Delhi District Court
Titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa",1966 Air 1775, on 3 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAUMYA CHAUHAN,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-07, WEST, TIS HAZARI COURT
State v. Harphool etc.
FIR No. 412/98
PS Paschim Vihar
U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
C C No. : 1600A/2/10
Date of Institution : 05.08.1999
Date of Commission of Offence : 05.07.1998
Name of the complainant : Ct. Satpal Singh
No.4360/PCR, West Zone, Delhi
Name & address of the accused : A-1 Harphool
S/o Ramji Lal
R/o H. No. 478, Relief Camp
Peeragarhi, Delhi
A-2 Santosh
W/o Harphool
R/o H. No. 478, Relief Camp
Peeragarhi, Delhi
A-3 Gurmeet Singh
S/o Harphool
R/o H. No. 478, Relief Camp
Peeragarhi, Delhi
A-4 Jaggi
S/o Harphool
R/o H. No. 478, Relief Camp
Peeragarhi, Delhi
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 1/23
Offence complained of : U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted U/s 353/332/34 IPC
Acquitted U/s. 186 IPC
Date of reserve for judgment : 01.11.2014
Date of announcing of judgment : 03.11.2014
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of the present case u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC.
2. The briefly stated story of the prosecution is that on 05.07.1998 at about 10.20 pm in front of D-478, Peera Garhi Relief Camp, the accused pesons namely Harphool, Santosh, Gurmeet Singh and Jaggi in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Ct. Driver Satpal Singh who had gone to the abovesaid address along with Ct. Balwan Singh & ASI Mukhtiyar Singh in a PCR van, upon receiving a message about quarrel. The accused persons assaulted Ct. Satpal so as to deter him in discharge of his public functions and caused hurt to him. They also tore his uniform and accused Santosh had caught hold of his private parts, and thus the accused persons are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 186/353/332/34 IPC.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 2/23
3. After completing the formalities, investigation was carried out. Charge sheet was filed against the accused persons in the court. Documents were supplied to the accused and thereafter charge under u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was framed against them by the Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 20.09.2002 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e (1) Dr. P. S. Sarangi (2) ASI Mukhtiar Singh (3) Ct. Satpal (4) Ct. Balwan Singh (5) Ct. Azad Singh (6) Pushpal Kaur (7) SI Vijay Pal.
5. PW-1 Dr. P. S. Sarangi, Surgical Specialist, DDU hospital, deposed that on 06.07.98 at about 1.12 am, patient Satpal Singh was brought to the casualty. He was initially examined by Dr. Alok and his MLC was also prepared by him. MLC is Ex. PW1/A bearing the signature of Dr. Alok at point A which were correctly identified by the witness as he had seen Dr. Alok signing and writing during the course of his official work. After going through the said MLC, the witness had given the final opinion that the nature of the injuries was simple. He has further deposed that on the same day at about 1.20 am, injured Ct. Balwant Singh was also brought to the casualty. His MLC was prepared after examination by Dr. Bobin Kumar and same is Ex. PW1/B. Witness identified the signatures of Bobin Kumar at State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 3/23 point A as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his official work. The nature of injuries was simple.
6. In the cross examination, PW-1 admitted that he had not prepared the MLC Ex. PW1/A and Ex. PW1/B. However, he had physically examined the injured on that day. He admitted that the date of examination has not been mentioned at point X. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely.
7. PW-2 ASI Mukhtiyar Singh deposed that on 05.07.98 he was posted at West Zone, PCR and was on duty from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. Ct. Balwan and Ct. Satpal were also with him. The vehicle was being driven by Ct. Satpal. At about 10.15 pm, he received a message on wireless from P-1 about one quarrel. It was revealed that son of Harphool was quarreling at B-478, Relief Camp, Peeragarhi. On that information, they took their vehicle at the spot. Public persons had already gathered there. They left Ct. Satpal near the vehicle and the witness along with Ct.Balwan went near the crowd. Thereafter some public persons told them that an argument had taken place with his driver Ct. Satpal. They returned back and saw that accused Harphool, Jagga and Pappu were giving beatings to Ct. Satpal and wife of Harphool namely Santosh had caught hold of the genetic portion of Ct. Harpal. They started quarreling with Ct. Balwan also. Local police reached there and apprehended all the accused. Both the injured were taken to the State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 4/23 hospital. His statement was recorded by the police. He deposed that the shirt of the injured was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/A. Witness identified the accused persons as well as the uniform of Ct. Satpal. The uniform is Ex.P1.
8. In the cross examination, he admitted that he had refreshed his memory before deposing in the court. He admitted that IO had not seized the name plate of Ct. Satpal at that time, though it was attached with the shirt of the constable. He denied the suggestion that the shirt did not belong to Ct. Satpal. He further admitted that he had not stated to the IO that right shoulder of the shirt of Ct. Satpal was torn by the accused in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that departure entry was made in the logbook of the vehicle regarding arrival and departure. He admitted that IO had not seized log book of the said PCR van. He admitted that the place of occurrence is surrounded by populated area. He admitted that IO had not called two respectable persons of the locality before conducting the proceedings. He admitted that there are no initials of any public witness on Ex. PW2/A. He further admitted that entire work of writing was done at the spot by the IO. He stated that all the accused persons were arrested by the IO on the date of occurrence immediately. He again stated that he could not remember properly. The witness could not recall the name or State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 5/23 description of the person who had disclosed the facts to him that Ct. Satpal was injured. He denied the suggestion that when they had reached at the spot there was a pandal for marriage and baarat was being welcomed. He also denied that quarrel amongst the persons at the marriage party was going on at that time. He denied the suggestion that in his presence Ct. Satpal and Ct. Balwan were not beaten up by the accused persons.
9. PW-3 Ct. Satpal deposed that on 05.07.1998 he was posted at PCR van, Power 65 as driver. His duty hours were from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. HC Mukhtiar Singh and Ct. Balwan Singh were also on duty with him on the PCR van. He deposed that at about 10.15 pm, a call was received from control room about a quarrel at D-Block, Relief Camp in the house of Harphool. They all went there. PCR van was parked by the witness near the house of Harphool. I/C man HC Mukhtiyar Singh and Gun man Ct. Balwan Singh went towards the house of Harphool in search of his son. Witness kept standing near the PCR van. At the same time, accused Harphool, Jagga and Pappu came near him and asked him why he was standing there. He told them about the call received. They asked the witness to go and when the witness refused to do so, they started beating him. In the meanwhile, wife of Harphool, namely Santosh also reached there and caught the private part of the witness. They also tore the uniform State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 6/23 of the witness. He deposed that he became unconscious and I/C man and gunman rescued him. When he regained his conscious, he found that Harphool and Jagga had ran away from the spot while Santosh and Pappu had been apprehended. SI Vijay Pal recorded his statement which is Ex. PW3/A. His uniform was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW2/A. Accused Pappu and Santosh were arrested and personal search of the accused Pappu was conducted vide memo Ex. PW3/B. The witness was taken to DDU hospital for medical examination. The witness deposed that the accused persons had obstructed him from his duty. He identified the accused persons as well as his torn uniform in the court.
10.In the cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he had refreshed his memory. However, the counsel for accused pointed out that date and place of occurrence were written on the palm of the witness. The court observed the same and directed the witness to remove the said writing and warned the witness to remain careful in future.
11.It was stated by the witness that he had made arrival entry in the log book kept in the PCR van and also made departure entry in the same while handing over the charge to other duty officials. He stated that IO had taken a photocopy of the logbook in his possession. He admitted that he had not signed the logbook. He admitted that his shirt was having his name plate State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 7/23 and that same is not on the shirt now. Court made an observation that the hook with which the name plate is affixed is torn. Witness admitted that the IO had not taken the name plate in his possession. He denied the suggestion that the shirt Ex. P1 does not belong to him. He admitted that the IO had not put any identification mark on the shirt. He also admitted that he had not mentioned in his complaint that the quarrel was going on at the house of Harphool. He stated that he was driver in the van and was standing beside the vehicle. Therefore the question of going in search of son of Harphool does not arise. He stated that he had earlier stated in his complaint that the accused persons had asked him as to why he was standing there. At this, the witness was confronted with his statement Ex. 3/DA where it was not so recorded. He admitted that the spot was the residential area. He also admitted that the cloth of the shirt Ex. P1 is easily available in the market. He stated that he had not seen any marriage pandal. He denied the suggestion that a quarrel had taken place with the baratis and he had sustained injuries due to the same. He denied the suggestion that Harphool has called the PCR and police officials had come at the spot. He admitted that no other person had signed on any paper in his presence. He admitted that he was medically examined on 06.07.98.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 8/23
12.PW-4 Ct. Balwan Singh has corroborated the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3. He has further deposed that IO has sent him to DDU hospital for medical examination. During cross examination, he stated that his statement was recorded by SI Vijay Pal on 05.07.1998. He admitted that there is no engraved name of Ct. Satpal on the torn shirt visible. He was not aware whether the IO had put any identification mark on the shirt in question. He stated that IO had not taken the copy of the log book of the PCR van pertaining to the information in the present case. He further stated that IO reached at the spot at about 10.30 pm and they all remained at the spot for 10-15 minutes. He denied the suggestion that no medical examination was conducted at Mangol Puri. This witness was unable to tell whether any of the document was signed by any public witness or not. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were not present at the spot and that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.
13.PW-5 Ct. Azad Singh deposed that on 05.07.1998 he was posted at PS Paschim Vihar and was on emergency duty. On receiving DD No.23 A, he along with IO went to 478, Relief Camp, where they found that PCR van, power 65 was already standing there. Ct. Satpal met him there. IO recorded his statement. Accused Harphool and his son had ran away from the spot while Pappu and Santosh were apprehended. IO prepared the tehrir and State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 9/23 gave it to the witness for registration of FIR. He went to the PS and after registration of FIR, returned back to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. Lady HC Pushpal Kaur was called for the personal search of the accused Santosh. He deposed that IO has seized the torn uniform of the Ct. Satpal and sealed the pulanda with the seal of 'VP'. Personal search of the accused Santosh is Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that he was sent along with Satpal Singh and Balwan Singh to the DDU hospital for medical examination.
14.During cross examination, PW-5 admitted that he had not made the departure entry when he left the police station on 05.07.1998. He admitted that place of occurrence was a public area. He stated that before the date of incident, he did not know accused Harphool and his elder son. He took the rukka and left the spot at about 7.30 pm and returned back around 11.00 pm. After that IO recorded the statement of Pappu, Santosh and Ct. Satpal. He stated that he had signed on several documents but could not remember exactly about those documents. He could not recall the name of lady constable. He denied the suggestion that he had left the spot after his statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
15.PW-6 W/HC Pushpal Kaur deposed that on 05.07.98 she was on night duty and had reached at Peeragarhi relief camp on the call of SI Vijay Pal. She State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 10/23 deposed that she had conducted the personal search of accused Santosh. In the cross examination, she admitted that she had not signed the daily diary at the time of leaving the PS nor had she signed her arrival entry after her return.
16.PW-7 SI Vijay Pal deposed that on 05.07.1998 he had received DD No. 23A at about 10.20 pm on which he along with Ct. Azad Singh had reached the spot. There he found that PCR van Power 65 and its staff, I/C Van HC Mukhtiyar Singh, Gunman Ct. Balwan Singh and driver Ct. Satpal Singh. The uniform of Ct. Satpal was torn from his shoulder. He recorded the statement of Ct. Satpal. He prepared rukka Ex.PW7/A and sent it for registration of FIR through Ct. Azad. Ct. Azad returned back to the spot along with HC Pushpal Kaur. The witness further deposed that he examined the I/C Van and the Gunman and recorded their statements. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/B. Personal search of accused Santosh was conducted by HC Pushpal Kaur. Both the accused were arrested vide memo Ex.PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D and personal search of accused Gurmeet was conducted. The torn uniform was seized and sealed with the seal of VP. Thereafter, Ct. Satpal and Ct. Balwan were got medically examined from DDU hospital.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 11/23
17.PW-7 further deposed that on 14.07.98 accused Harphool surrendered in the court and was formally arrested. His personal search was conducted vide search memo Ex.PW7/E. The accused Jagga was arrested on 25.09.98 from Tis Hazari Court. The witness had collected the MLC of injured. The sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.,C was obtained from DCP / PCR. The witness filed the challan in the court.
18.During cross examination, PW-7 admitted that he had not made the DD entry at departure from the police station. He admitted that public persons had collected at the spot, however, he had not given any written notice to the person under Section 187 IPC who had refused to join the proceedings. He denied the suggestion that he had left the spot after preparing the rukka. The witness could not recall whether any marriage ceremony was going on at the spot.
19.Thereafter, the PE was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded in which they denied all the allegations and pleaded innocence. Accused persons led defence evidence to prove their innocence.
20.In the defence evidence, accused persons had examined one Dilbag Rai as DW-1 who deposed that he was the neigbhour of Harphool. In the summer seaon of 1998 at about 7.00-7.30 pm, one reception of Barat was taking place. Many baratis were intoxicated and were quarrelling with each other.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 12/23
Some one made call to the PCR and the police came at the spot and took away the accused persons from their house with them. Witness also accompanied them. He deposed that in the police station, the police officers had threatened to falsely implicate him in the present matter, thus he came back to his residence. During cross examination by Ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that accused persons had beaten Ct. Satpal on 05.07.98. He denied the suggestion that he had deposed falsely in the court.
21.I have heard the submissions addressed by the Ld APP for state and the Ld. Counsel for accused persons and carefully perused the documents on record.
22.The Ld. Counsel for accused persons has submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. He has submitted that the MLC of the alleged injured has not been duly exhibited as the doctor who had prepared the same has not been examined. It has been argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the sanction under Section 195 Cr.P.C as neither the complainant was examined on this point nor the concerned ACP was examined as a witness. He has further submitted that testimony of PW-2 is not reliable as he had refreshed his memory before making his deposition. It has been also argued that the name plate of the uniform has not been seized nor the log book of the PCR was seized. He submitted that none of the police officer had made entry in the departure/arrival entry in the State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 13/23 daily diary. No independent witness was asked to join the investigation despite availability.
23.On the other hand, it has been submitted by the Ld. APP that there is no discrepancy in the testimony of the injured and the eye witnesses. He has submitted that the MLC has been duly proved by PW-1. He has submitted that refreshing of memory before deposition is allowed under Section 159 Indian Evidence Act ans hence no illegality can be attached with his testimony. He has further submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case and the guilt of the accused persons is duly established for offences under section 186/353/332 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
24.Let us first examine relevant provisions of law. Section 186 IPC prescribes punishment for causing obstruction to any public person in discharge of his public functions and the punishment prescribed is imprisonment up to three months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or both.
25.Section 332 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing hurt to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 14/23
3. Or in consequences of anything done or admitted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
26.Section 353 IPC prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to deter a public servant from discharging of his duty. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under this Section are:-
1. Voluntarily causing assault or criminal force to any person being a public servant in discharge of his duty as such public servant.
2. There should be an intention to prevent that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.
3. Or in consequences of anything done or admitted to be done by that person in lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant.
27.The first defence raised by the Ld. Counsel is that the Sanction under Section 195 Criminal code of procedure has not been duly proved by the prosecution. It is mandated by Section 195 of Cr.P.C that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable U/s 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate. It is admitted position in the present matter that the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved on record as the complainant PW-3, who had made the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C has not been examined on this point during his examination in chief. This is to be noted that on 12.03.2014 State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 15/23 an application U/s 311 Cr.P.C was moved by the then Ld. APP to examine the DD Writer of the DD no. 23-A and ACP, South zone to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. However, the same was dismissed vide order of the same date as the PE was already closed and much delay had been caused, and also for the reason that the name of these witnesses was given neither in the List of witnesses nor in the application. Hence, the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C remained not proved.
28.It has been argued by Ld. APP for State that the failure to prove the complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C would only vitiate trial in respect of offence punishable U/s 186 IPC, and it would not affect the trial in respect of offence U/s 332 & 353 IPC as no formal complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C is required for taking cognizance for offences punishable under these sections.
29.It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a three judges bench in a case titled "Durgacharan Naik And Ors vs State Of Orissa",1966 AIR 1775, wherein it was held:-
"It is true that most of the allegations in this case upon which the charge under Section 353, Indian Penal Code is based are the same as those constituting the charge under s. 186, Indian Penal Code but it cannot be ignored that section 186 and 353, Indian Penal Code relate to two distinct offences and while the offence under the latter section is a cognizable offence, the one under the former section is State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 16/23 not so. The ingredients of the two offences are also distinct. Section 186, Indian Penal Code is applicable to a case where the accused voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his public functions but under Section 353, Indian Penal Code the ingredient of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. The quality of the two offences is also different. Section 186 occurs in Ch. X of the Indian Penal Code dealing with Contempt of the lawful authority of public servants, while s. 353 occurs in Ch. XVI regarding the offences affecting the human body. It is well-established that s. 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not bar the trial of an accused person for a distinct offence disclosed by the same set of facts but which is not within the ambit of that section."
30. The above stated principle of law was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme court in "Pankaj Aggarwal VS. State of Delhi", LAWS(SC)-2001-3-49, wherein it was held:-
"In view of the judgment of this Court in AIR 1966 SC 1775 where the court has analysed the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code and 186,Indian Penal Code and held that the two are distinct offences and the quality of the offence is also different, we are of the opinion that judgment of the Punjab High Court is not correct in State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 17/23 law and has taken a view contrary to the law laid down by this Court. What has been stated earlier in the aforesaid case in relation to the provisions of Section 353,Indian Penal Code would equally apply to the provisions of Section 332 of the Indian Penal Code."
31. On the basis of above stated landmark judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court it has been established that non filing of formal complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C will not vitiate proceeding in respect of offence under section 332 and 353 of IPC. However accused is entitled for acquittal for offence under section 186 IPC, as the formal complaint under section 195 Cr.P.C has not been proved on record.
32.Now the court shall proceed to record its findings qua the remaining offence.
The star witness of prosecution was the injured/ PW-3 Ct. Satpal. The testimony of this witness has remained consistent and the defence has not been able to shake the veracity of his statement or to impeach his credibility. The testimony of this witness has been well corroborated by that of PW-2 ASI Mukhtiyar Singh and PW-4 Ct. Balwan Singh who were both present with the injured at the time of incident. The testimony of remaining witnesses has remained consistent and there is no major discrepancy in the testimony of prosecution witnesses.
33.Counsel for accused has submitted that no public witness was examined by the prosecution despite availability. However, the court does not find any State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 18/23 force in this argument. It is well settled proposition of law that the testimony of injured himself is sufficient and does not need corroboration from public witnesses. It has been held in plethora of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and our own High Court of Delhi that the testimony of police witnesses shall not be thrown out only for the reason that he is a police witness. The court shall not throw out the case of the prosecution merely on the ground that all the witnesses examined are police witnesses. In "Govinda Raju @ Govinda vs State of Shri Ram Puram PS & Anr", Crl Appeal No. 984 of 2007,Supreme Court, authored by Justice Swatanatra Kumar, it was held "Wherever the evidence of the police officers, after careful scrutiny, inspires evidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form the basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case.........No infirmity attaches to the testimony of the police officers merely because they belong to the police force and there is no rule of law or evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be recorded on the evidence on the police officers, if found reliable, unless corroborated by some independent witness."
34.The Hon'ble court referred to the judgment titled "Aher Raja Khima vs State of Saurashtra", AIR 1956 SC 2017 and observed that it was a judgment State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 19/23 pronounced more than half a century ago noticing the principle that the presumption that a person act honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as of other persons and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds therefore.
35.In the light of the above stated case-laws, court is of the opinion that statement of police witnesses can be relied upon and cannot be disbelieved only for the reason of non-corroboration by public witness.
36.Another contention raised by the defence Counsel is that the doctor who had prepared the MLC has not been examined. This contention holds no water as PW-1 Dr. P. S. Sarangi, who had given the final opinion on the MLC of Ct. Satpal (Ex.PW1/A), not only identified his own signatures on the MLC but also identified the signatures of Dr. Alok and Dr. Bobin Kumar who had examined the injured and prepared the MLC, having seen them writing and signing during the course of his official duties. Hence, the testimony of PW-1 is relevant under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act. The said Section is reproduced verbatim here at this stage:-
"Section 47. Opinion has to handwriting, when relevant- When the court has to form an opinion as to the person by whom any document was written or signed, the opinion of any person acquainted with the handwriting State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 20/23 of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed that it was or was not written or signed by that person is a relevant fact.
Explanation:- A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write or when he has received document purporting to be written by that person in answer to document written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him."
37.Hence, in view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the MLC of the injured Ct. Satpal is sufficiently proved. The injuries mentioned in MLC Ex. PW1/A cannot be read without some difficulty as the page is torn from the middle in two parts, however it is not illegible and it can be seen that injured, Ct. Satpal had suffered swelling and tenderness over the index figure. There are also bruise injuries on the leg and chest of the injured. It also shows that crush injury and abrasion over ANTRO MEDI aspect of right leg and Tenderness over MI DD circular lying in two-three RD IC on the right side of the chest. Hence, it is duly proved by the prosecution that Ct. Satpal had received simple injuries on the relevant date.
State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC
FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 21/23
38.It is further argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that the logbook of the PCR was not seized by the IO and also that the torn uniform Ex. P1 does not bear name plate of the injured. It is a procedural lapse on the part of the IO to not have seized the logbook of the PCR. However, it does not strike at the root of the case of the prosecution and does not constitute a ground for acquittal merely. Also non-presence of the name plate on the torn uniform is irrelevant as PW-3 has identified the said uniform as his.
39.To rebut the case of the prosecution, the accused persons have exmained one witness. DW-1 has deposed that on the date of incident, one marriage was taking place at the spot and the intoxicated baratis were quarreling with each other. Police came at the spot and took away the accused persons from their house and falsely implicated them in the present case.
40.Now this witness DW-1, has not deposed as to whose marriage at the said place. Since DW-1 was a neighbour of the accused and the place of incident is admittedly outside the house of the accused, it can be easily inferred that the witness must be aware in which family the marriage function was taking place. However, he has failed to give any details of the marriage or the baratis. Also, the court fails to understand why the police would go to the house of the accused persons and pick them up if it was the baratis who were quarreling. The court is of the view that the testimony of DW-1 is an State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 22/23 afterthought, an attempt by the accused persons to save themselves from prosecution.
41.The accused persons have failed to show why the complainant and other staff members would falsely implicate them in the present matter. The court does not see any reason for the complainant to depose falsely against the accused persons and thus disbelieve the testimony of the prosecution witnesses including the complainant.
42.In view of the above discussion, the court is of the view that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Harphool, Santosh, Gurmeet Singh and Jaggi stands convicted under Section 353/332/34 Indian Penal Code. However, the accused persons are acquitted for the offence under Section 186 Indian Penal Code.
43.Be listed for arguments on sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3rd November 2014 (SAUMYA CHAUHAN) MM-07(West)/ Tis Hazari Court/03.11.2014 State v. Harphool Singh etc. U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC FIR No. 412/98 PS Paschim Vihar 23/23