Delhi District Court
State vs Sonu @ Abhishek on 24 March, 2018
In the Court of
Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam: ASJ-03(East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
S.C. No: 361/2017
State Versus Sonu @ Abhishek
S/o Sh. Somchand Yadav
R/o 13/302, Kalyanpuri, Delhi
FIR No. 264/2015
PS. Kalyanpuri
U/s. 308/34 IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 01.03.2016
Chargesheet Allocated On : 30.05.2016
Court Presided over on : 06.11.2017
Judgment Reserved On : 20.03.2018
Judgment Announced On : 24.03.2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Smt. Omwati, complainant/injured, got recorded her statement with the police inter alia alleging therein that on 19.03.2015 at about 11 p.m. an altercation had taken place between his son Bharam Pal and Sonu, their neighbour but matter was pacified. On 20.03.2015 at about 7 a.m., Seema mother of Sonu came outside their house and started abusing Bharam Pal on which she (Omwati) and her son Bharam Pal came outside and requested Seema not to abuse. Meanwhile Sonu and his brother - both sons of Seema came there and they caught hold of her son namely Bharam Pal and started manhandling with him. Omwati tried to intervene the matter to which Sonu gave SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 1 of 7 danda blow on her head causing deep injuries on account of which blood started oozing out. Police was informed. She was rushed to the hospital and was medically treated. On the basis of the said statement, present FIR under Sec. 308/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons.
2. It is further case of the prosecution that notice upon accused Sonu was served and he joined the investigation of this case. Co-accused was found to be juvenile. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused to face trial under Sec. 308/34 IPC before the court of ld. MM.
3. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of learned MM, case was committed to the court of Sessions, as the offence is exclusively triable by it.
4. Vide order dated 16.11.2017 charge under Sec. 308/34 IPC was framed against the present accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove the guilt against the present accused, prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case who are as follows:
PW-1 Smt. Omwati is the complainant/victim while PW-2 Bhram Pal, son of the complainant, is alleged eye-witness of the incident.
PW-3 Const. Lokendra, handover the ruqqa and copy of the FIR to the IO after registration of the FIR.
PW-4 ASI Suraj Pal, Duty Officer, proved the copy of the FIR as Ex.PW4/A. PW-5 ASI Sodan Singh, PCR Official, rushed the injured to hospital on SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 2 of 7 receipt of information on PCR.
PW-6 SI Shyam Lal is the Investigating Officer of the case. Thej MLC of injured was admitted as Ex.C1 under Sec. 294 CrPC. The detailed testimonies of the witnesses will be discussed at appropriate stage.
6. Statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC in which accused denied the case of prosecution in toto and pleaded his innocence. He pleaded that in the month of Feb. 2015 an altercation taken place between him and Bharam Pal and later on he was implicated in this case falsely. He also submitted that he did not know how and when injured sustained injuries. Accused did to opt to lead Defence Evidence.
7. I have heard learned Addl. PP for the State. I have also heard ld. defence counsel and scrutnised the material on record.
8. Learned Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove the charge through evidence of all material on record coupled with other material witnesses including medical evidence. He also submitted that there is no explanation as to how injured sustained injury as mentioned in the MLC. He also pointed out that there is no reason for false implication of the accused and rather injured and her son would be the most interested persons to see the actual culprit(s) behind bars. Ld. Addl. PP, thus, prayed for conviction to the accused.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused submitted that perusal of the record is clear to the factum that neither complainant nor alleged SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 3 of 7 eye witness of the incident clearly pin pointed who had caused injuries to the person of injured. He further pointed out that even as per the case of the prosecution, earlier mother of the accused persons came there and started abusing and then alleged injuries were caused but no mohalla people was cited as a witness which is a clear dent on the prosecution case. Next contention of the ld. defence counsel is that non recovery of alleged weapon of offence is another blow on the prosecution case. Ld. defence counsel contended that in the present matter, though registered under Sec. 308/34 IrPC, accused was never arrested and as such, prosecution case is liable to be demolished.
10. I have considered the rival submissions.
11. Admittedly, prosecution case is rests upon the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-2 who are mother/complainant-victim and son, an eye witness of the incident. Both these witnesses in unequivocal terms stated that on 19.03.2015 at about 11 p.m. an altercation had taken place between the parties and said matter pacified. Then on the date of incident i.e. next date on 20.03.20125 at 7 a.m. accused with his brother came and caused injuries. Contention of the accused that non joining of any mohalla people is fatal to the prosecution case has no value in the eyes of law. It is well settled law that it is quality of the evidence which is to be seen and not the quantity. It is for the accused to establish as to why he has been implicated falsely and at that time of the incident, where he/they was/were present.
12. There is no explanation for false implication of the accused at the hands of the victim. Rather victims would be the most interested witnesses to see SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 4 of 7 the actual culprits behind the bars.
13. Regarding injuries at the hands of the accused persons, both witnesses in clear words stated that both accused persons came there and caused injuries to the injured. Contention of the ld. defence counsel that it is not clear from the evidence on record that whether accused facing trial before this court or his associate facing trial before JJB caused injuries is not clear and benefit of the same must be given to the accused, has no value and is to be thrown outset. On this issue, perusal of the record is clear that PW-1 Smt. Omwati complainant/injured stated in clear words that a quarrel took place between her family members and the family of the accused. During quarrel, she (Omwati/PW-1) sustained injuries on her head due to the danda blow but he did not identify who had given the said danda blow to her. After sustaining injury PW- 1 became unconscious. Some one made the call by dialling 100. Police took her to LBS hospital. 3-4 stitches were given to her on her head. Thereafter, police inquired from her and recorded her statement Ex. PW 1/A. PW-1 identify the accused present in the court. In her cross examination, she stated that she states that an altercation took place between her son namely Braham Pal and her neighbour Sonu. Son of the complainant corroborating her statement while categorically stating that accused - both sons of Seema namely Sagar and Sonu
- also came at the spot and accused Sonu was holding danda in his hand. Both Sagar and accused Sonu caught hold of him and started manhandling with him when his mother Omwati tried to intervene in order to save himself, accused Sonu gave danda blow on the head of his mother due to which, his mother SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 5 of 7 sustained injury and blood started oozing out from her head. Apart from that, the other witnesses are police officials who had joined the investigation and assisted the IO from one way or the other way. It is also clear from the examination-in- chief of PW-1 Smt. Omwati that she does not want to say anything further except to get rid from the present mater as well to settle the matter. This shows the conduct of the parties. If parties have settled the matter/wants to settle the matter, they can avail of the legal remedies available to them.
14. Qua the contention of ld. defence counsel that PW-3 Bharam Pal failed to mention the name of the offender who caused injuries to his mother, it is well observed in Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari Vs. State of MP (1991) 3 SCC 626 that where there is long time gap between examination-in-chief and cross- examination and contrary versions are stated by a witness, then it is apparent that witness has been won over by the accused and for this reason, the statement in cross-examination is to be discarded.
15. It is also well settled that minor contradictions are normal and two persons will never depose the incident in a same way i.e. in same words. Every person has its own style to depose about the incident/accident or any happening.
16. From the above discussion, it is clear from the record that accused with his associate has scuffle with complainant and her son and caused injuries to Smt. Omwati with a danda blow but the said danda was not recovered.
17. Now, question arises whether case falls within the ambit of Sec. 308 IPC or not or under lesser offence. There is no dispute about the proposition of law that accused can be held guilty for the lesser offence charged with. SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 6 of 7
18. In the present matter, injured Smt. Omwati sustained injuries with a a single danda blow. In a case reported as P.P. Vs. N.S. Murthy, 1973 Crl.L.J. 1238 (AP), it is well observed that the accused, a shopkeeper in a sudden quarrel hit his wife with an iron weight of 200 grams which resulted in her death. The medical evidence showed that the injury was of a simple nature and there was no evidence that the deceased died of shock caused by the injury. He was held liable only under Sec. 323 IPC and not under Sec. 304 IPC. In the case in hand, it is also clear from the record that injured sustained injuries only with a single blow of danda. Nature of injury is opined as "simple". Besdies the above, weapon of offence has also not been recovered or got recovered. Hence, in view of the observations made in the above reported case, court is of the view that present case falls within the ambit of Sec. 323 IPC only.
19. With these observations, accused Sonu @ Abhishek is acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 308/34 IPC, however, he is held guilty under Sec. 323/34 IPC.
Announced in open court on 24th day of March, 2018 (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) ASJ-03 (East):
KKD Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 361/2017 State Vs. Sonu @ Abhishek Page 7 of 7