Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohar Pal & Ors., Fir No. 509/97, Ps ... on 26 February, 2013
State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI. FIR NO. 509/97. PS. Model Town. U/s.325/34 IPC. State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi. JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 71/06.
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 11.06.1998
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 04.07.1997
D. NAME OF THE : Sh. Radhe Shyam
COMPLAINANT S/o Sh. Roshan Lal
E. NAME OF THE : 1. Mohar Pal S/o Sh. Kishan
ACCUSED 2. Rich Pal Singh S/o Sh. Ram Pal.
3. Basanti Devi W/o Sh. Madan Lal
F. OFFENCE
COMPLAINED OF : U/s.325/341/34 IPC.
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty.
H. FINAL ORDER : Convicted u/s 325/341/34 IPC
I. DATE OF SUCH ORDER : 24.01.2013
Brief Statement of Reasons for Decision
1. Briefly stated the facts of the case as unfolded from the chargesheet are that on 04.07.1997 the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam gave a written complaint asserting that on 04.07.1997 at about 3:30 pm his neighborer Basanti Devi W/o Rich Pal was quarreling and beating, his another Page No. 1 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. neighborer namely Rajbeti D/o Ganga Ram. He has alleged that when he intervened in the said quarrel, the associates of the accused Basanti namely Rich Pal and Mohar Pal started beating him. He has further alleged that he was assaulted by bricks and on account of said criminal assault his one tooth broke. In the said incident aforesaid Rajbeti D/o Sh. Ganga Ram also suffered simple injuries on account of the assault committed by all the three accused persons. The complainant was got medically examined and the concerned doctor opined that he sustained grievous injuries. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the present FIR u/s 325/34 IPC, PS Model was lodged against all the aforesaid three accused persons. On conclusion of investigation, the present challan under the aforesaid sections was filed in the court.
2. All the three accused persons were summoned by the court for facing trial under the aforesaid sections. In compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C the copy of the challan and the documents annexed therewith were supplied to all the accused persons. Prima facie a charge U/s. 323/325/341/34 IPC was made out against all the three accused persons. Accordingly, on 06.10.1998 the charge was framed by the Ld. Predecessor of this court. All the three accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial to the said charge. Thereafter, the case proceeded for prosecution Page No. 2 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. evidence.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined five witnesses.
4. HC Prahlad Singh (PW1) is a formal witness, who registered the present FIR. He has proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW1/A.
5. Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW2) has deposed that on 09.07.1997, he was working as MO at Hindu Rao Hospital. He has further deposed that on that day he medically examined Ms. Raj Beti D/o Sh. Ganga Ram and Sh. Radhe Shyam S/o Sh. Roshan Lal. He has proved their MLCs as Ex. PW2/A and PW2/B respectively. He has further testified that after examination both the injured persons were referred to EMO surgery for further management.
6. Sh. Ganga Ram (PW3) is the eyewitness of the incident. He has deposed that on 04.07.1997, he came back to his house after doing his work and saw that accused Basanti was beating his daughter namely Raj Beti. He has further deposed that he and Sh. Radhe Shyam tried to intervene, but in the meanwhile accused Mohar Pal and Rich Pal came there and started beating Radhe Shyam with brick and stones. He has further testified that in the said beatings one tooth of Sh. Radhe Shyam broke and his daughter also sustained injuries on her body. He has further Page No. 3 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. deposed that thereafter accused persons ran away and the injured persons were taken to HRH. He correctly identified all the three accused persons.
7. Sh. K.V. Singh (PW4) is the record clerk of Hindu Rao Hospital, who brought the summoned record of MLCs of the injured persons namely Rajbeti and Radhe Shyam. He has testified that he can identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Harish Gupta, who has given opinion on the MLC of the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam. He has identified the signatures of Dr. Harish Gupta on the said MLC Ex.PW2/A wherein, the doctor has opined that the nature of injuries of the injured Sh. Radhe Shyam as grievous.
8. SI Robin Topo (PW5) is the IO of the case. He has deposed that on 04.07.1997, on receipt of DD no. 16A regarding quarrel, he alongwith Ct. Amrik went to Hindu Rao Hospital. He has further deposed that he recorded the statement of the injured Sh. Radhe Shyam and proved it as Ex. PW5/A. He has also proved the rukka Ex. PW5/B and site plan Ex. PW5/C. He has further deposed that 08.07.1997 he arrested the accused persons. He has further deposed that he deposited the MLCs of the injured with the hospital to get opinion regarding the nature of injuries and after receiving the MLCs with opinion, he filed the challan under the supervision of the SHO. Thereafter, PE was closed.
Page No. 4 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC.
9. Subsequently, statement of all the three accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. were separately recorded. They stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. They opted for leading defence evidence. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned for leading DE.
10. Rekha (DW1) is the daughter of accused Basanti Devi, who was 1012 years of age at the time of incident. She has deposed that quarrel took place between her and Rajbeti. Sh. Radhe Shyam gave beatings to her and the public persons rescued her from Sh. Radhe Shyam. She has further testified that Sh. Radhe Shyam sustained injuries on account of the beatings given by public persons who gathered at the spot to rescue her.
11. Sh. Roop Kishore (DW2) has testified that the accused Mohar Pal and Rich Pal were not present at the spot at the time of the incident. He has further deposed that on the date of incident a quarrel took place between two girls over a glass. He has further stated that Radhe Shyam was under the influence of liquor and in a scuffled he fell down and received injuries.
12. Thereafter, all the three accused persons gave application u/s 315 Cr.P.C in writing for getting themselves examined as defence Page No. 5 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. witnesses. The said application was allowed and consequently, all the three accused persons examined themselves in defence evidence.
13. Accused Basanti Devi (DW3) has deposed that on the date of incident when she returned back to her house her daughter Rekha told her that a quarrel took place between her and Rajbeti D/o Sh. Ganga Ram. She has further testified that her daughter further told that the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam was beaten by public persons. She has testified that she was not present at the time of alleged incident. Similarly, accused persons namely Mohar Pal (DW4) and Rich Pal (DW5) have also separately claimed on oath that they were not present on the spot at the alleged time of incident. Thereafter, DE was closed and matter proceeded for final arguments.
14. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for all the three accused persons. I have carefully perused the case file.
15. The cardinal principle of criminal law is that accused is presumed to be innocent till he is proved guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt. The burden of proving the guilt of the accused, exclusively lies on the prosecution and the prosecution is required to stand on its own legs. The benefit of doubt, if any, must go in favour of the accused.
16. The MLC of the injured Rajbeti and Sh. Radhe Shyam has Page No. 6 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. been proved by Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW2) as Ex.PW2/A & Ex.PW2/B respectively and in the similar fashion the said testimony has remained unchallenged. Dr. Harish Gupta has opined on the MLC of the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam that he sustained grievous injuries. Sh. K.V. Singh (PW4) record clerk Hindu Rao Hospital has identified the signatures of Dr. Harish Gupta on the said MLC Ex.PW2/B and he has further deposed that he can identify signatures of Dr. Harish Gupta as he has seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties. Therefore, it is established beyond any reasonable doubt that the injured Sh. Radhe Shyam sustained grievous injuries on the date of incident. Further, the said fact has not been disputed by the accused persons. Therefore, only point of contention that survives is whether he received the said injury on account of criminal assault committed by the accused persons or by an assault committed by any person other than accused or due to fall/accident.
17. In the instant case, there are three eye witnesses of the incident i.e. complainant/ injured Sh. Radhe Shyam, other injured Ms. Rajbeti and Sh. Ganga Ram. It is an admitted fact that the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam and the other injured Ms. Rajbeti failed to appear in the court for substantiating the prosecution version. Only one of the eye witnesses i.e. Sh. Ganga Ram ( PW3 ) has entered in the witness box. The said Page No. 7 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. witness has categorically testified that all the accused persons namely Basanti, Richpal & Mohar Pal assaulted the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam with bricks & stones and consequently one tooth of the complainant was broken. He also deposed that the accused persons assaulted the girl namely Rajbeti. The accused persons did not put even a single question to the said witness in his cross examination for impeaching his credibility. Therefore, his testimony has remained unrebutted.
18. The Ld. Counsel for the accused has contended that the sole testimony of one alleged eye witness is not sufficient to convict the accused unless the same is corroborated in material particulars by the testimony of the other independent witnesses. However, the said submissions does not hold water and the same are liable to be discarded. The testimony of one reliable and credible witness is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. I find support from the findings given by Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Vahula Bhushan alias Vehuna Krishnan V. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1989 SC, 236 wherein it is held as follows: "The testimony of single witness if it is straight forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be based on such a single witness." In Page No. 8 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. the instant case the accused persons have failed to impeach the credibility of the sole eye witness as his testimony has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, his testimony is cogent, convincing and reliable which reflects the actual and correct state of affairs that were existing at the time of incident. Therefore, there is no reason to throw away the said credible testimony of the eye witness PW3 Sh. Ganga Ram.
19. All the three accused persons have claimed the defence of alibi and they have tried to explain the injuries of the complainant Sh. Radhe Shyam by stating that he fell on the ground or he was beaten by the public. The stand of the accused persons in respect of the reasons for the said injuries on the complainant are not consistent and so, the said different stands are not reliable. Therefore, the defence witnesses do not inspire sufficient confidence and hence, there is no reason to believe the version of defence. Further, the defence witnesses or the accused persons have failed to account for the simple injuries sustained by the girl Rajbeti.
20. It is an admitted fact that the complainant or the eye witnesses and the accused persons were not having previous enmity. Therefore, there is no occasion for the complaint to falsely implicate the accused persons for the offence committed by someone else. Moreover, it is not expected for an aggrieved person to implicate an innocent person and Page No. 9 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. let of the actual culprit. Thus, the identity of all the three accused persons to be the perpetrator of the present offence is established beyond any shadow of doubt.
21. In the wake of above discussion, the prosecution has conclusively established all the ingredients of the offence u/s 323/325/34 IPC against all the three accused persons namely Basanti Devi, Mohar Pal and Rich Pal. Accordingly, they stand convicted for the said offences.
22. Put up on 06.02.2013 for addressing arguments on quantum of sentence of the three convicts. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to all the three convicts free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN
court today i.e. 24.01.2013 (DHEERAJ MOR)
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Page No. 10
State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. FIR NO. 509/97.
PS. Model Town.
U/s.325/34 IPC.
State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi.
24.01.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All the three accused persons on bail with counsel.
Vide my separate judgment of even date announced in the open Court, all the three accused persons stands convicted for the offences punishable U/s 323/325/34 IPC.
Put up for addressing arguments on the quantum of sentence on 06.02.2013.
(DHEERAJ MOR) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Page No. 11 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. FIR NO. 509/97.
PS. Model Town.
U/s.325/34 IPC.
State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi.
06.02.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State
All the three convicts namely Basanti Devi, Mohar Pal and Rich Pal on bail with counsel.
Ld. Counsel for the convicts has moved an application u/s 3/4 Probation of Offenders Act read with Section 360 Cr.P.C for release of all the three convicts on probation. Let the report of the probation officer on the said application be called on 19.02.2013.
Put up on 19.02.2013 for the aforesaid purpose.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 06.02.2013.
Page No. 12 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. FIR NO. 509/97.
PS. Model Town.
U/s.325/34 IPC.
State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi.
19.02.2013 Present: Ld. APP for the State
All the three convicts namely Basanti Devi, Mohar Pal and Rich Pal on bail with counsel.
Reports of all the three convicts is received from probation officer. Their copies are supplied to all the three convicts. Arguments on quantum of sentence heard.
Put up on 26.02.2013 for orders on sentence.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 19.02.2013.
Page No. 13 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHEERAJ MOR, MM, ROHINI, DELHI FIR NO. 509/97.
PS. Model Town.
U/s.325/34 IPC.
State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
26.02.2013
Present: Ld. S. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convicts along with the convicts. Arguments on the quantum of sentence heard.
Case file and probation reports of all the three convicts filed by Probation Officer dated 19.02.2013 is perused.
Ld. APP for the state has argued that the convicts be sentenced to a maximum punishment so that a deterrent message be sent to the society and like minded people be discouraged from entering into the criminal activities.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the convicts has argued that the convicts have clear antecedents. It is further submitted that the convicts namely Mohar Pal and Rich Pal are the only bread earners in their respective families and they have large families to support. In respect of convict Basanti Devi, it is submitted that she is a female and she is 50 years of age. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the convicts that they be given an opportunity for reformation and a lenient view may be taken.
I have perused the social investigation reports filed by the Probation Officer. The submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the convicts are duly corroborated by the aforesaid reports. No single theory whether deterrent, preventive, retributive or reformative can help in eliminating crimes and criminals from society. It is only through an effective combination of two or more of these Page No. 14 State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. theories that an ideal penal programme can be drawn to combat crimes. It is also essential to understand crime as a social and individual phenomenon and the need to prevent its commission or repetition by adapting an attitude conducive to the resocialisation or reformation of the criminal. The criminal's reformation serves a great social purpose and society itself becomes the greatest beneficiary of this reformation by being freed from his depredations. If the society cannot reform an offender, it is punishment for the society.
Convicts are facing trial in this case since last almost 15 years and they have shown genuine remorse for the offence committed by them. Further, the convicts have not committed any offence, subsequent to the commission of present offence. Therefore, their desire to reform also seems to be genuine. There has been increasing emphasis on the reformation and rehabilitation of the offender as useful and selfreliant member of the society without subjecting him to deleterious effects of jail life. Further, it is apparent that the convicts are not hardened criminals and therefore, they must be shielded from the hardened criminals in the Jail and must be given an opportunity to reflect upon the offence committed by them and to reform.
Keeping in view the nature of offence, the character of the offenders, their family background and social ramifications, it is expedient to release them on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond for an amount of Rs. 20,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Bonds and surety bonds furnished and they are accepted. Convicts are also directed to pay the cost of proceedings as Rs.2000/ each in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. Same is paid.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Dheeraj Mor)
today on 26.02.2013 MM/Rohini/Delhi
26.02.2013
Page No. 15
State Vs. Mohar Pal & Ors., FIR No. 509/97, PS Model Town, U/s. 325/34 IPC. FIR NO. 509/97.
PS. Model Town.
U/s.325/34 IPC.
State Vs. (1) Mohar Pal, (2) Rich Pal & (3) Basanti Devi.
26.02.2013 Present: Ld. S. APP for the State.
Ld. Counsel for the convicts along with the convicts. Vide separate order on sentence all the three convicts namely Basanti Devi, Mohar Pal and Rich Pal are released on probation of good conduct on their entering into a bond for an amount of Rs.20,000/ each with one surety each in the like amount to appear and receive sentence during the period of two years and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behavior. Bonds and surety bonds furnished and they are accepted. Convicts are also directed to pay the cost of proceedings as Rs.2000/ each in accordance with section 5 of Probation of Offender Act 1958. Same is paid.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Dheeraj Mor) MM/Rohini/Delhi 26.02.2013 Page No. 16