Delhi District Court
State vs . Sharwan @ Sajan on 20 November, 2019
FIR No.716/17
State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan
Police Station : Sultan Puri
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No. 250/19
CNR no. : DLNW010022442019
State
Vs
Sharwan @ Sajan
S/o Late Sh. Parkash
R/o H.No. C6/118, Sultan Puri
Delhi
FIR No. : 716/17
Police Station : Sultan Puri
Under Section : 308/325/34 Indian Penal Code
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 12.03.2019
Date when judgment reserved : 20.11.2019
Date when judgment pronounced : 20.11.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case in brief are that this FIR was registered on the complaint of complainant Sh. Paramveer wherein he stated that on 01/10/2017 while he along with his mother were passing through the park situated between C4 and C6, a man namely, Sajan, made them stopped and asked a cigarette from him and when he refused, he started altercation with him and injured him on his head with a brick Page No. 1 of 11 FIR No.716/17 State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri blow and also gave injuries on the hand of his mother. He dialled 100 number and PCR van took both the injured to the SGM Hospital. After the registration of the FIR, investigation was carried out by the police. The brick in question was recovered. Accused Sharwan @ Sajan was arrested. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court with respect to the accused.
2. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the chargesheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
3. Vide order dated 24/04/2019, my Ld. Predecessor court, framed charge under Section 341/325/308 IPC against accused Sharwan @ Sajan to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 9 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW4 Sh. Paramveer ( complainant) and his mother PW5 Smt. Vidha Devi are the victims. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
6. PW1 ASI Arvind Kumar was the duty officer who proved the Page No. 2 of 11 FIR No.716/17 State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri FIR, endorsement on rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as ExPW1/A.P18 and ExP19 respectively.
7. PW2 ASI Subhash Chand was the duty officer who proved DD entry 22A as ExPW2/A vide which he received a PCR call via intercom regarding quarrel near Nirmal Hospital Police Station road.
8. PW3 Ct. Karampal has deposed in sync with PW9 SI Pawan with whom he remained in the investigation.
9. PW9 SI Pawan was the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 01.10.2017, on receipt of DD no. 22A Ex.PW2/A, he along with Ct. Karampal went to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital where complainant Paramvir and Vidha, who was mother of Paramvir, were getting treatment in the hospital. He collected the MLC of both the injured and recorded the statement of Paramvir and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and got the case registered through Ct.Karampal. Site plan has been exhibited as ExPW9/A. On receipt of results on MLC of both the injured, he converted the matter from section 323 IPC to Section 308 IPC in this case.
10. PW7 ASI Anup Singh was the subsequent IO of the case. He has deposed that on 11.06.2018 he along with HC Satyawan reached at C6 Block, Sultanpuri and there mother of complainant Paramvir namely Vidha Devi met them who also joined the investigation with them and at his instance accused Sharwan was arrested from his Page No. 3 of 11 FIR No.716/17 State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri residence i.e. C6/118, Sultanpuri. The arrest memo and personal search memo have been exhibited as ExPW7/A and ExPW7/B. Accused has pointed out the place of occurrence. The pointing out memo has been exhibited as ExPW7/C. Thereafter he obtained the final result regarding the nature of injury on MLC of Vidha Devi whose injuries were opined as grievous and therefore, section 325 IPC was added and chargesheet was filed.
11. PW8 HC Satyawan has deposed in sync with PW7 SI Anup with whom he remained in the investigation.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
12. PW6 Dr. Vipin Dabas was the CMO, SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri who had medically examined injured Paramvir vide MLC Ex.PW6/A and under his supervision injured Smt.Vidha was medially examined by Dr. Suhail Akhtar vide MLC ExPW6/B. As per his opinion injured Paramvir sustained simple injury. However, injured Vidha sustained grievous injury.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED PERSONS
13. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to him, which have been denied by him in toto.
Page No. 4 of 11 FIR No.716/17State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri
14. The accused has taken defence that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that Paramveer sustained injury due to fall on the ground and he had no role in the commission of the offence.
ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES
15. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have perused the material available on record.
16. It is argued by the Ld. Counsel for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is argued that the complainant Paramveer has not supported the case of prosecution and hence the accused is entitled to be acquitted.
17. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has controverted the contentions of Ld. Counsel for defence stating that PW5 Smt. Vidha Devi has not only identified the accused but also has fully supported the case of prosecution regarding the role of the accused and her testimony is truthful and reliable and is of sterling quality coupled with the other evidence on record in the form of subsequent investigation conducted by the police, the prosecution has been able to prove its case.
Page No. 5 of 11 FIR No.716/17State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri FINDING OF THE COURT
18. As stated above, this case was registered on the complaint of the complainant Sh. Paramveer wherein he stated that on the fateful day while he was going along with his mother, accused Sajan stopped him on the way and asked for a cigarette and when he refused, he started altercation with him and gave a brick blow on his head and also gave injuries on the hand of his mother.
19. The said Paramveer has been examined by the prosecution as PW4 wherein he has struck to his complaint that on the fateful day while he was passing along with his mother, accused asked for a cigarette from him and when he refused he became angry and started manhandling him. However, after this, he has not supported the case of prosecution as he has deposed that during scuffle he pushed him due to which his head banged with the wall of the park and he sustained injury on his head and subsequently he inflicted injuries to his mother.
20. Since, he was not supporting the case of prosecution he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State wherein he clearly denied that on the fateful day when he was going along with his mother towards the parking while smoking cigarette accused Sajan came and asked cigarette from him and after restraining his way he gave brick blow on his head. He further denied the suggestion of the State that accused had hit a brick on his head due to which he sustained injuries.
Page No. 6 of 11 FIR No.716/17State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri
21. Regarding the injury on the person on his mother also, he took somersault in his cross examination by the State and he deposed that during the incident when his mother intervened to save him head of accused collided with the hand of his mother due to which she sustained injuries on her hand and he denied the suggestion of the State that her mother not sustained juries on her hand due to collision of head of accused with her hand or that his mother sustained injury due to brick blow of the accused.
22. PW5 Smt. Vidha Devi, mother of complainant Paramveer has herself in his examination in chief that on the fateful day, she was walking behind her son at the time of incident and on the refusal of his son to give cigarette to the accused, he picked up a brick lying there and hit the same on the head of her son as a result of which he started bleeding.
23. In my view, when complainant Paramveer had not attributed any role on the accused in injuring him, the lacuna cannot be filled by the testimony of his mother. The testimony of Smt. Vidha Devi could have been used only as corroboration to the testimony of Sh. Paramveer and it cannot be used independently, brushing aside the testimony of her son Paramveer, to convict the accused.
24. Section 308 IPC defines attempt to commit culpable homicide and it stats that whosoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstance that if he by that act caused Page No. 7 of 11 FIR No.716/17 State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, such a person is said to commit an attempt to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
25. In the present case as stated above, complainant PW4 Sh.
Paramveer has clearly testified that while there was altercation between both,during the scuffle he was pushed by the accused due to which his head banged with the wall of the park and he sustained injury on his head. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention or knowledge that his act could result in death of the complainant . Further he had not attributed any such intention or knowledge upon the accused that he was pushed by the accused with requisite intention or knowledge as required u/s 308 IPC. Moreover, as stated above, in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State he has denied that on the fateful day he was going with his mother towards the park while smoking cigarette or that the accused came and asked cigarette from him and on his refusal, he gave brick blow on his head. Hence, in his cross examination he is contradicting himself even to the extent of he going with his mother at the relevant time.
26. In view of the above, not only the fact that he is not attributing requisite intention or knowledge to cause death but he has clearly denied that the accused ever gave a brick blow on his head due to which he received injuries. Hence, the testimony of this witness is not credible and the same is highly doubtful and in view of the same, the Page No. 8 of 11 FIR No.716/17 State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri prosecution cannot be said to have prove this case against the accued only on the basis of testimony of his mother.
27. There is no other witness who could have proved this incident.
Admittedly, there is no recovery of any incriminating article from the accused.
28. As discussed above, there are lot of contradictions in the statement of complainant Sh. Paramveer (PW4) and his mother Smt. Vidha Devi (PW5).
29. When the contradictions are material in nature, it has been held in Tehsildar Singh vs. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 1012 :
Moreover, looking at the ambiguous narration of sequences described by the witnesses, the chain of events in the case cannot be said to have been properly brought on record by the prosecution. It is always the duty of the Court to separate chaff from the husk and to dredge the truth from the pandemonium of Statements. It is but natural for human beings so state variant statements due to time gap but if such statements go to defeat the core of the prosecution then such contradictions are material and the Court has to be mindful of such statements.
30. In the present case, in my view, the contradictions in their statement are vital in nature and it goes to the root of the matter and there is nothing on record to explain about the same and hence these witnesses do not appear to be very reliable, dependable and trustworthy, whose testimony can be used to convict the accused.
Page No. 9 of 11 FIR No.716/17State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri
31. It is not out of place here to state that the testimony of the remaining witnesses only relates to the investigation of this case and as stated above, it can be said that prosecution has failed to prove its case.
32. In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of evidence".
33. In view of the above discussion, in the opinion of this court, it can be said that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused is acquitted from the charges framed against him.
34. The accused is directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety in the like amount u/s 437A CrPC.
35. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the state and the same may be destroyed after the period of appeal and if appeal is preferred, subject to the order of Ld. Appellate court.
Page No. 10 of 11 FIR No.716/17State Vs. Sharwan @ Sajan Police Station : Sultan Puri
36. Time is sought by the accused for furnishing bail bond u/s 437A CrPC.
37. Put up on 23/11/2019 for the same.
Announced in the open court on this 20th day of November, 2019 (Deepak Garg) ASJII, NorthWest Rohini: Delhi Page No. 11 of 11