Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Chander on 30 March, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 48/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0013252012
State
Versus
1. Ram Chander
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi No. 487A,
Shyam Colony,
Budh Vihar Phase IInd,
Delhi.
2. Mahender Pal
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi No. 486, Shyam colony,
Sector23, Rohini, Delhi.
3. Ram Rattan
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi no. 487A,
Shyam colony,
Budh Vihar, Sector23,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 100/10
PS - Begum Pur
U/s. 186/353/332/34 IPC
Date of Decision: 25/03/2013
Date of order on Sentence: 30/03/2013
ORDER ON SENTENCE
30/03/2013
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
All the three convicts in person with counsel Sh. N.S. Tomar
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that all the three accused persons
SC No. 48/1 1
are not previous convicts nor habitual offenders. They are not facing trial of any other
case. It is further contended that all the three convicts are brothers and are married.
Convict Ram Chander has five children. He is aged about 43 years. Convict
Mahender Pal has three children and he is aged about 36 years. Convict Ram Rattan
has three children and he is aged about 45 years. They are the only bread earners of
their families and have to support their wives and children. They have old aged
parents to support. It is also contended that convict Ram Rattan and Ram Chander
had remained in custody for about one month and convict Mahender Pal had
remained in custody for 15 days. It is further contended that all the three convicts be
released on probation of good conduct.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has contended that HC Ram Kishan,
who was complainant in this case, has been murdered on duty in the area of PS
Kanjhawala about 1½ month before, hence, atleast some compensation be awarded to
the family of HC Ram Kishan.
Offence U/s. 186 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to three months, or with fine, which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Offence U/s. 353 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Offence U/s. 332 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Considering the above facts and circumstances coupled with the age,
antecedents and character of the convicts, all the three convicts are admitted to
probation of good conduct for a period of three years on furnishing a personal bond
in the sum of Rs, 10,000/ with one surety each in the like amount. During the period
of probation, all the convicts shall keep peace and maintain good behaviour and in
case of default, they will produce themselves before the court for acceptance of
sentence.
SC No. 48/1 2
Compensation to the tune of Rs. 45,000/ is imposed on all the three
convicts collectively. In default of payment of compensation, each convict shall
undergo nine months S.I.
If no appeal is preferred, then after the expiry of the period of limitation,
compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/ be given to the LRs of HC Ram Kishan and Rs.
5000/ be given to constable Vijay Kumar.
Rs. 20,000/ part of the compensation deposited. Remaining be deposited
on or before the next date.
Bond furnished. Accepted for three years.
Announced in the open court
today on 30th of March, 2013
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts,
Delhi.
SC No. 48/1 3
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 48/1
Unique Identification No. 02404R0013252012
State
Versus
1. Ram Chander
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi No. 487A,
Shyam Colony,
Budh Vihar Phase IInd,
Delhi.
2. Mahender Pal
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi No. 486, Shyam colony,
Sector23, Rohini, Delhi.
3. Ram Rattan
S/o Sh. Gopi Nath
R/o Jhuggi no. 487A,
Shyam colony,
Budh Vihar, Sector23,
Rohini, Delhi.
FIR No. 100/10
PS - Begum Pur
U/s. 186/353/332/307/34 IPC
Date of institution of the case: 11/01/2012
Arguments heard on: 18/03/2013
Date of reservation of order: 18/03/2013
Date of Decision: 25/03/2013
JUDGMENT
One DD No. 47B was recorded at 10.48 night on 25/04/2010 about a quarrel in Sector24, PocketI, RTV bus stand. It was sent to HC Ram Kishan through Constable Rameshwar.
Another DD no. 32A was recorded at about 11.30 p.m. on the same day, SC No. 48/1 4 wherein HC Ram Kishan informed that when he reached at the spot for making inquiries, during that time, Ram Rattan, Ram Chander and their associates in the jhuggies abused them and caused beatings to them, so, he demanded police force.
Case was registered, on the statement of HC Ram Kishan, on which, SI Madan Lal made endorsement, U/s. 186/353/332/34 IPC.
During investigation, rough site plan was prepared. Blood stained clothes of HC Ram Kishan were taken into possession. Accused Ram Chander and Ram Rattan were arrested. Their personal searches were conducted. They also made disclosure statements and pointed out the place of occurrence. Accused Ram Rattan also got recovered one lathi, with which, injuries were caused to HC Ram Kishan. It was taken into possession . Accused Ram Rattan also produced one purse belonging to HC Ram Kishan. Same was also taken into possession. Later on, accused Mahender Pal was also arrested on 02/10/2010. His personal search was conducted. He was put to join TIP but he refused to join the TIP and did not give any reason for refusing the same.
Complaint U/s. 195 Cr.P.C. was also obtained. MLC of HC Ram Kishan was also collected. Nature of injuries was opined as simple.
On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s. 186/353/332/307/34 IPC. Case was committed to the Court of Session on 25/04/2012 and was received on 15/05/2012.
Charge u/s 186/34 IPC, U/s. 353/34 IPC, U/s. 332/34 IPC and u/s 307/34 of IPC was framed against all the accused persons, to which they all pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, prosecuting has examined PW1 to PW12 in all. On completion of prosecution evidence , statements of all the three accused persons were recorded,where in they all have denied the case of prosecution and have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. In defence, DW1 and DW2 have also been examined.
SC No. 48/1 5
I have heard Ld APP for State and learned defence counsel for accused persons and have gone through the evidence adduced with material placed on record.
Complainant HC Ram Kishan has been examined as PW2. He has stated that on 25/04/2010, he was posted at PS Begumpur and in the intervening night of 25/26.04.2010, he was performing his emergency duties in the PS from 8.00 a.m. to 8.00 p.m. At about 10.50 p.m., he received copy of DD no. 47B regarding quarrel at Sector24/1, RTV bus stand, so, he alongwith constable Vijay Kumar reached there, where he came to know that a quarrel had taken place in the jhuggies of Sector2324, Rohini. Accordingly, he alongwith constable Vijay Kumar reached there and while making inquiries regarding the quarrel, in the meanwhile, at about 11.15 p.m., one of the person started doing hot talks with constable Vijay Kumar and caught hold his neck and pushed him. When he objected the same as to why he was scuffling with constable Vijay Kumar as he was on duty, in the meanwhile, brother of that person also came there and started scuffling with him.
PW2 HC Ram Kishan has further deposed that he came to know the name of said person as Ram Rattan and his brother as Ram Chander. During the course of scuffle, when he tried to save himself, both of them caught hold him and one of their associates, who was armed with lathi, started giving lathi blows to him. He tried to rescue himself by raising his hands but that person succeeded in giving lathi blows on his head, due to which, he started bleeding and after causing injuries, all of them ran away from the spot.
PW2 HC Ram Kishan has further deposed that during the course of scuffle, his purse containing Icard, ATM card and other documents alongwith Rs. 500/ went missing. He immediately informed the duty officer from his mobile phone. After sometime, SI Madan Lal alongwith Constable Chand Ram came there and recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. Thereafter, he was taken to BSA hospital, where he was medically examined.
PW2 HC Ram Kishan has identified both accused Ram Rattan and Ram SC No. 48/1 6 Chander and also accused Mahender, who had given lathi blow on his head.
PW2 HC Ram Kishan has further deposed that he handed over his blood stained uniform i.e. pant and shirt alongwith banian to the IO, which were sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "ML" and were taken into possession. At his instance, site plan was also prepared by the IO. His supplementary statement was recorded.
PW2 HC Ram Kishan has further deposed that on 04/10/2010, he received notice from SI Ved Prakash to join the TIP proceedings, so, he reached on 06/10/2010 at Rohini Court and there he came to know that accused Mahender had refused to join the TIP proceedings and while he was coming out of the Court, he had identified him as the same, who had given lathi blow on his head. Notice is Ex. PW2/B. PW2 HC Ram Kishan has also identified lathi as Ex. P1, purse as Ex. P2 and his wearing clothes as Ex. P3, Ex. P4 and Ex. P5.
PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar has also deposed the same facts as of PW2 HC Ram Kishan.
In the cross examination, PW2 HC Ram Kishan has stated that lady had disclosed and pointed out towards accused Ram Chander and Ram Rattan and told that a quarrel had taken place with them. Before he could ask from that lady, the cause of quarrel, accused Ram Rattan started arguing with PW4 Constable Vijay, who was standing at a distance of 810 feet from him. Accused Ram Rattan also pushed PW4 constable Vijay. In the meanwhile, accused Ram Chander also came there. PW2 HC Ram Kishan has further deposed that he sustained 23 lathi blows on different portion of his head and also sustained injuries on his hands, while saving himself from the lathi blows, which were given by accused Mahender only. He was discharged from the hospital just after half an hour.
PW4 constable Vijay Kumar has also stated that he was pushed from his neck, when he tried to save HC Ram Kishan by making efforts by pulling both accused Ram Rattan and Ram Chander. Meanwhile, accused Mahender gave lathi blow on the head of HC Ram Kishan twice or thrice. Accused Ram Rattan was under SC No. 48/1 7
the influence of liquor.
Learned defence counsel has contended that from the depositions of both these witnesses, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 307/34 of IPC in any manner. Learned defence counsel has further contended that all the accused were not having any common intention to commit murder of PW2 HC Ram Kishan or they were knowing that causing some injury could have caused death of PW2 HC Ram Kishan. Learned defence counsel has further contended that only simple injuries have been sustained by PW2 HC Ram Kishan.
According to the MLC, which has been proved by PW3 Dr. Deepti Bhalla, on examination of PW HC Ram Kishan, she found two lacerated wounds present over the left frontal and right parietal region of the scalp, small size abrasion over both the hands, a bruise over the right upper thigh, which corroborates the depositions of PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 constable Vijay Kumar, who have deposed that PW2 HC Ram Kishan was caught hold by both the accused persons and accused Mahender gave lathi blow and in that process, PW2 HC Ram Kishan had tried to save himself by raising hands, in which process, he sustained injuries on his head and also on his hands.
In the cross examination, PW3 Dr. Deepti Bhalla has stated that such injuries could have been sustained by falling on the ground, but in this case, there is no such evidence. She has further stated that bruise injury cannot be sustained by falling on the ground. So, the contention of learned defence counsel that if PW2 HC Ram Kishan had raised his hands, then he could not have sustained injuries on his head is not forceful in any manner. It is suggested to PW2 HC Ram Kishan that he sustained injury at the hands of public persons, but no such facts have been brought on record. PW4 constable Vijay Kumar has also denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place and accused Ram Rattan had not put his hand on his neck or that he was not present there. PW4 constable Vijay Kumar has also denied the suggestion that HC Ram Kishan had sustained injuries at the hands of person, who were gathered SC No. 48/1 8 at the spot to take liquor.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that in fact, the lady, who had pointed out towards the accused persons to PW2 HC Ram Kishan at the spot, used to sell liquor, which was objected by the accused persons and DW1 Vishwanath Yadav has stated so that at about 10.00 p.m., police came in TATA vehicle and took him from his house and outside his house, he was beaten. Thereafter, he was taken to PS Begumpur, where he was also beaten severely. At about 12 night, he was called by the SHO and was beaten. While he was sitting in the room of DO, it was told that he had beaten PW2 HC Ram Kishan, at which, every police official had given him a blow. On 27/04/2010, a phone call was made to his wife to take him back. His wife came to PS in the evening and her signatures were obtained on some papers and thereafter, he was released. DW1 has also deposed that at about 9.00 p.m., he saw 3040 persons in front of house of Kartari, who used to sell liquor illegally in her house. So, according to DW1, a quarrel had taken place at about 9.00 p.m., whereas according to the case of the prosecution, information about quarrel was received at about 10.48 p.m., so, there is difference of about two hours.
DW2 Smt. Guddi is wife of DW1 Vishwanath Yadav. She has not deposed about the date, but has stated that her husband came back to house from his work at about 9.00 p.m. and after taking meals, he slept. At about 11 p.m., some police officials knocked the door. She opened the door and 1213 police officials entered their house and took away her husband with them. On the next day, she reached at PS and found her husband tied with iron chain and was beaten brutally. On that day, she came back from the PS and after about two days, she again reached at the PS, where her signatures were obtained and her husband was released. She took him back to her house.
According to DW1 Vishwanath Yadav, he was taken by the police at about 10 p.m., whereas according to DW2 Guddi, Vishwanath was taken by the police at about 11 p.m. No complaint has been given by both the witnesses about this SC No. 48/1 9 treatment given by the police to DW1 Vishwanath, as deposed before the Court. Their testimonies are also not related to the incident in any manner. Even the deposition of DW1 is not clear about the quarrel. The facts, as deposed by DW1 and DW2 before the court, have not been asked from the witnesses in their cross examination, so, DW1 and DW2 cannot be relied upon in any manner.
DD No. 47B has been proved by PW1 ASI Madurai Singh as Ex. PW1/A. Nothing came out from his cross examination to disbelieve his testimony. DD no. 47B was recorded on PCR call and again after the incident, HC Ram Kishan got recorded DD No. 32A from his mobile phone regarding police help as they were beaten by the accused persons and at that time, he had given the name of Ram Chander and Ram Rattan and their associates. Blood stained clothes of HC Ram Kishan were also taken into possession in this case, which have been identified before the Court. So, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimonies of these witnesses in any manner.
According to PW10 SI Madan Lal, on 25/04/2010, he was posted as SI at PS Begumpur and on that day, on receipt of copy of DD No.32A, he alongwith Constable Chand Ram reached at the spot and met there with PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 Constable Vijay. He recorded statement of PW2 HC Ram Kishan Ex. PW2/A. In the meanwhile, ASI Sudershan also came there. PW2 HC Ram Kishan was sent to BSA hospital for medical examination through ASI Sudershan, who after sometime, came back at the spot and handed over to him MLC of HC Ram Kishan.
PW10 SI Madan Lal has further deposed that thereafter, he prepared rukka and handed over the same to Constable Chand Ram. He also prepared rough site plan at the instance of PW2 HC Ram Kishan Ex. PW10/A. After sometime, Constable Chand Ram came back from PS and handed over to him copy of FIR and rukka. He seized blood stained clothes of PW2 HC Ram Kishan and sealed them in a pullanda with the seal of "ML" vide memo Ex. PW7/A. Accused persons could not be arrested and further investigation was handed over to SI Ved Prakash. SC No. 48/1 10
I have gone through the cross examination of PW7 constable Chand Ram and PW10 SI Madan Lal. PW7 Constable Chand Ram has stated that he took rukka to PS at about 1.00 a.m. night and came back to the spot after about two hours and PW10 SI Madan Lal has stated that ASI Sudershan came back to the spot alongwith HC Ram Kishan at about 12.30 a.m. In the examination in chief, PW10 SI Madan Lal has stated that after receiving the MLC of HC Rm Kishan from ASI Sudershan, he prepared rukka on his statement, so, in this manner, both PW7 Constable Chand Ram and PW10 SI Madan Lal have corroborated each other. PW7 constable Chand Ram has also stated that he came back to the spot after about two hours and according to PW10 SI Madan Lal, they remained at the spot till about 5.00 a.m., which proves that proceedings were conducted in the manner, as deposed by the witnesses, and nothing has come in the cross examination to disbelieve their testimonies.
PW1 ASI Bahadur Singh has stated that on receipt of PCR call on 25/04/2010, he recorded DD No. 47B, copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. He has also produced original of the same. It was handed over to PW2 HC Ram Kishan through Constable Rameshwar. Again, at about 11.30 p.m., he received telephonic call from PW2 HC Ram Kishan and recorded DD No. 32A, copy of which is Ex. W1/B. Same was handed over to PW10 SI Madan Lal, who alongwith PW7 constable Chand Ram left the PS for the spot.
PW1 has further deposed that on 26/05/2010, at about 1.25 a.m. night, PW7 constable Chand Ram produced rukka before him, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR of this case, copy of which is Ex. PW1/C. He also made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW1/D. According to PW11 ASI Ved Prakash, on 27/04/2010, he was posted as ASI at PS Begumpur. On that day, he received investigation of this case. He came to know that accused persons were yet to be arrested. He made efforts for arrest of the accused persons. Accused Ram Chander and Ram Rattan moved application for grant SC No. 48/1 11 of anticipatory bail and it was dismissed on 30/04/2010. Thereafter, both the accused surrendered before the Court and after permission vide application Ex.PW11/A, both were interrogated and were arrested in this case vide memos Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B. Their personal searches were conducted vide memos Ex. PW8/C and Ex. PW8/D. They also made disclosure statements Ex. PW8/E and Ex. PW8/F. PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has further deposed that after arrest, he moved application Ex. PW11/B for obtaining PC remand of above accused, which was given for one day. Both the accused were taken to SGM hospital for their medical examination and thereafter, they pointed out the place of occurrence vide memos Ex. PW8/G and Ex. PW8/H. Thereafter, accused Ram Rattan led the police party to his jhuggi No. 486B, Shyam colony, Budh Vihar, PhaseII, near Sector2324, Rohini, and produced one lathi, which was lying beneath the bed and told that it was the same lathi, with which, accused Mahender had caused injuries to PW2 HC Ram Kishan. The legth of the lathi was about 4.25 feet. It was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/I. PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has further deposed that thereafter, accused Ram Rattan also produced one purse, which was lying on the bed beneath the mattress and told that it was the same, which had fallen from the pocket of the police official. Accused Ram Rattan also told that he had thrown the documents, which were kept inside the purse. The purse was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "VP" and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW8/J. Thereafter, they came back to PS, where case property was deposited in the malkhana and accused was locked up.
Learned defence counsel has contended that testimony of this witness and of PW8 Constable Gaje Singh, who accompanied ASI Ved Prakash are not inspiring any confidence as PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has stated that accused Ram Rattan had produced the lathi and again, he had produced the purse, whereas according to examination of PW8 constable Gaje Singh, lathi was produced by accused Ram Rattan, whereas purse was produced by accused Ram Chander, so, the contradiction SC No. 48/1 12 is material, hence, witnesses cannot be relied upon. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even if accused persons had caused injuries with coaccused Mahender with the help of this lathi on PW2 HC Ram Kishan, then why they will keep the lathi with them in their jhuggi. It seems to be improbable. Learned defence counsel has further contended that there was no use for keeping empty purse of HC Ram Kishan by the accused persons and this shows that the same has been planted upon the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that even according to seizure memos Ex. PW8/I and Ex. PW8/J, accused Ram Rattan had produced the lathi and the purse, which were taken into possession in this case.
Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW8 Constable Gaje Singh, one ATM card was also found in the purse, whereas in the seizure memo Ex. PW8/J, it is not mentioned that any ATM card was lying in the purse, when it was recovered, rather it is mentioned that according to accused Ram Rattan, he had thrown the articles lying in the purse. Learned defence counsel has further contended that according to cross examination of PW8 constable Gaje Singh, lathi was got recovered by accused from behind the door of the room of his house, whereas according to cross examination of PW11 ASI Ved Prakash, accused Ram Rattan produced one lathi, which was lying beneath the bed, so, recovery of lathi and purse are doubtful. PW8 Constable Gaje Singh has further deposed that details of particulars of this case on the lathi were also affixed at the PS, which also create doubt on the proceedings conducted by the police officials regarding recovery of lathi and purse.
The contradictions as pointed out by learned defence counsel are material rendering the witnesses unreliable regarding the recovery of lathi and purse from the possession of accused persons on their pointing during police custody remand, but even then, if we do not believe the recovery, the same does not falsify the depositions of PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar to the extent that they were obstructed and criminal force was used against them and further SC No. 48/1 13 injuries were caused voluntarily to PW2 HC Ram Kishan.
Regarding the arrest of accused Mahender, PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has stated that on 20/05/2010, he got issued NBWs of accused Mahender vide application Ex. PW11/C. On 07/06/2010, he moved application before the Court for issuance of process U/s. 82/83 Cr.P.C. against the accused vide application Ex. PW11/D. PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has further deposed that on 02/10/2010, accused Mahender was arrested from his jhuggi at Shyam colony vide memo Ex. PW5/A. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW5/B. He served notice Ex. PW5/C upon accused Mahender to remain in muffled face as his TIP was to be conducted. Accordingly, at the time of TIP, accused Mahender was kept in muffled face and thereafter, he was produced before the court concerned. He moved application for TIP of accused Mahender Ex. PW6/A. PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has further deposed that on 04/10/2010, he also issued notice to PW2 HC Ram Kishan to join the TIP proceedings Ex. PW2/B. On 06/10/2010, accused Mahender refused to join the proceedings. Thereafter, he obtained the TIP proceedings vide application Ex. PW6/C. On 16/10/2010, when accused was brought from the concerned court after being produced before the court, PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar had identified accused Mahender. He recorded their supplementary statements. PW11 ASI Ved Prakash has also identified the lathi as Ex. P1 and purse as Ex. P2.
PW5 Constable Ved Prakash has also deposed the same facts as of PW11 ASI Ved Prakash. Both these witnesses have stated that wife of accused Mahender was present at the time of his arrest. TIP proceedings have been proved by PW6 Sh. Sudhanshu Kaushik, learned Metropolitan Magistrate. Accused Mahender refused to join the TIP proceedings without any reason. PW6 has not been cross examined in any manner, hence, his testimony is unrebutted and unshaken. Both PW5 and PW11 have stated that accused Mahender was asked to remain in muffled face and a notice was also given in this respect to him.
SC No. 48/1 14
Learned defence counsel has contended that prosecution has not been able to prove the identity of accused Mahender as the same beyond reasonable doubts in this case. I am not agree with the same. PW2 HC Ram Kishan has identified accused Mahender before the court as the same, who had caused injuries to him with lathi. PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar has also identified accused Mahender as the same, who had caused injuries to PW2 HC Ram Kishan with lathi. No sufficient reason was given by accused Mahender to refuse the TIP proceedings, hence, adverse inference can be drawn. TIP proceedings have not been challenged in any manner as PW6 has not been cross examined on any aspect, hence, there is no dispute about the identity of accused Mahender as such.
PW13 Sh. Jasmeet Singh has proved complaint U/s. 195 Cr.P.C. as Ex. PW13/A and list of witnesses as Ex. PW13/B, while he was posted as ACP on 02/11/2011 and satisfied himself after going through the case file, which was produced before him.
From the testimonies of PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar, it has been proved beyond reasonable doubts that both reached at the spot on receipt of DD No. 47B for making inquiries about a quarrel and there, both PW2 and PW4 were obstructed by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention and were abused. Accused Ram Rattan and Ram Chander started scuffling with them. Accused Ram Rattan caught hold PW2 HC Ram Kishan from his neck and pushed him, so, in such manner, they also used criminal force against PW4 constable Vijay Kumar and further, in furtherance of their common intention, another co accused Mahender gave lathi blow on the head of PW2 HC Ram Kishan and caused injuries to him, due to which, he sustained simple injuries. Accordingly, prosecution has been able to prove offences U/s. 186/34 of IPC and U/s. 353/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
According to the depositions of the witnesses, both accused Ram Rattan SC No. 48/1 15 and Ram Chander caught hold PW2 HC Ram Kishan and their coaccused Mahender gave lathi blow on his head, due to which, he sustained simple injuries. At that time, nothing was uttered by the accused persons nor from the circumstances or evidence brought on record, it can be said that accused persons were having any intention or knowledge or that by their this act, death of PW2 HC Ram Kishan could have been caused. No opinion has been obtained from the doctor concerned that injury caused to PW2 HC Ram Kishan were sufficient to cause death. The lathi was not produced for obtaining subsequent opinion as to whether the injuries caused could have been caused with the said lathi and the recovery of lathi itself seems to be doubtful so, prosecution has not been able to prove offence U/s. 307/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons, for which, they are acquitted, but all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had caused hurt voluntarily, while both PW2 HC Ram Kishan and PW4 Constable Vijay Kumar were discharging their duties as public servants, while investigating DD No. 47B and while they were making inquiries from the accused persons, accused persons scuffled with them and caused injuries with intent to prevent them from discharging their duties as such, so, prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 332/34 of IPC against all the three accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for which, they are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in the open court today on 25th of March, 2013 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Rohini Courts, Delhi.
SC No. 48/1 16