Delhi District Court
Title Of The Case: : State vs Suraj & Another on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS UPASANA SATIJA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI, NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. : 537390/2016
Unique I.D. No. : 02404R0265872007
Title of the case: : State Vs Suraj & Another
FIR No. 589/2004, PS Sultan Puri
Date of institution : 25.05.2007
The offence complained of : 325/341/34 IPC
The date of commission of
offence : 29.05.2004
The name of complainant : Sh. Surender Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Sanehi
R/o B164/6, Sani Bazar Road, Gali No.6,
Near Deep Public School, Prem NagarIII,
Delhi.
The name of accused : (1) Suraj S/o Sh. Than Singh
(2) Munesh S/o Sh. Nem Singh
Both R/o H.No. 189, Gali No.9, CBlock,
Gaurav Nagar, Prem Nagar - III, Delhi.
The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
The final order : Conviction
The date of such order : 19.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present case arises out of FIR registered upon complaint of FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 1 of 10 Surender Kumar s/o Sh. Ram Snehi (hereinafter referred to as complainant). Upon completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed u/s 325/341/34 IPC against Suraj s/o Sh. Dhan Singh and Munesh s/o Sh. Naem Singh (hereinafter referred to as accused persons).
2. The case of prosecution, in brief, can be stated as that on 29.05.2004, at about 01:30 PM, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainant at Gali No9, CBlock, Gaurav Nagar, Prem NagarIII, Delhi and thereafter caused grievous hurt on the person of the complainant with hockey stick.
3. The cognizance of offence under Section 325/341/34 IPC was taken and the accused persons were summoned.
4. The charge for offence u/s 325/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence, this Court conducted trial.
5. For proving its case, prosecution examined six witnesses.
5.1. The complainant Surender Kumar was examined as PW1 who testified that in the month of May 2004, a kid of his neighbour had died and was cremated at odd hours by accused persons and when he asked as to why the accused have not waited for him, they became infuriated. He further deposed that on 29.05.2004, accused Suraj came to him and said that his brother was calling him. He further deposed that he accompanied accused Suraj and when they reached in gali No.9, Cblock, Gaurav Nagar, Prem NagarIII, outside the house of accused FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 2 of 10 persons, he saw accused Munesh standing with a hockey stick who started abusing him and also ran towards him with hockey. He further deposed that when he started running from there, accused Suraj caught hold of him and accused Munesh attacked on his right foot with hockey stick and when he cried, someone called his brother who came and rescued him. He further deposed that he was taken to the hospital and his statement was recorded by the police which was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. PW1 correctly identified both the accused as well as the hockey stick.
During his crossexamination, PW1 stated that he knows the accused persons as they were residing in the same locality. He further stated that the kid had died 45 days before the date of complaint in the present case and that the kid was residing nearby the house of the accused persons. He denied that no offence was committed by the accused persons towards him or that he had falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case.
5.2. Anil Kumar s/o Ram Snehi was examined as PW2 who deposed that on 29.05.2004, at about 0101:30 PM, accused Suraj came to their house and took the complainant with him and after sometime, he received information from one person namely Vijender that some quarrel had taken place between PW1 and accused Suraj at the house of the accused and that he immediately rushed to the spot and saw that accused Munesh was beating PW1 on his right foot with hockey stick and he intervened and rescued his brother; police was called and he along with police officials took his brother to SGM hospital and hockey stick was recovered from the house of accused persons and the accused persons were arrested. He deposed that the hockey stick was found in broken condition. PW2 correctly identified both the accused as well as the hockey stick.
The accused opted not to crossexamine the said witness despite FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 3 of 10 opportunity being given for the same.
5.3. HC Om Prakash was examined as PW3 who deposed that on 29.05.2004, he was posted as Ct. at PP Prem Nagar, PS Sultan Puri and on that day, he along with HC Jai Bhagwan was on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00PM, and HC Jai Bhagwan received DD No.14 from PP Prem Nagar regarding quarrel at Shani Bazar Road, Gali No.6, Prem NagarIII and thereafter he along with HC Jai Bhagwan reached the spot where they came to know that injured had already been taken to SGM Hospital and then he along with HC Jai Bhagwan reached the hospital, where they met the complainant and HC Jai Bhagwan recorded the statement of complainant, prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and after getting the FIR registered, he came back to the hospital along with copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to the IO and thereafter, he along with IO and injured reached at the spot and the IO prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant. He further deposed that they searched for the accused but the accused persons could not be found He further deposed that on 30.05.2004, after getting information from PW2, the accused persons were arrested at the instance of PW2 and their personal search was conducted by the IO. The arrest memos and personal search memos were exhibited as Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/D. He further deposed that thereafter they went to house of accused Suraj and on his pointing out, broken hockey was recovered which was seized vide seizure memo exhibited as Ex.PW 3/E. PW3 correctly identified both the accused in the Court.
The accused opted not to crossexamine the said witness despite opportunity being given for the same.
FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 4 of 105.4. ASI Bajrang Lal was examined as PW4 who deposed that on 29.05.2004 he was posted at PS Sultan Puri and on that day duties of the duty officer were assigned to him from 04:00 p.m. to 12:00 midnight and at 04:50 PM, on receipt of rukka brought by Ct. Om Prakash sent by HC Jai Bhagwan, he registered the present case and investigation was entrusted to HC Jai Bhagwan. He produced the original record of FIR and carbon copy of the same was exhibited as Ex.PW4/A and endorsement made by him on the rukka was exhibited as Ex.PW4/B. The accused opted not to crossexamine the said witness despite opportunity being given for the same.
5.5. Sh. B.K. Jha, Record Clerk, SGM Hosptial was examined as PW5. He produced the record of MLC No.1305 dated 29.05.2004. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. He also produced the original record of xray on the basis of which the MLC no. 1305 was prepared and same was exhibited as Ex.PW7/A. The accused opted not to crossexamine the said witness despite opportunity being given for the same.
5.6. ASI Rakesh Kumar was examined as PW6 who deposed that on 02.02.2007, further investigation of the case was marked to him and he prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the Court.
The accused opted not to crossexamine the said witness despite opportunity being given for the same.
6. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined in accordance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to them and they denied the same and stated to be innocent and FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 5 of 10 to have been falsely implicated.
7. Final arguments were heard.
8. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, the accused be convicted. He further argued that PW1 and PW2 correctly identified the accused and that PW2 corroborated the testimony of PW1 i.e. the complainant. He further stated that MLC also corroborates the fact that the injury sustained by the complainant was grievous in nature.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that although quarrel took place between the accused persons and complainant, but now the parties have resolved all their disputes.
Applicable Law and its application to present facts
10. Section 325 IPC penalises the act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt whereas Section 322 IPC defines the act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt as:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt."
Explanation A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind.FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 6 of 10
Further, Section 341 IPC provides punishment for wrongful restraint whereas Section 339 defines Wrongful Restraint as Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
11. In the present case, from the MLC Ex.PW5/A, it is established that right leg of the complainant was injured and the nature of injury, on the basis of xray report, was opined to be grievous.
12. Now, it is to be seen whether it was the act of the accused persons which resulted in causation of hurt to the complainant.
12.1. PW1 deposed that on the relevant day i.e. on 29.05.2004, accused Suraj came to him and said that his brother was calling him and that when they reached in gali No.9, Cblock, Gaurav Nagar, Prem NagarIII, outside the house of accused persons, he saw accused Munesh standing with a hockey stick who started abusing him and also ran towards him with hockey. He further deposed that when he started running from there, accused Suraj caught hold of him and accused Munesh attacked on his right foot with hockey stick.
12.2. Further, PW2 corroborated the testimony of PW1 and deposed that on 29.05.2004, accused Suraj took the complainant with him and after sometime, he received information from one person namely Vijender that some quarrel had taken place between the complainant and accused Suraj at the house of the accused and that he immediately rushed to the spot and saw that accused Munesh was beating the complainant on his right foot with hockey stick.
FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 7 of 1012.3. The aforesaid witnesses were consistent in their testimonies and nothing has been brought on record, through their crossexamination or otherwise, which might render their testimony unreliable. Accordingly, in view of the above, it can be concluded that the complainant suffered injury due to the act of being hit with hockey stick by the accused Munesh.
13. Accordingly, the fact that it was the act of accused Munesh that resulted in causation grievous injury to the complainant is established. However, in order to establish the liability of the accused under Section 325 IPC, it is also essential to establish that the accused intended or knew himself likely to cause grievous hurt.
14. Accused Munesh was armed with hockey stick and had made all the preparation with intention to cause hurt to the complainant with the said stick and the nature of weapon used to cause injury point towards the fact that the intention was to cause grievous injury.
15. Further, PW1 i.e. the complainant categorically deposed that he tried to run away but accused Suraj caught hold of him. Accordingly, by his said act, accused Suraj obstructed the complainant so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which he had a right to proceed.
16. In view of the above, it can be concluded that essential elements of the offence under Sections 325 and 341 IPC are established.
17. As a general principle of criminal law, a person is liable only for the act which is done by him. However, Section 34 IPC creates constructive liability and FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 8 of 10 a person can be held liable even for the acts which were not done by him provided the conditions as specified in Section 34 IPC are fulfilled.
18. In order to establish the liability of the accused persons, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons shared the common intention and the offence was committed in furtherance of common intention of accused persons.
19. Intention is the desire of mind to produce a particular result. When two or more persons share the said desire, they are said to be having common intention to produce the desired result. Now if any of the persons will act in furtherance of such common intention, then by virtue of Section 34 IPC each of the other persons will also be liable for the said act.
20. Common intention is to be gathered from the circumstances; and the manner in which accused persons acted as is evident from testimony of PW1 and PW2, it can be concluded that they did share the intention to cause hurt to the complainant and for achieving the desired result they acted in collusion and at first accused Suraj approached the complainant and persuaded him to accompany him to his house outside which the other accused Munesh was waiting with hockey stick and who started abusing the complainant. Further when the complainant tried to escape, accused Suraj caught hold of him and accused Munesh hit him with hockey stick on his right foot.
21. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the conditions as specified in Section 34 IPC are fulfilled and since the accused persons shared common intention to cause injury to the complainant; each of the accused will be liable for the criminal acts done in furtherance of their common intention i.e. any FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 9 of 10 criminal act done in order to achieve the desired result.
22. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Suraj and Munesh are convicted of the offence under Section 325/341/34 IPC.
23. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to the convicts.
Digitally signedAnnounced in the open Court by UPASANA
UPASANA SATIJA
on 19th November, 2019 SATIJA Date:
2019.11.21
15:25:08 +0530
(UPASANA SATIJA)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE1
ROHINI DELHI
FIR No. 589/04 State v Suraj & Another Page 10 of 10