Delhi District Court
State vs Pramod Kumar Chauhan on 27 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. AKASH JAIN, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE06, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
State Vs Pramod Kumar Chauhan
FIR No : 223/11
U/s : 323/325/34 IPC
PS : Vasant Vihar
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 96A/02
b) Unique Case ID No. : 02406R0016112012
c) The date of commission of the
offence : 08.07.2011
d) Name of the complainant : Mukesh Kumar Singh
e) Name, parentage & address
of accused : Pramod Kumar Chauhan S/o Mahesh
Chauhan, R/o House No.158, Vasant Village,
New Delhi.
f) Offences complained of : 323/325/34 IPC
g) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
h) Final Judgment : Convicted
i) Date of institution of case : 20.01.2012
j) Date of final arguments : 01.10.2014
k) Date of Judgment : 27.10.2014
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. In the present case chargesheet was filed by the State under Sections 323/325/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter mentioned as 'IPC') against the accused Pramod Kumar Chauhan on 20.01.2012. The case of prosecution is that on 08.07.2011, at about 10:30 pm, in front of House No.15, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, accused in furtherance of CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 1 of 10 his common intention with an unknown person caused simple injuries to complainant Mukesh Singh and caused grievous injuries to one Shugriv by giving blows by wooden plank to them and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 323/325/34 IPC.
2. On the basis of aforesaid chargesheet, Ld. Predecessor Court took cognizance of the offences under sections 323/325/34 IPC against the accused. Upon appearance of the accused, the documents were supplied to him in compliance of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter mentioned as 'Cr.P.C.'). Charge under section 323/325/34 IPC was framed against accused Pramod Kumar Chauhan by Ld. Predecessor Court to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 23.04.2012. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
3. In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. PW1 is Mukesh Kumar Singh, who deposed that he did not know the exact date of incident but it was in the month of July 2011. He was a Patrolling Supervisor in Group4, Security Service then. After refreshing memory, PW1 deposed that on 08.07.2011 when he was about to hand over his duty to Randhir, he informed Rajesh that he was going to home. By that time, one Delhi Police constable Shugriv came there. At 10:00 PM Rajesh insisted PW1 to have cigarette and he went to purchase cigarette on his motorcycle. Thereafter, PW1 and Shugriv Yadav were blowing cigarette and Rajesh without informing PW1 took his motorcycle and went away. At CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 2 of 10 about 10:15 PM one person came there and was going towards Kothi No.16. After some time, Rajesh also came back on motorcycle. PW1 further deposed that in the meantime, the person who went towards Kothi No.16 came to them and asked for a match box. PW1 told him that he had no match box, on which an argument took place and that person slapped PW1. As PW1 questioned the act of that person, in the meanwhile, accused Pramod who was standing behind him and who had tied handkerchief on his face hit PW1 with wooden plank on his head due to which he received severe injuries on his head. As PW1 again tried to get up, accused Pramod again attacked him and when he tried to save himself he received injuries on his hand as well. Thereafter, when his friend Shugriv tried to help him and lifted the chair, the accused started hitting him also. PW1 thereafter ran away from the spot. At another post nearby, the guard helped him, made him sit and tied cloth on his head. PW1 did not remember his name. The guard called 100 number upon which PCR Van came and took PW1 and Shugriv to Trauma Centre. PW1 further deposed that they were discharged on the next day at about 5:00 to 6:00 AM after treatment and he received stitches on his forehead. Thereafter, he went home. PW1 gave his statement to the police on next day and his statement is Ex.PW1/A. PW1 identified the wooden plank as Ex. P1. PW1 also correctly identified the accused in court as the driver working in Kothi no.16.
4. PW2 is Rajesh Kumar, who deposed that on 08.07.2011 he was working as security guard at Kothi no.15, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar and CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 3 of 10 his duty hours were from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. On that day, at about 10:15 PM, his supervisor Mukesh came to him and sent him to market for bringing cigarette and other items. He went to the market by taking the motorcycle of Mukesh. When he returned to his post and parked the motorcycle, he noticed one person was talking with Mukesh and Mukesh was not interested to talk with that person. PW2 thereafter went to them and tried to interfere but that person was not interested to talk and he also misbehaved with him. By that time, the accused came from the side of Kothi No.17 while covering his face with handkerchief. He was correctly identified by PW2 in the court. PW2 tried to talk with him but accused hit him on his right hand and the other person had also beaten him. The accused also beaten Mukesh with one Danda on his head. PW2 in the meantime, brought two chairs from the nearby spot for his defence. The accused had also beaten Shugriv who was present at the spot. Police took Shugriv and Mukesh to hospital for treatment. Police also prepared the site plan as Ex. PW2/A.
5. PW3 is Ct. Satish Kumar, who deposed that on 26.07.2011, he was posted in the court of Ms. Chetna Singh Ld. MM as a naib court. On that day, accused Pramod Chauhan was produced before the court on production warrants. ASI Dharambir had interrogated the accused and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW3/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/B. IO recorded the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex. PW3/C. Accused was correctly identified by the witness.
CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 4 of 10
6. PW4 is Shugriv, who deposed that on 08.07.2011 he was going to Mukesh Kumar who was at Kothi No.15, Paschimi Marg and reached there at about 10:30 pm and handed over the charge to him. PW4 further deposed on the lines of testimony of PW2 and PW1 regarding scuffle with the accused. He further deposed that he received severe injuries on his head and that the same were inflicted by accused. PW4 correctly identified the accused in court.
7. PW5 is Dr. Rashmi Kumari, Sr. Resident AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, who deposed that on 08.07.2011, she was posted at AIIMS Trauma Center. On that day, patients by name Shugriv and Mukesh Singh were referred to her. She had prepared their Xray reports. Both the reports are Ex. PW5/A and PW5/B respectively.
8. PW6 is ASI Kishal Lal, who deposed that on 08.07.2011, he was posted at police station Vasant Vihar as duty officer. At about 10:46 PM, on receipt of information he recorded DD No.36A as Ex. PW6/A. He also brought the register qua DD no.10B dated 09.07.2011. DD no.10B is Ex. PW6/B. He further proved registration of FIR as Ex.PW6/C. He also made an endorsement on rukka vide memo Ex. PW6/D.
9. PW7 is ASI Dharambir Singh, who deposed that on 08.07.2011, he received information vide DD no.36A regarding quarrel. He thereafter reached the spot i.e. D1/2, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar and came to know CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 5 of 10 that a quarrel took place at Kothi no.15, Paschimi Marg. He did not find anybody there and came to know that the injured was shifted to hospital by PCR. PW7 further deposed that thereafter on next day i.e. 09.07.2011, he received DD no.10B that the injured was admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre. PW7 consequently collected the MLCs of Shugriv and Mukesh Kumar but did not meet them in the hospital. On 22.07.2011, Mukesh Kumar alongwith Shugriv came to police station and had given a complaint. PW7 upon verifying the MLCs of the injured persons made an endorsement on complaint as Ex. PW7/A and got registered the FIR. PW7 further deposed that on 26.07.2011, accused surrendered before the court and he made formal arrest of accused vide memo Ex. PW3/A and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW3/B. He recorded disclosure statement of the accused vide memo Ex. PW3/C. On the next day i.e. 27.07.2011, the guard namely Rajesh Kumar of Kothi No.15 produced one wooden plank. PW7 seized the same vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. He also prepared the site plan at instance of Rajesh which is Ex. PW2/A. After completion of investigation, PW7 filed the chargesheet.
10. PW8 is Record clerk from JPNA Trauma Centre AIIMS. He came to depose on behalf of Dr. Zia Rehman who had already left the hospital concerned and his present whereabouts were not known. PW8 proved MLCs of injured Mukesh and Shugriv as Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B respectively.
CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 6 of 10
11. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed by Ld. Predecessor Court on 19.02.2013 and the matter was fixed for recording of statement of accused. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was duly recorded on 06.12.2013. The accused disavowed all the allegations made against him and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused further wished to lead defence evidence.
12. During defence evidence, accused examined his wife Ms. Priya Chauhan as DW1. DW1 deposed that on 08.07.2011, at about 09:3010:00 PM, she alongwith her husband after having dinner had gone for a walk where one guard was present alongwith 23 other persons who were drunk and abused her to which her husband objected but they misbehaved with her and used filthy language. In the meantime, the guards and drivers who were present there gathered. DW1 further stated that many people who had gathered there started to fight among themselves. She further deposed that she cannot say as to who had beaten them. Since, it was night they left the spot. After about 1½ weeks of the said incident they got to know about the present case. DW1 stated that since her husband was working as driver on the Kothi next to the place where incident occurred, the guard had given the name of her husband. She further deposed that her husband has been falsely implicated in the present case. She denied the suggestion of Ld. APP for State that she was not present at the spot. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed and matter proceeded for final arguments.
CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 7 of 10
13. Final arguments heard on behalf of both the parties and record perused in entirety. The factum of simple injuries received by Mukesh Kumar Singh and grievous injuries received by Shugriv is duly proved by testimony of PW8 vide MLCs Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B respectively. The testimony of PW8 remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
14. The question which remains to be adjudicated is whether the said injuries were inflicted by accused in furtherance of his common intention with some unknown persons on 08.07.2011 at about 10:30 PM in front of House No.15, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. In support of its case prosecution primarily relied upon the testimonies of injured PW1 Mukesh Kumar Singh and PW4 Shugriv who both identified the accused in the court and categorically stated that he along with some other unknown persons attacked them with wooden plank due to which they received injuries. Both the witnesses deposed in sync with each other. The testimonies of PW1 and PW4 were further corroborated by the testimony of another eyewitness PW2 Rajesh Kumar who also deposed on the similar lines of testimony of PW1 and PW4. He also identified the accused in the court and stated that the accused along with some unknown persons had beaten Mukesh Kumar Singh and Shugriv with dandas. Though PW4 was not crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW1 and PW2 were duly crossexamined and nothing material could be culled out from their cross examination.
CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 8 of 10
15. It has been argued on behalf of the accused that both the injured persons as well as eyewitness PW2 have admitted in their statements that on the given date, time and place of incident accused had covered his face with handkerchief, as such, in the night when the light was dim, it cannot be said with certainty that it was accused who had allegedly inflicted injuries upon the injured and it is only the case of mistaken identity. It is further argued on behalf of accused that accused was even not present at the spot of incident when the alleged incident took place.
16. At the outset, the arguments made on behalf of accused do not inspire any confidence as DW1 i.e. wife of the accused had categorically deposed in her examination that on the given date, time and place of incident her husband was present along with few other guards at the spot of incident and a fight took place there. This incriminating statement made by wife of the accused clearly rules out the possibility of absence of accused form the spot on the given date, time and place of incident. Moreover, it has been deposed by the injured persons as well as the eyewitness that they knew the accused prior to the incident as he worked as driver in a nearby Kothi and that his face was only half covered.
17. Keeping in view the specific testimonies of injured persons, eye witnesses and other material on record, this court is of the view that the essential ingredients of offences in question are proved against the accused by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the accused Pramod CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 9 of 10 Kumar Chauhan S/o Mahesh Chauhan is held guilty and is convicted for the offences under Section 323/325 IPC.
Accused be heard separately on the point of sentence on 19.11.2014.
Announced in the open Court (Akash Jain)
on 27.10.2014 Metropolitan Magistrate06,
Patiala House Court,
New Delhi
CC No. 96A/02 FIR No. 223/11 Page no. 10 of 10