Delhi District Court
Fir No. 1129/05; State vs . Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 1 Of 18 on 26 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 77/13
FIR No. 1129/05
P.S. Rohini
U/S: 186/353/333/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) ASHOK KUMAR
s/o Sh. Rajender Singh
r/o Vill. Farmana, PS Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonipat, Haryana
Pre. Add.
Flat no. 20, Pocket7,
Sector2, Rohini, Delhi
(2) KARAMVEER
s/o Sh. Sardar
r/o Vill. Bhupania,
Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (Haryana)
Date of Institution: 12012011
Date of arguments: 25112013
Date of judgement: 26112013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 15112005 on receipt of DD no. 66B, HC Vijay Kumar along with Ct. FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 1 of 18 Raj Kumar reached at DTC Terminal, Sector1, Rohini where complainant was not found. Thereafter, on receipt of information from BSA hospital, they reached at BSA hospital and obtained MLC no. 6098/05 of injured Ranbir Singh. The injured was fit for statement. However, due to pain in ear, Ranbir Singh refused to give statement and stated that he would give statement in the PS. On 16112005 at about 12:15 pm, complainant Ranbir Singh came in the PS and gave statement to HC Vijay Kumar that he was posted as driver in DTC Bus Depot, Subhash Place. On 15112005, he was on duty from 2 pm to 10 pm on bus no. DL1PB1707 of route no. 971. At about 8:15 pm, when he reached Avantika Booth and marking entry of his bus in the register, the staff of bus no. DL1PB2955 was also present there and its driver and conductor Karamveer and Bobby reached there and asked him as to why he overtook their bus after compelling them to take their bus on extreme left side and started abusing him. Thereafter, staff of bus no. DL1PB0491 of route no. 971 also reached there and its staff Ashok Kumar and Monty also started taking their favour. Karamveer, Ashok and Bobby caught hold of Ranbir Singh and Monty started beating him with fist and slap blows due to which complainant received injury in his right ear. Complainant reached at FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 2 of 18 Saroj Hospital in his bus and from there he called at 100 number. PCR van removed complainant to BSA hospital for treatment. FIR u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was registered and HC Vijay Kumar recorded statements of witnesses. Accused Ashok Kumar and Karamveer were arrested. The search for coaccused was made but they were not traceable. The doctor gave the opinion on the MLC of complainant as grievous and section 332 IPC was replaced with section 333 IPC. Coaccused Monty and Bobby were searched but they were not traceable. Duty slip of complainant Ranvir was obtained and report u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was also obtained. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused Ashok Kumar and Karamveer us/ 186/353/333/34 IPC.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge u/s 186/353/333/34 IPC was framed against both accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and examined one witness as DW1.
4. I have heard Ld. Amicus Curiae and Ld. APP for State FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 3 of 18 and have perused the entire records.
5. Ld. Amicus Curiae for accused argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case since no such injury had been caused to the complainant by the accused persons. No quarrel had taken place with the accused persons. The real culprits Bobby and Monty have been deliberately left aside and they have not been intentionally arrested by the IO of the case. The complainant was not on government duty at the time of incident. The complaint U/S 195 Cr. PC was made in a mechanical manner since the name of any person from the complainant was not verified. No independent public person was joined in the investigation. There are major contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. The IO has not conducted the investigation fairly and the investigation is the defective.
6. Ld. APP for State argued that the accused persons alongwith coaccused (since not arrested) gave beatings to the complainant due to which he suffered grievous injury in his right ear. The doctor, on the MLC of the injured, also gave the opinion regarding the nature of injury as grievous. The injured also identified the accused persons as the same persons who caused grievous injury to him at the time of discharging his government FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 4 of 18 official duty. The accused persons were also arrested on the identification made by the injured. The right ear of the complainant is still not perfect in hearing and medical treatment of the same is still continued. There are minor contradictions in the testimonies of PWs which do not go to the root of the case. The accused persons cannot take benefit of the defective investigation, if any.
7. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Amicus Curiae and the Ld. APP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused had committed the offences as charged or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW1 Ranvir Singh stated in his examinationinchief that in the year 2005, he was working as Driver in DTC and posted at Subhash Place Depot. On 15.11.2005, he was on duty on Bus No. DL1PB1707 of route no. 971 from 02.00 pm to 10.00 pm. On that day at about 08.00 pm, when he reached Avantika Terminal / Booth and making entry at the booth regarding arrival at Avantika Terminal / booth, at about 08.15 pm, the driver and conductor of bus no. DL1PB2955, route No. 971 namely Karamveer and Boby reached there and started alleging that at Madhuban chowk, PW1 had overtaken their bus after compelling them to take their bus on extreme left (side dabai) and started quarrelling with PW1. Meanwhile, the staff of bus No. FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 5 of 18 DL1PB0491, route No. 971 namely Ashok Kumar and Monty also started favouring them and thereafter, Karamveer, Ashok and Bobby caught hold PW1 and Monty started beating him with fists and slaps, due to which PW1 received injury on his right ear. PW1 stated that out of said four persons, two were present in the court but he could not tell as to who was Ashok and who was Karamveer. Further, while pointing out towards Karamveer, PW1 stated that perhaps he was Karamveer and pointed out towards accused Ashok stating that perhaps he was Ashok Kumar. PW1 stated that he was not knowing the names of any accused persons and their names were given and got written by the owners of the said buses.
8. PW1 further stated in his examinationinchief that thereafter, PW1 reached at Ambedkar Hospital and called at number
100. PCR reached there and got PW1 treated as BSA hospital. PW1 stated that he was on Government duty when he was obstructed and given beatings by the accused persons and stated that he can identify their two associates, if shown. PW1 stated that his right ear was still not perfect and even he was under treatment for the same. Next day i.e. on 16.11.2005, PW1 was called by the police at the PS Rohini which his statement / complaint Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police. PW1 showed the place of occurrence FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 6 of 18 to the police and site plan was prepared at his instance. Accused Ashok Kumar and Karamveer were arrested on identification of PW1 vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/D & Ex. PW1/E.
9. During crossexamination, PW1 stated that on that day his route no. was 971 from Avantika to Anand Vihar. PW1 denied the suggestion that on the day of incident his duty was from 2 pm to 6.30 pm. PW1 volunteered that he had to perform 8 hours duty. PW1 further stated in his crossexamination that firstly, he went to Saroj Hospital on his own and Dr. told him to go to Govt. Hospital and from Saroj Hospital, PW1 made a call at 100 and from there he went to Dr. Ambedkar Hospital. PW1 was not having mobile phone as such he was unable to make a call from Avantika. PW1 stated that nobody told him the names of accused persons.
10. PW6 Dr. Bhavana Jain, MO, BSA Hospital, Rohini stated in her examination in chief that on 15.11.2005, she was posted as CMO at BSA Hospital and she medically examined Ranbir Singh with alleged history of assault and complaint of decreased hearing from right ear vide MLC Ex. PW6/A. Patient was referred to Sr. Resident ENT for further management. PW13 Dr. Alok Kumar, SR, ENT, BSA Hospital identified the handwriting and signatures of FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 7 of 18 Dr. Virender Singh on the MLC Ex. PW6/A pertaining to Ranbir Singh. The nature of injury as grievous from ENT point of view encircled at point B was opined by Dr. Virender Singh on 02.12.2005.
11. PW1 is not only the victim but the natural witness and he has correctly identified the accused persons who caused grievous injury to his ear. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 562, it was held that identification in a court is a substantive piece of evidence. PW1 categorically stated that accused Karamveer, Ashok and Bobby (since not arrested) caught hold of him and the coaccused Monty (since not arrested) started beating him with fist and slaps due to which grievous injury was caused to his ear. In this regard, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 8 of 18 the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the present case, the testimony of PW1 has not only inspired the confidence but he is also trustworthy. The clear and consistent stand of PW1 about the presence of the accused persons at the time of incident and their identification by PW1 creates no doubt in the testimony of PW1. Whereas, the accused persons have not proved in their defence evidence that they did not cause injury to the victim/ PW1 at the time of incident.
12. PW7 Retd. SI Harish Chander stated in his examination in chief that on 11.02.2006, he requested Depot manager of Wazirpur depot (DTC) to file a complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. PW2 K. C. Gupta, Sr. Manager, Strategic Business Unit, stated in his examinationinchief that on 15.11.2005, Ranbir Singh was driver on bus No. DL1P1707 of route No. 971 and when he approached Time Keeper ATI (Assistant Traffic Inspector) Shri Bhagwan at Avantika, FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 9 of 18 DTC Booth for getting his bus entered in the time keeping sheet, the staff of the blue line bus No. DL1PB2955 namely Karamveer and Boby and staff of bus No. DL1PB0491 namely Ashok Kumar and Monty plying on route no. 971 manhandled and assaulted Ranbir as a result of which, Ranbir received injury on his right ear. PW2 made a complaint against accused u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW2/A to take cognizance against Ashok Kumar and Karamveer. During cross examination, PW2 stated that he received the telephonic message of incident from Time Keeper about the assaulting of the DTC driver Ranbir Singh by blue line staff. PW2 denied the suggestion that complaint was given by him in mechanical manner or that he had not verified the name of any person from the driver Ranbir Singh.
13. PW12 S. K. Dabas, Depot Manager, DTC Subhash Place, Delhi brought the service book of Ranbir Singh who was appointed as Driver in DTC on 18.05.1990 and he was given Badge No. 19911 and pay token no. 57944. PW12 also brought the attendance register of driver Ranbir Singh pertaining to the month November, 2005 wherein at Sl. No. 232, badge No. 19911 was mentioned and the attendance record of the said employee having the said badge number was entered in the register. As per the attendance register, Driver Ranbir Singh was present on duty on FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 10 of 18 15.11.2005 and he was performing duty on bus route No. 971 from Avantika Chowk to Anand Vihar. PW12 stated that since the record of time sheet was destroyed, he was not able to tell about the duty time of driver Ranbir Singh on 15.11.2005, however, he was present on duty on that day. PW12 proved the original service book record and attendance register of driver Ranbir Singh and the photocopy of service book record vide Ex. PW12/A (two relevant pages in number) and photocopy of attendance register showing the attendance of the person concerned vide Ex. PW12/B (two relevant pages in number).
14. PW9 Randhir Singh, ATI, Rohini DepotI, stated in his examination in chief that there is a DTC booth at Avantika where Time Keeper under the supervision and control of Regional Manager (North) DTC, Delhi sits who maintains the record of arrival/ departure of every DTC and under DTC buses passing from that route. PW9 stated that bus No. DL1PB1707 of route no. 971 was connected with Subhash Place Depot and there is no record pertaining to movement of said bus at Rohini DepotI and officials of Subhas Place Depot can provide the relevant record. PW10 Chander Prakash, Regional Manager, North DTC, Subhash Place stated in his examination in chief that he was summoned to bring FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 11 of 18 the record of time keeper sheet maintained at Avantika Booth dt. 15.11.2005 with regard to duty record of driver Ranbir Singh who was Driver on bus No. DL1PB1707 of route No. 971 on 15.11.2005. PW10 stated that no such record was available in the office because as per the standing administrative order No. Admn. 13(24)/94 dt. 09.12.1994 as Ex. PW10/A, the record of time keeping sheet were to be destroyed after two years and hence, the said record of driver Ranbir Singh was destroyed.
15. PW3 W/SI Praveen Bala, DO recorded the FIR Ex. PW3/A dated 16.11.2005 and she made her endorsement on the original tehrir vide Ex. PW3/B. PW4 Ct. Raj Kumar stated in his examinationinchief that on 15.11.2005 on receipt of DD no. 66B, he along with HC Vijay Kumar reached at DTC Bus stand, Avantika but complainant did not meet there. Thereafter, in the night on receipt of call from BSA hospital, PW4 along with HC Vijay Kumar reached at BSA hospital where victim Ranbir Singh was found under treatment but he refused to give his statement due to pain. On 16.11.2005, victim arrived at PS and HC Vijay Kumar recorded his statement / complaint and then he along with victim went to the spot and as per his instructions, PW4 reached at the spot i.e. DTC Booth, Sector1, Avantika, Rohini and handed over original rukka and copy FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 12 of 18 of FIR to IO. Both the accused Ashok Kumar and Karamveer were arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW1/B & Ex. PW1/C and their personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/D & PW1/E. During crossexamination, PW4 denied the suggestion that he did not join the investigation of the present case or that accused were not arrested in the manner as deposed by him. PW5 HC Shambhu Singh, DD Writer stated in his examination in chief that on 15.11.2005, at about 09.28 pm, wireless operator of PS Rohini informed him regarding quarrel at Avantika Water Tank No. 3, DTC Terminal. On the basis of said information, PW5 recorded DD no. 66B dt. 15.11.2005 as Ex. PW5/A and the same was marked to HC Vijay. During crossexamination, PW5 denied the suggestion that neither any such information was received by him nor he recorded DD no. 66B or that the same was manipulated latter on.
16. PW8 SI Vijay Kumar stated in his examination in chief that on 15.11.2005, he was on night emergency duty from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m and on receipt of DD no. 66B, he along with Ct. Raj Kumar reached at the spot i.e. DTC Booth, Sec.1, Avantika, Rohini, Delhi where neither any quarrel nor any injured or complainant was found. After some time, on receipt of information through DO regarding admission of injured Ranbir Singh in BSA hospital, PW8 along with FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 13 of 18 Ct. Raj Kumar reached at BSA hospital and collected MLC of Ranbir Singh. Due to pain, injured Ranbir Singh refused to give his statement and said that he would give statement tomorrow in the PS. On 16.11.2005 at about 12.15 p.m., complainant Ranbir Singh came at PS and PW8 recorded his statement/complaint Ex. PW1/A and thereafter he prepared the tehrir Ex. PW8/A and got the FIR registered. PW8 along with the complainant left the PS and reached the spot and prepared the site plan Ex. PW8/B at the instance of the complainant. Thereafter, PW8 along with complainant started waiting for the arrival of the buses of accused persons. After some time, buses of accused persons reached at the bus stop of Avantika. Firstly, the bus driven by accused Karamveer reached at the bus stop and he was arrested by PW8 at the instance of complainant Ranbir and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW1/D. After some time, bus driven by accused Ashok Kumar also reached there and accused Ashok Kumar was also arrested by PW8 at the instance of complainant Ranbir and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex.PW1/B and Ex. PW1/E. PW8 interrogated both the accused but they did not disclose anything about Bobby and Monty. PW8 deposited the MLC of Ranbir Singh for opinion which was opined to FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 14 of 18 be grievous and thereafter Sec. 332 IPC was replaced with Sec. 333 IPC. PW8 collected complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C. from the Depot Manager, Subhash Place Depot. PW8 again made efforts to search the coaccused but in vain.
17. In crossexamination, PW8 stated that he received the call at about 9.15 or 9.30 p.m and he reached the spot within 57 minutes. PW8 also stated that accused were not known to him prior to their arrest and accused were arrested on the identification of the complainant. PW8 denied the suggestion that accused were not arrested from the place and in the manner as deposed by him. PW8 further denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place with the accused persons or that they have been falsely implicated or that the real culprits Bobby and Monty have been deliberately left aside by him or that they were intentionally not arrested by him. PW8 also denied the suggestion that no such quarrel took place or accused were falsely implicated in this case.
18. PW11 SI Anwar Khan stated in his examinationinchief that on 08.02.2008, investigation of the present case was entrusted to him. During investigation, PW11 got prepared computerised chargesheet which was earlier prepared by the previous IO ASI Raj Kumar by hand and thereafter, the chargesheet was filed in the FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 15 of 18 Court through SHO.
19. DW1 Sh. Raj Pal stated that no quarrel took place with the accused persons. He further stated that no FIR was registered and he knew both the accused persons as they were his drivers and conductor and worked on his buses for number of years.
20. So far as the contradictions in the testimony of PWs as argued by Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons are concerned, the same are only minor contradictions which do not affect the merits of the case. Thus, the Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on account of the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of PWs. In State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
21. The Ld. Amicus Curiae for the accused persons argued that the police has not conducted the investigation fairly and the investigation is defective. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused cannot get the benefit of it. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 16 of 18 place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
22. It has emerged from the evidence of PWs discussed above that the accused persons along with coaccused (since not arrested) caused injury to the right ear of the complainant on the day of incident but due to pain in the ear, he was not in a position to give his statement. However, on the very next day, he gave his statement which was recorded by PW8. The MLC Ex.PW6/A of the injured has also been proved by PW6/Doctor and the nature of injury has been proved by PW13 / Doctor as grievous from ENT point of view. PW1 categorically stated that his right ear was not perfect and even he was still under treatment for the same. Site plan was also prepared at the instance of injured / PW1. Further, the accused persons were arrested on the identification of PW1. PW2 proved on record his complaint u/s 195 CrPC Ex.PW2/A to take cognizance against the accused Ashok Kumar and Karamveer. FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 17 of 18 Though, record of time keeping sheet was destroyed after two years as per rules and procedure, yet PW12 Depot Manager proved on record the attendance register of injured Ranbir Singh for the month of November 2005 and as per the attendance register, driver Randhir Singh was present on duty on 15.11.2005. Thus, the prosecution has proved by way of oral testimonies of PWs coupled with documentary evidence that the injured was on government duty when he was obstructed in performing his duties and he was given beatings with fist and slaps due to which he suffered grievous injury in his right ear. DW1 has also not supported the case of the accused persons since he knows both the accused persons as they were his driver and conductor and worked on his buses for a number of years.
23. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold both accused namely Ashok Kumar and Karamveer guilty and convict them u/s 186/353/333/34 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 26112013 FIR No. 1129/05; State Vs. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Page 18 of 18