Delhi District Court
State vs , Pawan Kumar Etc on 5 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. KAPIL KUMAR, MM-06,
(NORTH)ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs, Pawan Kumar Etc
PS. Swaroop Nagar
1. FIR No. : 87/07
2. Date of Offence : 27.11.2007
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Jawahar Prasad
S/o Sh Chabila
R/o H.no.14, Khasra
no. 19/16, Gali no.3, A
Block, Shardhanand
Colony, Bhalswa Dairy
Delhi.
4. Name, parentage and Address : 1. Sh Pawan Kumar
of the accused S/o Sh Banwari Lal
R/o Gali no.3 Khasra
no.19/16, E Block
Shardanand Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
2. Smt Saroj
W/o Pawan Kumar
R/o Gali no.3 Khasra
no.19/16, E Block
FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 1/8
Shardanand Colony,
Bhalswa Dairy, Delhi.
5. Offences complained of : 323/341/34 IPC
6. Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
7. Date of reserving the order : 05.03.2015
8. Sentence or final order : Conviction
9. Date of order : 05.03.2015
10.Unique ID No. : 02404R0667002008
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution against the accused persons is that on 27.11.2007 at about 8.25 PM at A- Block, Gali no.3, Shardhanand Colony, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Adarsh Nagar accused persons caused simple hurt to the complainant Jawahar Prashad and wrongfully restrained him.
2. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons. The copy of charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to accused persons in compliance of Section 207 Cr. P.C. Thereafter charge under Section 323/341/34 IPC was framed against accused persons by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its version, prosecution examined 7 witnesses PW-1 is HC FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 2/8 Ravinder, PW-2 is Jawahar Prashad, PW-3 is Smt Indu, PW-4 is Ct Bijender, PW-5 is WHC Surender Kaur, PW-6 is HC Ashok Kumar and PW-7 is Dr Shakuntla.
4. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.PC. Accused opted to lead DE. Accused persons examined one witness. DW-1 Sh Satish Kumar.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have perused the record.
6. The testimonies of PWs are being touched upon in brief, as follows:-
6.1 PW-1 deposed that on 27.11.2007 he was posted as Duty Officer and on that day he received one rukka sent by HC Ashok on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. In the testimony of PW-1 the FIR proved as ExPW1/A and endorsement on rukka as ExPW1/B. 6.2 PW-2 Sh Jawhar Prashad is the complainant of the present FIR and he supported the case of prosecution in all respects. He deposed that accused persons beaten him on 27.11.2007. He correctly identified accused persons.
In his testimony his statement was proved as ExPW2/A arrest memo as ExPW2/B and personal search memo as ExPW2/C. 6.3 PW-3 Smt Indu is the wife of the complainant and she also supported the case of prosecution by stating that her husband was beaten by the accused persons on the day of incident. In her testimony the arrest memo of accused Saroj was proved as ExPW3/A. FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 3/8 6.4 PW-4 Ct Bijender was with IO during investigation He collected the MLC of complainant from BJRM Hospital.
6.5 PW-5 W/HC Surender Kaur deposed that on 01.12.2007 she arrested accused Saroj vide arrest memo ExPW3/A. 6.6 PW-6 HC Ashok Kumar is the IO of the present case. He went to the spot after receiving the copy of DD no 48B. He recorded the statement of complainant, prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Accused persons were arrested by him and he submitted the charge sheet in the court. 6.7 Dr Shakuntla deposed on behalf of Dr Sanjay Kant, who left the hospital and his whereabouts are not known, to the effect that MLC ExPW7/A bears the signature of Dr Sanjay and she identified the signature of Dr Sanjay on MLC.
7. DW-1 Sh Satish Kumar was examined as defence witness wherein he deposed that on 27.11.2007 complainant suffered injuries as he fallen from the bicycle.
8. It is the cardinal principle of Criminal Justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubts. No matter how weak the defence of accused is but, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own leg.
9. PW-2 is the star witness of the prosecution. He supported the case of prosecution in all respects. He categorically mentions that on 27.11.2007 FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 4/8 when he was coming back to his house from duty and reached in front of his house accused persons came there and started abusing and beating him. He correctly identified both accused persons. It was put to him by Ld Defence Counsel in the cross examination that he was not beaten by accused persons rather he fell from the bicycle. This assertion has been denied by the witness categorically. Ld Defence counsel vehemently argued that in the examination in chief PW-2 deposed that the time of incident is 8.25 PM and on the other hand the cross examination he deposed that his duty timings in factory are from 9 AM to 9 PM. This is not the material contradiction because of the reason that a general question was put to the witness as what are his duty timings to which PW-2 replied 9 AM to 9 PM. It was not categorically asked from the witness as to whether on the day of incident his duty timings were same or whether he was coming back to his house after completing duty up to 9 PM. Complainant is not working in a government department in which a presumption of adherence to the timings could be raised. A person could be made free from the duty in a factory prior to the general fixed time from 9 PM. This contradiction is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
10. PW-3 also deposed that on the day of incident her husband was beaten by accused persons and she called at 100 number. Nothing came in her cross examination which could cast a doubt upon the veracity of the statement of PW-3 who is a natural witness to the facts of the present case. I found no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-3.
11. The testimony of PW-2 and 3 is to be read in the light of testimony of PW-7.
FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 5/8 PW-7 proved the MLC of complainant as ExPW7/A. Perusal of MLC reveals that complainant suffered simple injuries. A co-joint reading of testimony of PW2, PW-3 and PW-7 makes out the case of prosecution that accused persons beaten complainant for which he suffered simple injuries.
12. The testimony of DW-1 is not worthy of much credit. In the examination in chief he deposed that on the day of incident complainant suffered injuries as he fallen from the bicycle. In the cross examination by Ld APP he submits that his children told him that complainant suffered injuries as complainant fallen from the bicycle. Accordingly the testimony of DW-1 is hearsay only which is not admissible in evidence.
13. In view of above discussion, accused persons are hereby held guilty of offences U/s 323/341/34 IPC.
Copy of this judgment be given to accused persons free of cost.
Announced in the open court (KAPIL KUMAR)
on 05.03.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate-06
North District, Rohini Court
FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 6/8
FIR No. 87/07
P. S. Swaroop. Nagar
U/s 323/341/34 IPC
05.03.2015
Present: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused persons Pawan and Smt Saroj are present on bail, represented by Ld Counsel.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment of even date, announced in open court, accused persons are convicted for the offences U/s 323/341/34 IPC.
Ld Counsel for accused persons insist upon advancing arguments on sentence today only. Request considered.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Ld Counsel for accused persons submits that accused persons are husband and wife and were not involved in any of the other offence during their life time. It is further submitted by Ld Defence Counsel that accused Pawan is the sole bread earner of his family and in case he be sent behind the bars all the family would come on road. It is further argued that the complainant and accused persons reside in the same locality and complainant is in habit of making false allegations against neighbours.
Ld APP submits that a substantive punishment be given to accused persons so that a deterrent message go in the society.
I have considered the submissions of Ld Defence Counsel and Ld APP.
The penology is largely based on two cardinal principle i.e. Deterrent and reformative theories. The convicts has shown a genuine desire to repent, therefore, must be granted a fair opportunity for reformation so that they can be a useful citizens of the country. Simultaneously, the convicts must be awarded such a sentence, which discourages the other like minded people of the society from entering the world of crime. However, a balance is required to be maintained between the theories, while sentencing the convict. No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 7/8 reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. It is also essential to understand crime as a social and individual phenomenon and the need to prevent its commission or repetition by adapting an attitude conducive to the resocialization and reformation of the criminal. The criminals reformation serves a great social purpose and society itself becomes the greatest beneficiaries of this reformation by being freed from his depredations. If the society cannot reform an offender, it is punishment for the society.
In view of the aforesaid discussion and submission of the parties and the genuine desire of convicts to reform, and accused Pawan is sole bread earner of his family convicts are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment of 10 days. Fine paid by accused persons. Receipt issued. Bail bonds already filed will continue as the bail bonds under section 437 A Cr.P.C.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Kapil Kumar)
MM06, North District
Rohini Courts, Delhi
05.03.2015
FIR No. 87/07 Unique Id no. 02404R0667002008 8/8