of accused Ranjeet and the same were seized vide memo Ex.PW4/A. The prosecution has placed on record one 'danda' Ex.P1 and iron Ex.P2 allegedly recovered from the jhuggi of accused Ranjeet at the instance of PW4 Vinod. It is not the case of the prosecution that the alleged 'danda' and 'iron rod' were having any blood of the victims to substantiate the fact that it was the same 'danda' which was used by the accused persons. The witnesses have only stated that accused persons were armed with 'danda' and 'iron rod' but none of them had specified the measurement of the 'danda' and 'iron rod'. Also, the articles are general in nature and are easily available in the market. It is also pertinent to mention here that the witnesses have not specified any specific identity mark on the articles allegedly used in the commission SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 28 of 31 of offence. In such circumstances, no much credence can be given to the recoveries effected pursuant to disclosure statement.
WHETHER SECTION 308 IPC IS MADE OUT OR NOT
28. For the applicability of section 308 IPC, it is required that 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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the present case, no medical opinion was given on the point that injury or knowledge could be attributed regarding culpable homicide being related to section 308 IPC. As per the MLCs, only one injury has been shown as grievous i.e. nasal bone fracture on victim PW4 Vinod. Rest of the injuries are of simple nature. Reading of the testimonies of the witnesses reveals that danda and iron rod blows were inflicted on the head of the victims. None of the witness stated that any danda or iron rod was hit on the face of the PW4 Vinod. In such circumstances, it cannot be ascertained whether the major injury to PW4 occurred due to fist and blows or due to danda and iron rod.
The kind of injuries objectively also reflect on the intention of the parties as to what kind of injury would have been in their contemplation. Except one injury i.e. fracture nasal bone injury on PW4 Vinod shown as grievous one. Rest of the injuries on the victims are of simple injury.
In such circumstances, basic elements relating to Section 308 IPC are missing. As it has also not come on record whether any grievous injury was caused on any of the victims by the use of danda or iron rod, Section 326 IPC which is a lesser offence to Section 308 IPC is also not attracted. Though from the testimonies and the medical SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 29 of 31 evidence, nasal fracture bone injury on PW4 Vinod squarely falls under Section 325 IPC. Rest of the injuries fall under Section 323 IPC.
WHETHER SECTION 34 IPC IS APPLICABLE
29. Section 34 IPC relates to constructive liability:
[34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.----When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.] In the present case, the accused persons were already having grievance against the victims for constructing staircase in the gali. From the testimony of the witnesses, it comes out that when maternal uncle and brother of PW1 came to help PW2 who was being thrashed by the accused persons, the accused persons attacked maternal uncle and brother of PW1 also. For 'common intention', it is not necessary that there must be pre meeting of mind prior to the incident. 'Common intention' may occur at the spur of moment and the same has to be deduced from the facts itself. As already stated that the accused persons ensured that no help could be extended to PW2 that clearly reflects on common intention being present at that moment. Hence, all the accused persons become constructively liable for the acts of each other.
CONCLUSION
30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 are reliable being consistent. Some variations are there but the same is not fatal for the case of the prosecution. The version of PW1, PW3 and PW4 also get sufficient corroboration from SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 30 of 31 the medical evidence. The MLCs were conducted immediately after the incident and proved by independent witnesses.
The recoveries were also proved by the prosecution pursuant to disclosure statement of PW4 but the same are not given much credence for the reasons already stated above. This fact was not found sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution in view of the reliable testimonies corroborated by medical evidence.
As aforesaid discussed, the ingredients of Section 308 IPC could not be proved by the prosecution. Though, elements of Section 325 IPC and Section 323 IPC were successfully proved by the prosecution. From the conduct of the accused persons while causing injuries, common intention is also gathered. Section 325 IPC is a lesser offence to Section 308 IPC and the accused persons can be convicted for Section 325 IPC despite the fact that no charges were framed under Section 325 IPC as no prejudice is caused thereby.
In view of clear and cogent testimony of all the victims/ eye- witnesses, the accused persons namely Ranjeet, Lalit @ Laila and Manish Kumar are held guilty for the offences u/s 323/325/34 IPC.
Announced in the open Court today i.e. on 31st March, 2023 (Shivaji Anand) Additional Sessions Judge-04 North District/Rohini Courts/Delhi SC No. 59412/2016 FIR No. : 531/2013 State v. Ranjeet etc. Page No. 31 of 31