Delhi District Court
State vs Smt Ganga Mandel on 1 July, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK WASON
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04 : SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT
DWARKA COURTS : NEW DELHI
SC No. 395/2021
CNR No. DLSW01-011772-2012
State Vs. Ganga Mandel
W/o Sh. Suman Mandel
R/o- Flat no. 163, Pocket-3, Akshardham
Apartment, Sec-19,
Dwarka, Sec-23, Dwarka, New Delhi.
Also at :
Village Chhoto Kapsa, PO Balram,
PS Baruna, District,
Murshidabad, West Bengal
FIR No. : 395/2021
Police Station : Dwarka Sec-23
Under Sections : 307 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 27.11.2021
Date on which judgment was reserved : 01.07.2024
Date on which Judgment pronounced : 01.07.2024
Final Order : Convicted u/s 307 IPC
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. On receiving DD No.42A dated 15.09.2021, W/ASI Sareeta along with Ct. Meera reached at the spot i.e. Flat no. 163 Plot no. 3 Akshardham Apartment, Sec-19, Dwarka, where they found injured admitted in the DDU hospital. Upon reaching DDU hospital, W/ASI Sareeta came to know that FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 1 of 15 injured was shifted to Manipal hospital. The doctor opined that the injured was not in a condition to give statement. Thereafter, during investigation, ASI Bhagwan Singh recorded statement of injured Tripti Mandel.
2. In her statement complainant Tapti Mandel stated that she is a house wife and residing with her son Suman Mandel and his wife Ganga Mandel alongwith two children in a rented house. She further stated that on 15.09.2021, her son Suman Mandel went to his office and she along with her two grand children were present in the flat and were teaching her both of the grand sons and thereafter, she stated to accused Ganga Mandel to properly take care of her elder grand son. On this, accused Ganga Mandel became angry and stated to her that not to teach her about how to take care of her sons. She further sated that thereafter, at about 11:00 am, Accused Ganga Mandel went to the kitchen of the house and brought iron tawa and started hitting on her head. She further stated that due to the said beatings with iron tawa, blood was oozed from her head. She further stated that somebody had called police and ambulance came and took her to the DDU hospital and thereafter, she was taken to Manipal Hospital where she got treatment. On the basis of her statement and MLC, present FIR was registered.
3. During the investigation, accused was arrested and W/ASI Sareeta seized the blood in gauge lying on the floor of the said flat and she also seized blood stain hairs. W/ASI Sareeta also seized one iron Tava at the instance of accused Ganga Mandel. After completing the investigation, FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 2 of 15 charge-sheet was filed in the court for the offences u/s 307 IPC . After complying with Section 207 Cr.PC, case was committed to the sessions court.
4. After hearing arguments, charges were framed against accused on 04.07.2022 for the offences punishable U/s 307 IPC to which accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and claimed trial and accordingly the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 9 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
6. PW-1 is complainant Tapti Mandel and her testimony would be discussed at a relevant stage.
7. PW-2 is Suman Mandel who has deposed that he got married with accused Ganga Mandel on 30.06.2013. He further deposed that the marriage was performed against the will of my parents and after marriage, he started residing with accused Ganga Mandel in Delhi and his mother used to come rarely to their house as she was against to their marriage and prior to one month of the incident, his mother had come to Delhi and started residing with them and there used to frequent quarrels among him and his wife and his mother. He further deposed that on 15.09.2021,at about 11:00 am, when he was at his office, his son Bhedansh Mandal (now 7 years of age) had called him and informed that his mother had received injuries and he FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 3 of 15 came to his house from office and he came to know that his mother had taken to DDU Hospital through Ambulance and thereafter, he went to DDU Hospital and he shifted his mother to Manipal Hospital and thereafter, he do not know what had happened. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as the witness was resiling from his previous statement made to the police wherein he has denied the suggestion.
8. PW-3 "B" is child witness. Before recording the evidence of child witness, certain questions were put to the witness and after that Ld. Predecessor of this court was satisfied that child witness was capable to understand the questions put to him. After that witness has deposed that 3 years back dadi, fall down herself and mummy (i.e. Accused Ganga Mandel) hit dadi with tava and he pointed towards back side of his head and stated that the tawa hit here. He further deposed that the incident occurred inside the house of the room where TV was kept and he was studying. He further deposed that after falling down, his grandmother stood up and came outside and seated on the stairs. He further deposed that he called his father and asked him to come home. In cross-examination by counsel for accused, he stated that his dadi received injury due to falling down and Tawa and also quarrel between his mother and his grand mother.
9. PW-4 is Dr. Apurva Goyal who has deposed that one patient namely Tripti Mandel aged about 61 years has been referred to him with MLC for dental opinion and as per clinicodental findings of doctor on duty, nature of injury from dental point of view is grievous due to the presence of bleeding FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 4 of 15 socket in relation to 15 (fracture 15) of the patient. His dental opinion is Ex.PW4/A. He was cross examined by Ld. defence counsel and he denied various suggestions.
10. PW-5 is W/ASI Sarita who has deposed that on 15.09.2021, on receiving of DD No. 42A (Ex. A-1) she alongwith Ct. Meera reached at the spot i.e. flat No. 163 plot 3 Akshardham Apptt. Sec-19 Dwarka where SI Shiv Kumar already found and she came to know that injured was already shifted to hospital and thereafter, she called the crime team at the spot, who inspected the spot and after inspection I/C of crime team, gave his report ( Ex A-A) photographs of the spot which were clicked by the crime team are EX P-1, P-2 (Colly) and thereafter, she went to DDU hospital from where she came to know that injured was shifted to Manipal Hospital and collected the MLC from the DDU Hospital (already Ex. A-9). She further deposed that thereafter, she alongwith Ct. Meera went to Manipal Hospital where Dr. opined that the injured was not in the condition to give statement and thereafter, they again visited the spot, where accused Ganga Mandal found and she apprehended her and handed over her to Ct. Meera. She further deposed that she seized the blood in gauge lying on the floor of above said flat in a plastic container and converted into pulanda with the help doctor tape and sealed with the seal of VV33 as Ex. PW-5/A. She further deposed that she also seized a blood stain hair found in the above said flat in n a plastic container and converted into pulanda with the help doctor tape and sealed with the seal of VV33 as Ex. PW-5/B. She further deposed that she also seized one Iron Tava at the instance of accused FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 5 of 15 Ganga Mandal and was kept in a Plastic Thaili and converted into pulanda with the help of white cloth and sealed with the seal of VV3 as Ex.
PW-5/C. She further deposed that thereafter, on the basis of DD No. 42(a) she prepared Tehrir as Ex. PW-5/D and Tehrir/rukka was handed over to Ct. Sawar Mal for registration of FIR. She further deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Bhagwan Singh and SI Bhagwan Singh alongwith Ct. Sawar Mal reached at the spot and she handed over the custody of accused Ganga Mandal and thereafter, she returned to the PS. She also identified the case property i.e. Iron Tava. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. defence counsel at length.
11. PW-6 is SI Bhagwan Singh who has deposed that on 16.09.2021, after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to him and thereafter, he along-with Ct. Sawar Mal reached at the spot where ASI Sarita along-with Ct. Meera and accused Ganga mandel found present and thereafter, he prepared site plan at the instance of Child "B", aged 6 years, as Ex. PW-6/A and he recorded the statement of caller Rupali Nagar, 100 number caller. He further deposed that due to the night time, custody of accused Ganga Mandal was given to her husband and all police officers returned to the PS. He further deposed that on the same day, at about 11:00 AM, he along-with W/ASI Sarita went to Manipal hospital where he moved an application for recording the statement of injured at about 02:00 PM and he recorded the statement of injured Tripti Mandal after opined by the doctor fit for statement. He further deposed that thereafter, doctor took blood samples of injured and same were sealed with the seal of HCMCT FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 6 of 15 Manipal Hospital, and handed over to him by the doctor as Ex. PW-6/B and thereafter, he along-with the son of injured Suman Mandal came at the spot where Suman Mandal correctly identified the accused Ganga Mangal, thereafter, accused was arrested as Ex. PW-6/C. He further deposed that personal search of accused conducted as Ex. PW-6/D and he recorded the statement of child "B" in the presence of his father and he recorded the disclosure statement of accused as Ex. PW-6/E. He further deposed that thereafter, husband of injured handed over one blood stain blouse green red printed, one black hair clip one blood stain red and white maxi and one blood stain white peticot and same were kept in a white pulanda and sealed with the seal of BS as Ex. PW-6/F. He further deposed that he got recorded the statement u/s 164 Cr. PC of Child "B" before Ld. MM as Ex. PW-6/F. He further deposed that his application for recording statement u/s 164 Cr. PC as Ex. PW-6/G. Thereafter, he obtained the result on the MLC of Injured and same was opined as grievous by doctor as Ex. A-9. He further deposed that thereafter, Exhibits sent to FSL vide RC no. 124/21/21 through Constable Parveen as mark X and after depositing Exhibit at FSL, constable Parveen handed over the acknowledgment to the MHCM as Mark X1 and thereafter, he prepared the charge sheet and sent to the court. He also identified the case property as shown to him. This witness was also cross examined by Ld. defence counsel at length.
12. PW-7 is HC Parveen who has deposed that on 26.10.2021, he collected sealed exhibits from MHCM on the directions of the IO vide RC no. 124/21/21 Mark X for depositing at FSL Rohini and thereafter, he FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 7 of 15 deposited the exhibits at FSL Rohini and after depositing the same, and handed over the acknowledgment of case acceptance to MHCM as Ex. Mark X1 and till the case property was under my custody, no tempering was carried out with it. He was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused.
13. PW-8 is Ct. Sawar Mal who has deposed that on 16.09.2021, during patrolling, he reached at flat no. 163, Pocket-3, Akshardham apartment, Sec-19 at about 12:15 PM and W/ASI Sarita and W/Ct Meena found present and thereafter, W/ASI Sareeta handed over him a Tehrir for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he went to PS and got registered the present case through DO and after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to ASI Bhagwan Singh and DO handed over me copy of FIR and original Tehrir and he further handed over the same to ASI Bhagwan Singh. He was cross examined by ld. Counsel for accused.
14. PW-9 is W/HC Meera Bai who has deposed on the same lines of W/ASI Sareeta. She was also cross examined by Ld. defence counsel.
15. It is a matter of record that a statement of accused and additional statement of accused u/s 294 Cr. PC was recorded wherein accused has admitted the DD NO.42A as Ex.A-1, FIR no.395/2021 as Ex.A-2, certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act as Ex. A-3, DD No. 43A, 59A, 62A and 4A dated 17.09.2021 as Ex. A-4, Ex. A-5, Ex A-6 and Ex A-7, Crime team inspection report as Ex A-8, MLC of Tripti Mandal as Ex A-9, Medical report of Dr. Anurag Saxena from Department of Neurology, Manipal Hospital as Ex A-10, statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C as Ex A-11, FSL result dated FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 8 of 15 21.09.2023 as Ex.A-12, Alliec data as Ex A-13, RC No. 124/21/21 as Ex A- 14 and acknowledgment of case acceptance dated 26.10.2021 as Ex A-15.
16. As all relevant witnesses were examined, therefore, at request of Ld. Addl. PP for State, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 18.04.2024 and the matter was adjourned for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
17. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 22.05.2024 wherein accused submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she does not wants to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, matter was adjourned for final arguments.
18. I have heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
19. The accused is facing trial for the offence u/s 307 IPC on the allegations that accused hit upon the head of the complainant and caused grievous injury to her. In order to prove the offense U/s 307 IPC against accused , the prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ganga Mandal hit upon the head and right hand of the complainant with Tava and caused grievous injury with the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if that act caused her death, she would have been guilty of murder.
FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 9 of 1520. Sec.307 IPC is reproduced herein below :
"Sec.307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1 [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is herein before mentioned."
21. It is a settled law that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the court will insist on corroboration. It is a sound and well-established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral testimony in this context may be classified into three categories, namely:
i) Wholly reliable.
ii) Wholly unreliable.
iii) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.
22. In the first category of proof, the court should have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion either way - it may convict or may acquit on the testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be above reproach or suspicion of interestedness, incompetence or subornation. In the second category, the court equally has no difficulty in coming to its conclusion. It is in the third category of cases, that the court has to be circumspect and FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 10 of 15 has to look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial.
23. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 1251). The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as a general rule the court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided, he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short 'the Evidence Act'). But if there are doubts about the testimony the courts will insist on corroboration. It is for the court to act upon the testimony of witnesses. It is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The time-honored principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. On this principle stands the edifice of Section 134 of the Evidence Act. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy, or otherwise.
24. Law of Evidence does not require any particular number of witnesses to prove a relevant fact. In the case of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala [AIR 2003 SC 507(510)], Hon'ble Apex Court held: -
"...................Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that no particular number of witnesses in any case be required for the proof of any fact and, therefore, it is permissible for a court to record and sustain a conviction on the evidence of a solitary eye-witness. But, at the same time, such a course can be adopted only if the evidence tendered by such witness is cogent, reliable and in tune with probabilities and inspires implicit confidence. By this standard, when prosecution case rests mainly on the sole testimony of an eye-witness, it should be wholly reliable."
25. In 'Jodhan vs. State of M.P.', Crl. Appeal No.1683 of 2010 decided on FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 11 of 15 08.04.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"22. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the ld. Trial Judge.
26. PW-1 is the complainant / injured of the present case and she specifically deposed that on 15.09.2021, at about 9:00 am, her son Suman Mandel went to his office and she along with her two grand children and accused Ganga Mandel were present at the said house. She further deposed that at about 11:00 am, she was teaching one of his grand son and another grand son was playing inside the house, accused Ganga Mandel came to her room and she stated to accused Ganga Mandel to properly take care of her elder grand son. She further deposed that on this, accused Ganga Mandel became angry and stated to her that not to teach her about how to take care of her sons. She further deposed that accused Ganga Mandel went to the kitchen of the house and brought iron tawa to her room and started hitting on her head. She further deposed that due to the said beatings with iron tawa, blood was oozed from her head and she came outside of her house and accused Ganga Mandel followed her and continued hitting her with the said iron tawa. She further deposed that somebody called police and ambulance came and took her to the unknown hospital and thereafter, she was taken to Manipal Hospital where she got treatment. She also identified the case property. Testimony of PW-1 is corroborated by PW-3, who is the FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 12 of 15 grandson of the accused and injured / complainant as PW-3 "B" deposed similar to the PW-1. Additionally, PW-2 Suman Mandel deposed that he was at his office and his son called him and this fact has also been confirmed by Child witness. Testimony of PW-1 / injured / complainant and eye witness i.e. child "B" show that they were consistent and despite cross- examination, no contradiction in material aspect could be brought in testimonies. It is to be kept in mind that why the son of accused would depose against the accused. Accused failed to bring out anything on record to suggest of her false implication in the present case. Soon after the incident, 100 number call was made and police reached at the spot and conducted the investigation which is clear from the testimonies of PW-5/WSI Sareeta and PW-6 SI Bhagwan Singh. There is no delay in registration of FIR and everything happened in natural course. It is clear that injured was also taken to hospital immediately. All these things corroborates with the testimony of PW-1.
27. In the present case, not only testimony of PW-1 is consistent but also no contradiction was brought in her cross-examination. Further, deposition of PW-1 is also corroborated by medical evidence i.e. MLC, , wherein it is clearly mentioned that injured Tapti Mandal has received grievous injury while hitting from Tava on her head. The Ex. A-10 further shows that during medical examination of complainant, she was also shifted to ICU and she was also required ventilator support.
28. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see is, whether the act FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 13 of 15 irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute culpable of homicide not amounting to murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.
29. From the testimony of PW-1 i.e. Injured what emerges is that accused had altercation with PW-1/injured as accused was asked to take care of her grand sons properly by the PW-1 because of which accused got angry and went inside kitchen and brought Tawa and hit tava upon the head of PW-1/injured which is a vital part of the body. Accused went inside the kitchen and brought the Tawa in the room and hit upon her mother in law, this shows that she intentionally did the act and if someone hit upon the head with Tawa then it is a common knowledge that act will be sufficient in normal course to cause the death of a person.
30. Further, everyone is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act and the act of the accused was that she hit upon the head of her mother in law and natural consequence of this act could be the death of her FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 14 of 15 mother in law / PW-1. From this it is quite evident that accused did have intention to cause death of her mother in law. Therefore, all the ingredients of offence u/s. 307 IPC are proved and accused is held guilty for the offence.
31. In view of the above discussion, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused has committed offence u/s.307 IPC. Hence, accused Ganga Mandel is convicted for the offence u/s. 307 IPC.
DEEPAK Digitally signed by
DEEPAK WASON
WASON Date: 2024.07.01
20:18:05 +0530
Announced in open Court (Deepak Wason)
today on 01 July, 2024 Additional Sessions Judge-04
South-West, Dwarka Courts,
New Delhi
FIR No. 395/2021 State Vs Ganga Mandel Page 15 of 15