Delhi District Court
State vs Ramesh Rai Etc on 8 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. MADHU JAIN,
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 133/2018
CNR No. DLSE01-002636-2019
FIR No. 138/2017
PS Malviya Nagar
U/s 308/323/34 IPC
STATE Versus 1. Ramesh Rai
S/o Sh. Yogeshwar Rai
2. Kanchanaa Devi
W/o Sh. Ramesh Rai
Both accused No. 1 & 2
R/o H.No. S-83/43, Begampur,
Indra Camp, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Yogeshwari Rai
S/o Late Fakira Rai
4. Awdhesh (Expired)
S/o Sh. Yogeshwar Rai
Both accused No. 3 & 4
R/o H.No. S-83/45, Begampur,
Indra Camp, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi.
Date of institution : 11.01.2018
Date of Committal : 16.02.2018
Conclusion of Arguments : 05.12.2023
Judgment Pronounced on : 08.12.2023
JUDGMENT
1. On the complaint of complainant/injured Sh. Jairam, FIR No. 138/2017, Police Station Malviya Nagar, under SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 1 of 39 Sections 323/324/34 IPC was registered. After completion of investigation charge sheet U/S 308/323/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons in the Court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. After compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate committed the case to this Court under the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial, being a Session trial case.
2. The facts in brief as per charge sheet are that on 09.04.2017 on receipt of DD No. 42A, SI Sanjay Kumar along with HC Ram Singh reached at the spot of incident i.e. Malviya Nagar, Main Market, near police booth and came to know that the injured has already been shifted to Hospital by PCR. On receipt of information regarding MLC of injured Jairam, IO along with HC Ram Singh reached at Aakash Hospital and found injured Jairam admitted vide MLC no. 029. Doctor has declared the nature of injuries as 'simple and sharp object looks like coconut water cutters'. Statement of injured Jairam was recorded wherein he stated that he is working in the Paan shop owned by Sh. Rama Shankar Gupta situated in Malviya Nagar market. On 09.04.2017 at about 06.30 PM, accused Kanchana Devi, wife of Ramesh who is also running Paan Shop adjacent to his shop started quarreling with Ms. Rita Gupta, W/o Rama Shankar Gupta (owner of the shop) regarding placing articles in front of the shop of the complainant. In the meanwhile, accused Ramesh and his brother accused Awdhesh along with accused SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 2 of 39 Kanchana Devi started beating Rita Gupta.
Complainant/injured intervened and tried to save Rita Gupta, however, in the meanwhile, accused Yogeshwar, father of accused Ramesh came and hit a Gandhasa (knife used for cutting coconuts) on the head of injured Jairam from his back side. Blood started oozing from his head and he fell down. The son of Rama Shankar namely Suraj shifted injured to hospital. In the quarrel, Rita Gupta and one Satish who used to work of their shop also sustained injuries.
3. In the meanwhile, IO SI Sanjay Kumar received another information through Duty Officer that injured Satish Gupta is admitted in JPNACT Hospital vide MLC No. 500016522 dated 09.04.2017. IO reached JPNACT Hospital and on the MLC doctor recorded alleged history of assault and nature of injuries as 'Simple Blunt'. On the basis of statements and MLC, IO got registered FIR U/s 323/324/34 IPC. During investigation, IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant/injured; interrogated all the accused persons; seized Coconut cutting knife from the possession of accused Yogeshwar Rai. On 04.07.2017, CCTV footage of the spot of incident was checked which showed that accused Yogeshwar had given knife blows to the injured Jairam and accordingly, on the instructions of senior police officers Section 324 IPC of FIR was replaced with Section 308 IPC in this case. It came to the notice of the IO that the accused persons have also got registered a cross FIR No. 139/17, U/S 323/341/34 IPC, PS Malviya SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 3 of 39 Nagar registered against the complainant, his shop owner and his family members. On completion of investigation, charge sheet U/S 308/323/34 IPC was filed on 11.01.2018. The proceedings qua accused Avdhesh were abated vide order dated 09.01.2019 in view of his death verification report of accused Avdhesh. On the basis of the allegations and material on record, separate charge U/S 323/34 IPC was framed against the accused Ramesh Rai and Kanchanaa Devi whereas U/S 308 IPC was framed accused Yogeshwar Rai on 24.01.2019, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Out of 16 witnesses in total, prosecution examined 14 witnesses. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State vide his statement dated 29.05.2023 dropped HC Ram Singh being repetitive witness.
5. The prosecution examined following witnesses in support of their case:-
PW No. Name of Witness Description / Role of witness PW-1 Sh. Jairam Injured/complainant/ Employee of shop owner/Eye witness PW-2 Sh. Suraj Gupta Son of shop owner/Eye witness PW-3 Sh. Rama Shankar Shop owner / Eye witness Gupta PW-4 Ms. Rita Gupta Wife of shop owner / Eye witness PW-5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Neighboring shopkeeper / Eye Mishra witness PW-6 Sh. Satish Gupta Employee of shop owner/ Eye witness PW-7 SI Virender Singh Duty Officer SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 4 of 39 PW-8 SI Deepak Tanwar Eye witness PW-9 HC Ravinder Bhati Eye witness PW-10 Dr. Vishal Bhardwaj Doctor who treated injured Jairam at Akash Hospital, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi PW-11 SI Mahipal Eye witness PW-12 Insp. Sanjay Kumar IO of Case Meena PW-13 Dr. Neha Saroha Doctor who treated injured Sanjay Gupta at AIIMS Hospital.
PW-14 HC Rajpal Eye witness
6. In the instant case, PW1 to PW6 including the injured/complainant are the public as well as eye witnesses to the incident whereas PW8, PW9 and PW11 though are police witnesses but are eye witnesses as the incident took place near police booth in Malviya Nagar Market.
7. PW-1 Sh. Jairam is the complainant/injured who deposed that he is working in the Paan shop owned by Sh. Rama Shankar Gupta situated at Malviya Nagar market. Adjacent to his shop is another Paan shop run by accused Ramesh.
On 09.04.2017 at about 06.30 PM, he was present at his shop and in the meanwhile some arguments took place between Ms. Reeta Gupta (wife of his shop owner) and Ms. Kanchana (wife of adjacent shop owner accused Ramesh) on the issue of keeping goods/articles in front of his shop. During said quarrel, accused Kanchana, her husband accused Ramesh and brother of Ramesh namely accused Avdhesh (since expired) started beating Rita Gupta. He further deposed that he tried to pacify and SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 5 of 39 separate them, however, in the meanwhile accused Yogeshwar Rai who is father of accused Ramesh Rai came from behind and gave two blows on the back portion of the head of complainant/injured Jairam with a chopper (gandasa), similar to one used for cutting coconuts. As a result of of assault, blood started oozing out of the head of injured Jairam and he fainted and fell down. Suraj, son of his shop owner Rama Shanker took him to Akash Hospital in Auto (TSR). Satish Gupta employee of Rama Shankar also tried to pacify the quarrel but he also suffered beatings. Due to assault given by accused persons, Ms. Rita Gupta and Satish Gupta received injuries. Police recorded statement of complainant/injured Jairam (Ex. PW 1/A) at Akash Hospital at 07.30 PM. He pointed out the place of incident to the police. He identified accused Ramesh Rai, Yogeshwar Rai and Kanchana Devi in the Court. He also identified the chopper (Ex.P1) to be the same with which accused Yogeshwar hit him. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
8. PW2 Sh. Suraj Gupta is the son of the shop owner Sh.
Rama Shankar Gupta who deposed that his father has a Tehbazari shop (kiosk) opposite main market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and he used to sit on his father's shop. The adjacent tehbazari shop (kiosk) to his shop is that of Ramesh, who used to sell similar goods like them. There used to be quarrels and grudge between him and accused Ramesh and his wife accused Kanchana as more customers used to come to his shop. When he used to keep articles on SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 6 of 39 the left side of his shop within his space, accused Kanchana Devi used to throw those articles. On 09.04.2017 at about 6 PM, he was present at his shop and he had kept carton of chips and water bottles in his space, however, accused Kanchana Devi started throwing the above said articles and quarreling and abusing him and his family members. Accused Ramesh also came outside and started quarelling with them. In the meanwhile, Avdhesh, who is brother of Ramesh also came there and they all started beating his mother Rita Gupta and his two servants namely Satish and Jairam with danda (stick). After some time, accused Yogeshwar, father of accused Ramesh also came there and gave a chopper (coconut cutting big knife) blow on the head of injured Jairam. Injured Jairam received injuries on his head and blood started oozing and he fell down on the floor. Police officials also reached at the spot as there was some function nearby the area. He took Jairam to Akash Hospital, where doctor put stitches on his head. All the accused persons had beaten the complainant at the time of incident. He identified the accused persons in the Court. Police recorded his statement. He identified the chopper (Ex. P1) used by accused Yogeshwar Rai in hitting injured Jairam. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
9. PW3 Sh. Rama Shankar Gupta is the owner of shop who deposed that he is running Banarsi Pan Bhandar, Tehbazari, Main Market, Malviya Nagar where complainant/injured Jairam used to work. The adjacent SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 7 of 39 shop to his shop is run by accused Ramesh, who also used to sell Biri, cigarette, cold drinks etc. On 09.04.2017, he along with his wife Rita Gupta, son Suraj Gupta and his employees Satish Gupta and Jai Ram were present in his shop and at about 06 PM, his employee Satish Gupta put some cartons of chips outside the counter of his shop. Suddenly, accused Kanchana Devi, wife of neighboring shopkeeper Ramesh came out of her shop and started throwing away the cartons of chips kept by his employee Satish which was objected by his wife Rita Gupta. Accused Kanchana Devi started abusing in filthy language and caught hold of saree of his wife Rita Gupta. When his employee Satish intervened between Rita Gupta and accused Kanchana, in the meanwhile accused Ramesh came out of his shop and started beating his employee Satish who fell on the ground. Accused Kanchana and accused Avdhesh (since deceased) also started beating his employee Satish. His other employee Jairam who was standing outside the shop was also beaten by accused Ramesh with leg and fist blows. Accused Yogeshwar Rai who was having a dagger (coconut cutter) twice gave dagger blow on the back of head of his employee Jairam. He called four police officials who were present near the spot who apprehended accused Yogeshwar Rai. His son Suraj Gupta had taken injured Jairam to hospital. Accused persons used to keep grudge with him and his family members as the sale of cigarette etc. in his shop is higher than their shop. He used to make the accused persons understand that it is business and they should not keep any SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 8 of 39 grudge against him or his family members but accused persons never agreed and continued to quarrel with them. He further deposed that he had made several complaints against the accused persons with PM office, LG Office, Police commissioner etc. prior to the incident. The entire incident got recorded in the CCTV footage installed in his shop, the video footage of which was given by him to police officials in a pen drive on 04.07.2017 along with the certificate U/S 65-B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW 3/A). He identified the accused persons in the Court. The CCTV footage was played in the Court and after seeing the same witness states that the said footage is that of the quarrel of incident. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
10. PW4 Ms. Rita Gupta is the wife of the shop owner Rama Shanker Gupta who deposed that she is having a shop of Paan-Biri, Gutka, Cold Drinks etc. in main market Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Her husband, her son and two employees namely Satish and Jairam used to run said shop. She used to visit the shop in the evening hours to help her husband. Adjacent to her shop is the Paan shop of accused Ramesh who used to sell similar articles. The sale of her shop is much more than that of shop of accused Ramesh due to which accused Ramesh and his wife accused Kanchanaa, who also used to sit at the shop had differences and jealousy with them. She deposed that they used to keep some cartons of chips and water bottles outside their shop within their jurisdiction, on which accused Kanchanaa used to object and some times used to SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 9 of 39 throw such articles. Several times her husband Rama Shankar asked not to throw his articles and behave properly, however, accused Kanchanaa continued to do such acts and also used to threaten them. On 09.04.2017, while she was present at her shop in evening hours about 06.00 PM, accused Kanchana started throwing her cartons which were kept outside her shop in her area. She inquired from accused Kanchanaa as to why she is throwing her articles on which she started abusing and quarreling with her in filthy language. Accused Kanchanaa also caught hold of her saree and pulled her hairs. Her employee Satish intervened to pacify but he was beaten by accused Ramesh Rai and co-accused Avdhesh (since deceased). Accused Ramesh caught hold of Satish by pushing him down and accused Avdesh gave danda blow on him. Her employee Jairam tried to rescue Satish and in the meanwhile accused Yogeshwar Rai came there and hit a dagger (Coconut cutter) on the head of Jairam due to which Jairam received head injuries and fell down on the ground. Her son Suraj took injured Jairam to hospital. Injured Jairam received stitches on his head. PCR came at the spot and took her and Satish to AIIMS Trauma Center. Satish was examined in the hospital and she was not medically examined as she was not having visible injury on her body. Police officials visited her shop and inquired from her and also recorded her statement. She identified the accused persons in the Court. She was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 10 of 39
11. PW5 Sh. Santosh Kumar Mishra is the neighboring shopkeeper of the complainant who deposed that he is running a shop of vada Pao. On 09.04.2017 at about 07.30 PM, he was present at has shop at Malviya Nagar market where shops of accused Ramesh and accused Kanchana Devi is situated. Rama Shankar used to place cardboard boxes (Gatta Petti) which covers the shop of accused Ramesh which was objected by accused Ramesh and accused Kanchanaa. On 09.04.2017, a quarrel took place between Rita Gupta, Suraj Gupta, Jai Ram and Satish on one hand and accused Ramesh and his wife on the other side. Rita Gupta started beating accused Kanchana with broom and thereafter Suraj, Jai Ram, Satish and Rita Gupta pulled and dragged accused Kanchana from her hairs towards their shop. He called police at 100 number through someone. Police reached at the spot and took Ramesh and Knachan Devi to Trauma Center. Thereafter, he left the spot and returned to his shop and he does not know what happened later on. He does not know about the subsequent incident happened that accused Yogeshwar came at the spot of Rama Shankar and he took knife used for cutting coconut and hit Jairam with the said knife. He had not joined proceedings after the day of incident. Police recorded his statement.
12. PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his cross examination he denied his previous statement dated 20.05.2017 Mark-A from portion A to A. He denied the suggestion that accused SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 11 of 39 Yogeshwar hit knife on the head of injured Jairam. He identified all the accused persons in the Court. He admitted his signatures on sketch and seizure memo of coconut cutter knife Ex. PW 5/A and Ex. PW5/B. He also admitted his signatures on disclosure statement of accused Yogeshwar Rai. He denied the suggestions that the sketch and seizure memos of coconut cutter knife was prepared in his presence or that the disclosure statements of accused Yogeshwar was recorded in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he appended his signatures on the seizure memos of knife and on the disclosure statements of accused Yogeshwar as the same were prepared in his presence. He was cross examined by Ld. counsel for accused persons.
13. PW-6 Sh. Satish Gupta is the employee as well as cousin brother of Sh. Rama Shankar Gupta (shop owner) who deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 4 PM, accused Kanchana Devi, wife of accused Ramesh Yadav came to his shop i.e. A-71, Malviya Nagar, Market and threw articles kept in the front of the shop. Thereafter, accused Kanchana, accused Ramesh, accused Awdhesh started giving beatings to him and he sustained injuries on his face and neck. During quarrel, accused Yogeshwar Rai, father of accused Ramesh hit a knife choppar (Nariyal Katane wala) on the head of injured Jairam. Thereafter, Suraj took injured Jairam to hospital. He identified accused persons in the court and also correctly identified the Knife/choppar (Nariyal Katne wala) Ex. P1. He was cross examined by SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 12 of 39 Ld. Addl. PP for the State and during his cross examination, he deposed that at the time of quarrel Rita Gupta was with him. He further deposed that accused Ramesh, accused Kanchana and accused Awdesh gave beatings to Rita Devi. He further deposed that accused Yogeshwar, father of accused Ramesh came after arrival of accused Kanchana, Awdesh and accused Ramesh. He deposed that due to lapse of time he could not recollect all the facts of the incidents. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
14. PW-7 SI Virender Singh is the Duty officer who deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 06.24 PM, he received an information regarding quarrel near Moti Sweets, Malviya Nagar and he reduced the same into writing vide memo Ex. PW 7/D. He proved registration of instant FIR (Ex. PW 7/A) on the basis of rukka produced by SI Sanjay Meena at 10.20 PM on 09.04.2017. He endorsed rukka vide his endorsement (Ex. PW 7/B) and issued certificate U/S 65-B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. PW 7/C) in support of said FIR. His cross examination was recorded as nil.
15. PW-8 SI Deepak Tanwar deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 06.00 PM, he along with Ct. Ravinder, Ct. Rajpal and SI Mahipal were present at the police booth situated at Malviya Nagar Market. Suddenly they heard noise of quarrel, they came out of the booth and saw two shopkeepers Rama Shankar and accused Ramesh were quarrelling with each other. They intervened and separated SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 13 of 39 them, in the meanwhile, accused Yogeshwar Rai, father of accused Ramesh came at the shop of Rama Shankar and hit a coconut cutter/knife on the head of injured Jairam due to which Jairam sustained head injuries. Injured Jairam was taken to hospital by Rama Shankar. PCR came at the spot and took other injureds to hospital. He identified the accused persons in the court. He deposed that he can identify the weapon of offence and the same was already exhibited as Ex. P1. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.d
16. PW-9 HC Ravinder Bhati deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 6 PM, when he along with SI Deepak Tanwar, Ct. Rajpal and SI Mahipal were present in the police booth at Malviya nagar market. On hearing noise of quarrel, they came out and saw that two adjoining shopkeepers namely Rama Shanka and Ramesh were quarreling with each other. Son of Rama Shankar and Jairam on one side and accused Ramesh and accused Awdhesh on other hand were also quarreling with each other. The wife of accused Ramesh was also present at the spot but was not quarrelling. They separated Rama Shankar and accused Ramesh, however, in the meantime, accused Yogeshwar Rai father of accused Ramesh came at the shop of Rama Shankar and hit a coconut cutter/Knife/Chopper on the head of injured Jairam. Injured Jairam suffered head injuries and fell down on ground, Injured Jairam was taken to hospital by Rama Shankar. PCR came at the spot and took the other injured to the hospital. He identified all the SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 14 of 39 accused persons in the Court. He deposed that he can identify the weapon of offence which is already Ex. P1.
17. PW-10 Dr. Vishal Bhardwaj who examined injured Jairam deposed that on 09.04.2017, he was working as Attending Doctor at Akash Hospital, Malviya Nagar and on that day he examined injured Jairam having alleged history of head injury by coconut cutter weapon during fight outside his shop. He prepared his detailed report Ex. PW 10/A, as per which the nature of injury was "simple caused by sharp object". He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
18. PW-11 SI Mahipal deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 06.00 PM, he was present at police booth Malviya Nagar market, he saw quarrel taking place near the booth between the shopkeepers. He sent Ct. Raj Pal at the spot to pacify the quarrel but quarrel did not stop. Then, he alongwith other police officials went to the spot and tried to separate the persons who were quarrelling. In the meanwhile accused Yogeshwar hit a coconut chopper on the head of Jairam, who was working in the shop of Rama Shankar. Jairam sustained head injuries and blood was oozing from his head. PCR was called which took the injured to the hospital. He identified the accused Yogeshwar Rai in the court and he also identified the chopper Ex. P1 which was hit by accused Yogeshwar on the head of Jairam.
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 15 of 39
19. PW-12 Insp. Sanjay Kumar Meena is the IO who deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 07.00 PM, he received DD no. 42A regarding quarrel at Malviya Nagar market. He along with HC Ram Singh reached at the spot i.e. Malviya Nagar market, New Delhi where he received another information that injured has been shifted to Akash Hospital. He visited Akash Hospital where injured Jairam was found admitted. He obtained MLC of injured Jairam and recorded his statement Ex. PW 1/A. Thereafter, he visited AIIMS Hospital where injured Suraj Gupta was found admitted in hospital and he collected his MLC. Thereafter IO visited the police station, prepared rukka (Ex. PW12/A) and got the FIR registered. He recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared site plan Ex. PW 12/B. On 10.04.2017, he recorded the statement of witnesses. He served notices U/S 41 Cr.P.C. to all the accused persons. On 20.05.2017, accused Yogeshwar Rai produced one coconut chopper and IO prepared its sketch (Ex. PW 5/B) and seized the same vide memo Ex. PW 5/A. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Yogeshwar Rai vide memo Ex. PW 5/C. He collected CCTV footage from Rama Shankar in a pen drive (Ex. PW 12/K). He identified all the accused persons and the weapon of offence (Ex. P1) in the Court. The pen drive (Ex. P2) was played in the court and after seeing the same, he correctly identified the incident. As per the court observations, in the pen drive the beginning of quarrel is clearly captured. Group of people involved moved towards the side of the shop and lot of people are visible. The SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 16 of 39 coming of police officials and PCR at the spot is clearly visible in the CCTV footage. He was cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
20. PW-13 Dr. Neha Saroha is the doctor who examined injured Satish Gupta at AIIMS Hospital who deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 06.52 PM, patient Satish Gupta was brought with alleged history of assault. On examination, the patient was found having multiple abrasions over face, left arm, left forearm, right elbow and neck. She prepared MLC Ex. PW 13/A and opined nature of injuries as simple blunt. She was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
21. PW-14 HC Rajpal deposed that on 09.04.2017 at about 06.15 pm, he along with SI Mahipal, SI Deepak and Ct. Ravinder Bhati were present at police booth, main market, Malviya Nagar and they noticed quarrel near shop of Rama Shankar and Ramesh. They rushed towards the spot and tried to pacify the quarrel and disperse the gathered crowd. Rama Shankar, his wife, his son, his servant and his brother was one party and Ramesh, his wife and his brother Avdhesh was the other party who were quarelling. Then all of a sudden accused Yogeshwar Rai, father of accused Ramesh attacked Jairam, servant of Rama Shankar with knife on his head. Blood started oozing from head of Jairam and he fell down. The injured Jairam was shifted to hospital by son of Rama Shankar. PCR reached there and other injured were shifted to hospital. His SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 17 of 39 statement was recorded by the IO. He identified the accused persons in the Court. His cross examination was recorded as nil.
22. Vide statement dated 29.05.2023 of Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State dropped PW HC Ram Singh being repetitive witness. The evidence was thus concluded and same was put to the accused persons with a view to have their version of the events and explanation with regard to the evidence coming on record. The statement of accused Ramesh Rai, Kanchana Devi and Yogeshwar Rai under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 18.09.2023 wherein they consistently admitted that on the date of incident i.e. 09.04.2017 and their presence as well as that of Rama Shankar Gupta, his wife Rita Gupta, his son Suraj Gupta, his employees Satish Gupta and Jairam at the spot of incident. Accused Ramesh Rai and accused Kanchanaa Devi took common defence in their statements U/S 313 Cr.P.C as under:-
"The shop of Rita Gupta is adjacent to our shop and therefore, there has been frequent altercations caused by them due to the competition caused by our shop to them. They were jealous about the well run nature of our shop and therefore, always used to cause trouble to us without any rhyme or reason in the form of frequent abuses etc. On the said day, Ms. Rita Gupta started giving beatings to my wife using broom (Jharu) without any prior provocation caused by her. Ms. Rita Gupta and the persons working in her shop were perpetrators and me, my wife or my father is having no role to play in the present case and false case is fastened upon us unnecessarily."
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 18 of 39
23. On the other hand accused Yogeshwar Rai in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C took the following defence:-
"I used to work as a gardener with Delhi Jal Board and the dagger (chopper) stated in the question is my regular equipment. On that particular day, I have returned from my work place and was as usual carrying the aforesaid dagger. Further, when I reached the shop which was run by my son and daughter in law, I found that Jairam along with other persons (3-4 persons) working in the adjacent shop were abusing rigorously to my son and daughter in law in my presence. The explicit used by them at that time are so abhorrent that I do not wish to mention the same in this answer.
At no point of time on the said day, I was having any intention or any kind of knowledge so much so to harm anyone in any manner.
This case is a counter blast of the case we had lodged against he complainant."
24. All the accused persons denied the allegations leveled against them and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity with the complainant. All the accused persons opted not to lead evidence in their defence.
25. Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that out of 14 witnesses examined in total, 10 of them are eye witnesses to the incident as the incident took place in the main market of Malviya Nagar at about 06 PM. He further argued that except PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra (who partly turned hostile), all other police and public witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. It is further argued that the incident was captured in CCTV footage SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 19 of 39 wherein presence of complainant, accused and witnesses can be seen. He further argued that weapon of offence i.e. coconut cutter/daggar/chopper was recovered from the possession of accused Yogeshwar Rai at the spot of incident. Despite lengthy cross examination, all the public witnesses except PW5 remained intact to their original version. The eye witnesses to the incident have fully supported the case of the prosecution and even their testimonies remained consistent to each other's. All the witnesses also remained intact during their cross examination and have duly identified the accused, as well as, the weapon of offence i.e. Coconut cutting Knife/Daggar/ Gandasa in the Court.
26. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that there are various discrepancies in the statements of public and police witnesses which causes dent on the case of the prosecution and therefore accused deserves benefit of doubt. Ld. counsel for the accused persons argued that the eye witnesses are the family members and employees of Rama Shankar Gupta (shop owner) and they are interested witnesses as such their testimony cannot be relied being the interested witnesses. PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra has turned completely hostile and instead supported version of accused persons. Hence, it has been prayed that accused persons may be acquitted.
27. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the accused as well as Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor for SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 20 of 39 the State and have gone through the entire record carefully.
28. Perusal of the record reveals that only accused Yogeshwar Rai is charged for the offence punishable U/S 308 IPC whereas other accused Ramesh Rai and Kanchanaa Devi are charged for offences punishable U/S 323/34 IPC. Perusal of record further reveals that PW1 to PW4 and PW6 are eye witnesses to the incident of beatings given by accued persons to injured Satish and these same witnesses alongwith PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 (Police witnesses) are eye witnesses to the subsequent incident of accused Yogeshwar Rai hitting coconut cutter on the head of injured Jairam.
29. Before going on the merits of the case, it would be relevant to go through the Sections in which charge was framed against the accused.
30. Section 308 IPC is reproduced as under:
Attempt to commit culpable homicide- 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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine or with both.
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 21 of 39
31. Section 321 and 323 IPC is reproduced as under:
321. Voluntarily causing hurt--whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt to any person is said 'voluntarily to cause hurt'.
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt-
whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a terms which may extend to one year or with fine which may extent to one thousand rupees or with both;
32. In the instant case, both the complainant and the accused persons are running adjacent Paan shops selling similar nature by goods i.e. Paan, chips, cold drinks, cigarette etc. in main market, Malviya Nagar and are business competitors. PW3 Rama Shankar and his wife PW4 Rita Gupta have categorically deposed that their adjacent shopkeeper Ramesh and his family are having grudge against them and are jealous of them as sale of their shop is much more than that of Ramesh's shop. Both the complainant and the accused persons have admitted that there used to be frequent quarrels between them on the issue of keeping chips cartons and water bottles by Rama Shanker in front of his shop. On the other hand, accused Ramesh and Kanchanaa Devi in their respective statements U/S 313 Cr.P.C consistently deposed that there used to be quarrels between them and adjacent shopkeeper Ramesh on account of business competition and Rama Shankar and his family member were against accused SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 22 of 39 Ramesh and his wife accused Kanchana. Hence, there is prior rivalry and enmity between the parties stands admitted. Therefore the incident dated 09.04.2017 is not an isolated and rare occasion but it aggravated to an extreme leval and hence the motive behind the crime is well reasoned and obvious.
33. The accused persons in reply to a question in their statements U/S 313 Cr.P.C. recorded on 18.09.2023 consistently admitted that on the date of incident i.e. 09.04.2017, Rama Shankar Gupta, his wife Rita Gupta, his son Suraj Gupta, his employees Satish Gupta and Jairam were present at their shop. Moreover, the incident was captured in the CCTV camera installed in the shop of Rama Shankar where they can be seen along with accused persons. There is no dispute with regard to date, time and place of alleged incident between the parties which admittedly took place on 09.04.2017 at around 06.00 pm in front of their shops situated at Main Market, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. Injured Satish Gupta and injured Jairam, employees of Rama Shankar suffered injuries on account of alleged incident which fact is evident from their MLCs (Ex. PW 10/A and Ex. PW13/A) wherein nature of injuries has been opined as 'simple blunt' and 'simple sharp'. PW1 injured Jairam, PW2 Suraj Gupta, PW 3 Rama Shankar, PW 4 Rita Gupta and PW6 injured Satish Gupta have consistently deposed that the issue began when accused Kanchanaa Devi started throwing articles lying in front of shop of Rama Shankar, which was objected by SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 23 of 39 Rita Gupta upon which accused Kanchana started beating her. When Satish Gupta intervened, accused Kanchanaa Devi was joined by her husband Ramesh and her brother- in-law accused Awdhesh (since deceased) who also gave beatings to Satish and Rita and in the meanwhile accused Yogeshwar Rai hit coconut cutter/dagger/chopper on the head of injured Jairam from his back side.
34. In the cross examination of PW1 injured Jairam by Ld. Defence counsel, he has deposed that earlier on 1-2 occasions quarrel had taken place between him and accused persons on the issue of throwing articles kept in front of his shop by accused persons, which is cause of quarrel involved in the instant case. PW1 has further deposed that accused Ramesh was earlier selling fruits and later changed business to Paan Shop and quarrels started after he changed business. Hence, the previous enmity and rivalry between the complaiant and accused persons on account of same competitive business at adjacent shops can be safely termed to be the cause of incident and motive behind assault stands established. The injured PW1 in his cross examination has re-confirmed that he was hit by accused Yogeshwar with a chopper when he intervened to pacify the quarrel. PW1 during his cross examination by Ld. defence counsel further deposed that in the hospital stitches were applied on him and dressing was done. He further deposed that incident was recorded in CCTV camera. It is seen that PW1 injured Jairam remained intact during his cross examination and gave rationale answers to SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 24 of 39 the questions put to him and have denied the suggestion against him. It is pertinent to note that even no suggestion was given to PW1 by Ld. defence counsel regarding beatings given to injured Satish Gupta by accused persons to demolish the case of the prosecution qua accused Ramesh and Kanchana, for which adverse inference is drawn against the accused persons.
35. PW-2 Suraj Gupta during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel, he has confirmed that accused Ramesh and his shop owner are competitors being in same business. He reiterated that he shifted injured Jairam to hospital. During his cross examination, he categorically deposed that accused Yogeshwar Rai had hit Jairam on 09.04.2017 and nobody else. He volunteered that prior to hitting by accused Yogeshwar Rai, injured Jairam also suffered injuries on his other body parts due to assault by other accused persons prior to being hit by accused Yogeshwar Rai. He further deposed that injured Jairam received severe head injury and blood started oozing and he also received multiple stitches. He further deposed that he had seen the chopper (coconut cutter/kinfe) at the time of incident.
36. PW3 Rama Shankar, in the cross examination admitted his statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. PW 3/DA) and deposed that he handed over CCTV footage of camera in a pen drive along with certificate U/S 65-B Indian Evidence Act to IO on 04.07.2017 and he remained intact during his SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 25 of 39 cross examination. He further deposd that he handed over medical treatment papers of injured Jairam to IO.
37. PW4 Rita Gupta during her cross examination was confronted with her statement U/S 161 Cr.P.C. on the point that accused Avdhesh (since deceased) was carrying danda in his hand. She deposed that there was animosity between the parties prior to the incident dated 09.04.2017 and accused party used to keep grudge against her. She denied that suggestion that accused Yogeshwar had not hit Jairam with dagger type weapon, though he was carrying the same with him as he used to work as gardner. By way of this suggestion, accused Yogeshwar has admitted that at the time of alleged incident he was carrying daggar with him.
38. PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra though had admitted incident of quarrel between Rita Gupta, Suraj Gupta, Jairam and Satish with accused Ramesh and accused Kanchana on 09.04.2017, however, he had turned partly hostile with regard to beatings suffered by injured Santosh Gupta and coconut cutter being hit by accused Yogeshwar Rai on injured Jairam. He has instead counter alleged that Rita Gupta, Suraj, Jairam and Satish had pulled accused Kanchana Devi with her hairs and dragged her towards their shop. During his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state, he admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of coconut cutter knife (Ex. PW5/B) and disclosure statement of accused Yogeshwar Rai (Ex. PW5/C).
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 26 of 39
39. PW-6 Satish Gupta during his cross examination by Ld. Defence counsel deposed that since Rama Shankar and Ramesh are business competitors, there used to be regular disputes between them. He has categorically denied the suggestion that though accused Yogeshwar Rai was carrying the coconut cutter in his hand on the date of incident but has not hit upon Jairam with said coconut cutter. Again, by putting this suggestion, accused has admitted presence of coconut cutter in the hands of accused Yogeshwar at the time of incident.
40. PW8 SI Deepak Tanwar, PW9 HC Ravinder Bhati and PW11 SI Mahipal and PW14 HC Rajpal during their cross examination remained intact on the point that accused Yogeshwar Rai hit coconut cutter/daggar/chopper on the head of injured Jairam at about 06.00 PM. The cross examination of PW14 was recorded as nil.
41. PW10 Dr. Vishal has proved MLC of injured Jairam (Ex.PW 10/A) opined the nature of injuries as simple caused by sharp object looks like coconut watter cutter. He remained intact during his cross examination. Similarly PW13 Dr. Neha Saroha proved MLC of injured Satish Gupta (Ex. PW13/A) and opined nature of injuries to be 'simple blunt'. During cross examination of PW13, she deposed that she cannot tell if patient told her about weapon used upon him as it as it is over six years of the incident. The medical evidence with regard to injuries suffered by injured Jairam and Satish Gupta can be held SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 27 of 39 reliable in light of the MLCs and testimonies of examining Doctors.
42. Perusal of aforesaid cross examination in the testimonies of aforesaid public and police witnesses who are the eye witnesses to the incident, except PW5 consistently corroborates the case of the prosecution. The date, time and place of incident is not disputed by the accused persons. The previous enmity and rivalry between the complainants and the accused owing to business competition at adjoining shops has been duly admitted and has also surfaced during testimonies of public witnesses, their cross examination and statement of accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C.
43. As per the case of the prosecution, Rama Shankar Gupta and accused Ramesh are running adjoining Paan shops at main market, Malviya Nagar and Rama Shankar used to keep cartons boxes of chips and water bottles in front of his shop which were thrown by accused Kanchana on which there used to be enmity between both the parties coupled with the fact of competitive business. As per the consistent testimonies of PW1 to PW 4 and PW6, on 09.04.2017 at about 06.00 PM, a quarrel begin between Rita Gupta wife of Rama Shankar Gupta on one hand and accused Kanchana Devi wife of Ramesh. Injued Jairam, who is employee in the shop of Rama Shankar intervened and tried to separate them and pacify the matter, however in the meanwhile accused Ramesh and his brother SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 28 of 39 Avdhesh came and started beating Satish Gupta with fists and blows. On hearing the commotion, police officials PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 who were present in the police booth in the market near the spot of incident came and tried to separate the persons who were fighting. However, in the meanwhile, accused Yogeshwar came with a coconut cutter/dagger/chopper in his hand and hit the same on the head of injured Jairam from back side, which incident was witnessed by all the aforesaid witnesses. Though all the public witnesses have been exhaustively cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons, however, nothing material could come out which could demolish the testimony of the public witnesses. Except few discrepancies of minor nature i.e. PW 8 and PW 12 named Rama Shankar to be the person who shifted injured Jairam to hospital instead of correct version is that son of injured Rama Shankar shifting him to hospital. PWs 2, 3 and 4 were confronted with their statements U/S 161 Cr.P.C. wherein carrying of danda by accused Avdhesh (since deceased) is not mentioned.
44. The weapon of offence i.e. coconut water cutter knife was recovered from the possession of accused Yogeshwar Rai at the spot of incident in the presence of independent witness Santosh Kumar (PW5), who has admitted his signatures on the sketch and seizure memo (Ex. PW 5/A) of said weapon during his testimony. Though PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra turned partly hostile, however, he SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 29 of 39 has admitted his signatures on the disclosure statement (Ex. PW 5/C) of accused Yogeshwar Rai. It is not the plea of PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra that police forcibly obtained his signatures on the seizure memo of coconut cutter (Ex. PW 5/A) or disclosure statement of accused Yogeshwar Rai (Ex. PW 5/C). It is relevant to note that PW5 Santosh Kumar Mishra is a responsible person who is Pradhan of the main Market, Malviya Nagar, as admitted by him in his cross examination, who admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of coconut cutter and disclosure statements of accused Yogeshwar Rai.
45. The public witnesses as well as police witnesses have duly identified the weapon of offence i.e. chopper/coconut cutter (Ex. P1) during their testimonies. Except PW5, all the public witness have proved the incident of beatings given by accused Kanchanaa Devi and Ramesh to injured Satish and accused Yogeshwar Rai hitting coconut cutter/knife on the head of injured Jairam, which version of the witnesses remained intact even during their cross examination. Even some of the witnesses have reiterated the fact of hitting of coconut cutter/ chopper/daggar by accused Yogeshwar on the head of injured Jairam in their presence on the date of incident.
46. It is relevant to note that counsel for accused Yogeshwar had put the suggestion in cross examination of PW4 and PW6 that though accused Yogeshwar being a gardner was carrying daggar/coconut cutter in his hand at the time of SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 30 of 39 incident, however, he had not hit the same on the head of Jairam. By putting this suggestion there is a clear admission on the part of accused Yogeshwar that he was carrying daggar/coconut cutter in his hand at the time of incident. Even though the said daggar/coconut cutter was not sent to FSL, the same was duly identified by all the eye witnesses to be the same which was hit by accused Yogeshwar on the head of injured Jairam on the day of incident. In the charge sheet as well as in the seizure memo Pen Drive (Ex. PW 12/K) containing CCTV footage of the incident, it is categorically mentioned that it is seen in the CCTV footage that accused Yogeshwar Rai had twice hit chappar/coconut cutter on the head of Jairam, however, during the cross examination of public witnesses no suggestion was given to them by Ld. defence counsel to refute the said contention. The CCTV footage was played in the Court and PW3 Rama Shankar, PW12 Insp. Sanjay Kumar (IO) after seeing the CCTV footage deposed that the same is that of the incident. No suggestion was either given to PW3 or PW12 by Ld. defence counsel that the CCTV footage is not that of the incident and the suggestion given to PW3 that CCTV footage has been manipulated being 3 months old has been denied by him. Hence, the incident is even proved by electronic evidence in addition of being proved by evidence of independent witnesses.
47. In the present case, the intention and motive of accused Yogeshwar Rai is evident from the fact that hitting of a SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 31 of 39 dangerous weapon like coconut cutter/chapper that too on head of injured Jairam leaves no doubt that the assault was made with intention to kill the injured Jairam.
48. The public witnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 are eye witnesses and exclusive witnesses of the entire incident of beatings given to injured Satish Gupta by accused Ramesh and accused Kanchana Devi and also that of incident of accused Yogeshwar Rai hitting coconut cutter on the head of injured Jairam. On the other hand, public witnesses PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 are the eye witnesses to the only incident of accused Yogeshwar hitting coconut cutter/dagger/chopper on the head of injured Jairam since these police witnesses came in the middle of the incident and were trying to pacify the matter during which subsequent incident of accused Yogeshwar Rai hit coconut cutter on the head of injured Jairam.
49. All the public witnesses in their cross examination remained intact and rather reiterated facts narrated by them in their examination in chief. The testimony of all public witnesses during their cross examination is consistent and unshattered with regard date, time and place of incident; presence of witnesses at the spot; manner in which incident took place; role of each accused in the incident; beatings being given to injured Satish Gupta by accused Ramesh and Kanchana; and hitting of coconut cutter on the head of injured Jairam by accused Yogeshwar etc. The SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 32 of 39 medical evidence in from of MLC (Ex. PW10/A & Ex. PW 13/A) of which have been duly proved by concerned doctors, who examined the injured persons Jairam and Satish which shows 'simple injuries' caused with 'sharp object looks like coconut water cutter' and 'simple blunt' injuries suffered by injured Satish Gupta.
50. The law on appreciation of evidence, as deposed by Prosecution witnesses, has been well settled by catena of judgments. In the case of Gulam Sarbar vs. State of Bihar (2014) 3 SCC 401, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"conviction can be based on the testimony of a single eye witness which has passed the test of reliability and consistency with the information supplied in the FIR and material collected during the course of investigation. It is not the number of witnesses examined but the quality of evidence that is important whereupon the conviction can be based. In other words, the evidence must be weighed and not counted. The testimony of witness should pass the litmus test of cross- examination and stand the touch stone having element of truth and should be cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise".
51. In Santosh Prasad @ Santosh Kumar v State of Bihar, (2020) 3 SCC 443, it was observed as under:
"5.4.2. In Rai Sandeep [Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 750], this Court had an occasion to consider who can be said to be a "sterling witness". In para 22, it is observed and held as under:
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 33 of 39
22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and calibre whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness.
The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him.
Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness"
whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 34 of 39 the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
52. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Chuni Lal vs. State of Delhi, Crl. A. No. 262/2003, decided on 08.08.2013, wherein it was held as under:-
"11. It is settled law that testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness, inasmuch as, he sustain injuries in the incident. As such, there is an inbuilt assurance regarding his presence at the scene of the crime and it is unlikely that he will allow the real culprit to go scot free and would falsely implicate any other persons. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 10 SCC 259], the Supreme Court held as under:
"28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness." [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P., Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab, Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, Bonkya v. State of Maharashtra, Bhag SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 35 of 39 Singh, Mohar v. State of U.P. (SCC p. 606b-c), Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. State of A.P. and Balraje v. State of Maharashtra.]
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
53. In Lallu Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401, it was held as under:
"10. The law of evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to be examined in proof of a given fact. However, faced with the testimony of a single witness, the court may classify the oral testimony into three categories, namely, (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two categories there may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial, before acting upon the testimony of a single witness. (See: Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras [AIR 1957 SC 614 : 1957 Cri LJ 1000].)"
SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 36 of 39
54. It can be safely inferred that the attack made by the accused was dangerous and was sufficient enough to cause death of the complainant. The attack was with the ill motive as it was made on the head of the complainant. Public witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 along with police witnesses PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 are the eye witnesses in whose presence accused Yogeshwar Rai suddenly hit coconut cutter/daggar/chapper on the head of injured Jairam. All these witnesses are the star and the sterling witnesses of the prosecution.
55. All the public witnesses except PW5 have passed the test of reliability and consistency with the case of the prosecution and can be called as a "sterling witness". No doubt, there are small and very insignificant discrepancies in the testimony of the PW8 regarding shifting of injured Jairam by Rama Shankar or his son and also in the testimony of PW12 who wrongly named Suraj Gupta instead of Satish Gupta, but these discrepancies are not of such a magnitude or of nature, which will discredit their testimonies. All the public witnesses except PW5 who were eye witness in addition to police witnesses PW8, PW9, PW11 and PW14 who are also eye witnesses to the have duly supported the case of the prosecution and in their cross examination, they remained intact. All the prosecution witnesses including the police witnesses have consistently proved the case of the prosecution and have duly identified the accused persons as well as coconut cutter/daggar/chappar in the Court. There is no reason to SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 37 of 39 disbelieve the testimony of the public witnesses as all of them have elaborately narrated the incident in the manner in which it took place, defining the motive behind the same. Accused persons have miserably failed to defeat the case of the prosecution and prove any plausible defence. Even the defence taken by them admitting that accused Yogeshwar Rai was carrying coconut cutter/daggar/chappar in his hand at the time of incident draws adverse inference against him.
56. The counsel for the accused persons during the cross-
examination of the police witnesses did not give any suggestion or made any arguments that accused had some enmity with the police officials due to which they in connivance with the public witnesses have falsely implicated the accused. All the public witnesses are independent public witnesses and are eye witness to the incident.
57. Nothing material has come out from the cross-examination of these public witnesses. Even the weapon of offence have been recovered at the spot of incident in the presence of independent public witness and the same was correctly identified by the public witnesses.
CONCLUSION :
58. In view of above facts and circumstances, the accused Ramesh Rai and Kanchana Devi are convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 38 of 39 323/34 IPC and accused Yogeshwar Rai is convicted for the offence U/S 308 IPC.
Announced in the open Court on 08.12.2023 (MADHU JAIN) Principal District & Sessions Judge, South, Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 133/2018 State vs. Ramesh Rai & Ors., FIR No. 138/2017, PS : Malviya Nagar Page No. 39 of 39