The State vs Pankaj @ Guddu S/O Sh. Narottam Sharma on 4 August, 2012

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

The State vs Pankaj @ Guddu S/O Sh. Narottam Sharma on 4 August, 2012

                                           1


          IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH
      ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT
                 ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No. : 112/2008
PS : Aman Vihar
U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC
Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009


In the matter of
The State
Versus
1.      Pankaj @ Guddu s/o Sh. Narottam Sharma
        R/o: A-Block, Near Holi Chowk
        Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III
        Delhi.
2.      Narottam Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Raj Sharma
        R/o: A-Block, Near Holi Chowk
        Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III
        Delhi.
3.      Deepak s/o Sh. Bhoop Singh
        R/o: E-492, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III
        Delhi.
4.      Aakash @ Minnu S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh
        R/o: E-492, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III
        Delhi.
5.      Aman S/o Sh. Hawa Singh
        R/o: R-492, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III
        Delhi.
                                                           ...ACCUSED
Session Case No. : 341/09
Date of Institution : 28.05.2009
Date of Committal : 04.08.2009
Date of reserving judgment/order : 3.8.2012
Date of pronouncement : 4.8.2012
FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar   State v. Pankaj etc.     Page 1 of 35
                                            2

J U D G M E N T

1. Accused persons namely Pankaj @ Guddu, Narottam Sharma, Deepak, Akash and Aman were sent up by police of PS Aman Vihar to stand trial for offence punishable U/s 308/324/325/452/34 IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 30.03.2008 on the receipt of DD No. 37 A at the police station ASI Krishan Kumar alongwith Ct. Balraj reached at the spot of information of quarrel at Holi Chowk, Near Ugna Chowk, Prem Nagar-III where it was revealed that the injured have been removed to SGM Hospital by PCR. On this they reached at SGM Hospital and obtained the MLC of injured namely Ram Ashish, Manjit and Bhola. Injured Manjit got his statement recorded to the IO and stated that he is living with his parents and is student of 8th class and on 30.03.2008 at about 9:45 p.m. he heard noise of quarrel and abuses from the house of Ram Ashish who was living in the neighbourhood and reached at the house of Ram Ashish and saw Pankaj @ Guddu, his father Narottam Sharma and Aman who lives at Ugna Chowk, all were known to him previously, were armed with saria and danda and were saying you were spreading defamation of their daughter and lets teach them lesson (sale tum hamari larki ke bare me ulti-seedhi batein kar uski badnami kar afwah faila rahe ho, tumhe abhi sabak sikhate hain). Some other person also came there and Aman gave blow with sharp edged object on his thigh and Ram Ashish and Bhola were also given blow with saria and danda on head and on different parts of the body and thereafter they fled FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 2 of 35 3 away. On the basis of the same the FIR was registered. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of the investigation, accused persons were charge sheeted for offence punishable u/s 308/324/325/452/34 IPC.

3. After supplying the necessary copies to the accused persons, the case was committed to the court of session vide order dated 4.8.2009 by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate.

4. My Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 05.09.2009 after finding prima-facie case, charged all the accused persons for offence punishable U/s 452/34 IPC, 308/34 IPC, and 324/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

5. The prosecution in support of their case examined as many as six (14) witnesses :-

6. The prosecution also examined following material witnesses :-

i. PW-2 Bhola Mehto is the injured and eye witness.

ii. PW-3 Manjeet, is the complainant and injured. He proved his statement Ex.PW-3/A. He is also witness of arrest of accused Pankaj @ Guddu and his father Narottam Sharma and proved arrest memos as Ex.PW-3/B and Ex.PW-3/C. iii. PW-4 Smt. Ram Dai Devi is wife of injured Ram Ashish and eye witness.

iv. PW-12 Sh. Ram Ashish is also injured.

7. The prosecution also examined following formal witnesses : -

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 3 of 35 4

i. PW-1 Dr. Samir Pandit who examined the patient Bhola and proved his MLC as Ex.PW-1/A. ii. PW-5 HC Ravinder is duty officer who proved the extract of DD entry no. 37 A, recorded by him as Ex.PW-5/A. iii. PW-6 Dr. V. K. Jha, Medical Officer is the doctor who gave opinion regarding nature of injury on the MLC of injured Manjit, Ram Ashish and Bhola and proved the same as Ex.PW-6/A, PW-6/B and PW-1/A. iv. PW-7 SI Mahender Singh is duty officer who recorded formal FIR on the basis of Rukka and proved the carbon copy of FIR as Ex.PW-7/A. v. PW- 10 Dr. Brajesh Singh proved the MLC of injured Manjit and Ram Ashish prepared by Dr. Vikas Gupta and Dr. Vipul as they had left the services of the hospital. He also proved X-ray report as Ex.PW-10/A with respect to injured Bhola.

8. The prosecution also examined following witnesses of arrest and investigation :

i. PW-8 HC Balraj who joined the investigation with initial IO and witness of arrest of accused Pankaj @ Guddu and his father Narottam Sharma and proved their arrest memos as Ex.PW-3/B and C and their personal search as Ex.PW-8/A and B respectively and their disclosure statement as Ex.PW-8/C and D FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 4 of 35 5 respectively.

ii. PW-9 Ct. Ramphal is witness of arrest of accused persons namely Aman, Deepak and Meenu at the instance of Ram Ashish and proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Aman as Ex.PW-9/A, Ex.PW-9/B and Ex.PW-9/C. He is also witness of recovery of danda and saria at the instance of accused Aman and proved seizure memo of the same as Ex.PW-9/D, pointing out memo of the place of incident by accused Aman as Ex.PW-9/E. iii. PW-10 Ct. Anand is also witness of arrest of accused persons namely Aman, Deepak and Meenu @ Akash at the instance of Ram Ashish and witness of recovery of danda and saria at the instance of accused Aman. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Meenu @ Akash as Ex.PW-11/A, Ex.PW-11/B and Ex.PW-11/C. iv. PW-13 HC Surender is also witness of arrest of accused persons namely Aman, Deepak and Meenu @ Akash and recovery of danda and saria. He proved arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Deepak as Ex.PW-13/A and Ex.PW-13/B. v. PW-14 SI Krishan Kumar is the investigating officer who recorded the statement of the complainant and got the FIR registered. He is also witness of arrest of FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 5 of 35 6 accused persons and recovery of danda and saria. He in additions to other memos proved his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW-14/A, site plan as Ex.PW-14/B, disclosure statement of accused Deepak as Ex.PW-14/C.

9. After conclusion of the trial, statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.PC recorded wherein they denied prosecution evidence and claimed innocence.

10. Accused Pankaj @ Guddu denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. He stated that on 29.03.2008, wife of Ram Ashish had quarreled with his mother, saying that his sister does not have good character and his mother told him this but he did not react and slept. He stated that on 30.03.2008, he returned to his house, after finishing his work from Metro Railway Corporation, Peera Garhi, at about 10:00-10:30 p.m. and after 10-15 minutes, police officials came and taken him to the police post and thereafter falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant. The house of Ram Ashish is situated opposite to his house and the woman keep quarreling on the small issue. He stated that he would lead evidence in his defence.

11. Similarly accused Narottam Sharma denied the prosecution evidence and claimed innocence. He stated that on 29.03.2008, he had opened his shop of barber, situated at Lal mandir, Prem Nagar and on that day, wife of Ram Ashish had quarreled with his wife, saying that his daughter does not have good character.

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 6 of 35 7

His wife told him this, but he did not react and slept. On 30.03.2008, he returned to his house, after closing the shop at about 11:00 p.m. and his wife told him that his son Pankaj has been taken away by the police. He went to police post Shakur Pur, where his son was sitting. He told them that his son had come from the duty and he kept sitting in the police post upto 1:00 (night), thereafter police asked him to leave the police post. He went to his house. Next day, again he went to PP with few respectable persons where police officials asked him to put his thumb impression and he was detained. The house of Ram Ashish is situated opposite to his house and the woman keep quarrelling on the small issue. He also stated that he would lead evidence in his defence.

12. Accused Deepak also denied prosecution evidence and claimed innocence and stated that he is falsely implicated in this case and his uncle had previously quarrelled with Ram Ashish over a water tanker and later on in order to take revenge he has named him. This is a false case. He also stated that he would lead evidence in his defence.

13. Similarly accused Akash @ Minnu also denied prosecution evidence and claimed innocence and stated that he is falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity of his uncle Hawa Singh and he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. He was on duty, as he was working with Metro Railway Corporation, situated at Mundka. He stated that his uncle had previously quarrelled with Ram Ashish over a water FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 7 of 35 8 tanker and later on in order to take revenge he has named him. He also stated that he would lead evidence in his defence.

14. Accused Aman denied recovery of saria and danda at his instance. He also stated that he is falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity of his father and he was not present at his house at the time of incident as he had gone to his native place situated at Haryana. He stated that his father previously had quarrel with Ram Ashish over a water tanker and later on in order to take revenge he has named him. He also stated that he would lead evidence in his defence.

15. In defence, all the accused persons examined DW-1 Sh.

Dharmender Sharma and DW-2 Sh. Devender Kumar. DW-3 W/Ct. Anita from Police Head Quarter, New Delhi who, however, stated that the record of PCR for the period 01.01.2008 to 30.06.2008 has been weeded out.

16. I have heard Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for the state and Sh. U. K. Giri, Ld. Counsels for the accused persons. I have also gone through the record.

17. PW-3 Manjeet, complainant and injured testified that on 30.03.2008, at about 9:30 p.m, he was present at his house and heard a noise from the house of Ram Ashish. He came out and saw accused Aman, accused Pankaj and his father and they were present in the house of Ram Ashish and were quarreling with him. They were having dandas in their hands and were beating Ram Ashish with the dandas and attacked on his head. He was FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 8 of 35 9 standing there and seen the quarrel. The abovesaid accused persons also attacked him with sharp edged weapon and he received injuries on his thigh. He stated that accused Aman had inflicted sharp injuries on his thigh. Father of Ram Ashish was also there, who tried to intervene and he was also beaten by them. The accused persons were also saying that "aaj aapko sabak sikhayege, aap hamari ladki ki badnami karte ho". He also stated that other remaining two accused persons were also with accused Pankaj, Narrautam and Aman and they also gave a beating with dandas to Ram Ashish and his father. After beating them, the accused persons ran away.

18. PW-12 Sh. Ram Ashish testified that on 30.03.2008 at about 10 a.m. (it seems to have been wrongly typed instead of 10:00 p.m.), he was present in his house and taking meal and at that time accused Narottam and Guddu came to their house and stated that, 'why I was saying wrong things about their daughter', and started assaulting him with a Saria, which was in their hands, separately. Thereafter, accused persons Aman, Deepak and Aakash also entered in their house, who were residing in a 2-3 gali away from his gali. He stated that his son Subhash was also present in their house, who was watching the T.V. His father, Shri Bhola Mahto was also present in the house. All the accused persons started beating his father as well. All of them were armed with lathis (not legible) and dandas and also some pointed weapons. After giving them beatings with dandas, lathis and pointed weapons they ran away from the spot. He was assaulted on his head and on the back and also FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 9 of 35 10 given fist and kicks blow over all the body. Accused persons also assaulted his father on his left hand. One of their neighbourer Manjeet also came out from his house after listening their noise and he was also assaulted by the accused persons and given injuries to his thigh. Thereafter police came and taken them to the hospital.

19. PW-2 Sh. Bhola Mehto is another injured. He testified that about two years ago, he had come to Delhi to meet his son Ram Ashish. On one day, at about 9:00-10:00 p.m, when he was present at the house of his son along with him (son), 3-4 boys came there and they entered into their house. Those boys were asking his son that why he had defamed (sic) their daughter by making gossip about her and they threatened to teach his son a lesson. His son asked them that he had not defamed their daughter. Thereafter, those boys caught hold of his son and gave a beating to him with dandas, which they were carrying. He tried to intervene to save his child, but those boys also attacked him and gave a beating to him. One of their neighbour also came to rescue them, but he was also attacked by those boys. He stated that they all three received injuries. His left arm had also got fractured. They were taken to SGMH Hospital. He identified accused Narauttam with name and remaining with their face.

20. PW-4 Smt. Ram Dai Devi is wife of injured Ram Ashish and eye witness of the incident. She testified that on 30.03.2008, at about 9:30-10:00 p.m, she was present in her house and her FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 10 of 35 11 husband and father-in-law were also present. Accused Narauttam, Aman, Pankaj, forcibly entered into their house and asked that why her husband had defamed their daughter by making gossips about her and also threatened them to learn her husband a lesson. Meanwhile, the other two accused persons, namely, Deepak and Akash also entered into their house and all the five were armed with dandas and sarias and they started beating her father-in-law and husband. She further stated that their neighbour, Manjeet also came there on hearing the noise and tried to intervene. Accused Aman stabbed sharp object on the thigh of Manjeet. Her husband was attacked by the accused persons with saria on his head and he received injury.

21. Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that there was previous animosity with the injured and therefore he had named accused persons whereas they were not present at the spot.

22. In this case, PW-3 Manjit was a boy of age about 15 years studying in 10th class when he was examined in the court and at the time of incident he was studying in 8th class. In his cross-examination he admitted that the house of Jafru is situated between the house of Ram Ashish's and his house. At the time of incident, there was electricity. He also admitted that there is a Hanuman Mandir, situated at Ugna Chowk. The distance between the house of Ram Ashish and Hanuman Mandir is about 10 steps. He does not know whether there was a commotion one day prior the present occurrence on the point of teasing a girl between Narauttam and Ram Ashish and their FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 11 of 35 12 wives. He does not know whether Narauttam and his wife had visited the house of Ram Ashish on 29.03.2008, regarding a complaint of girl teasing. He also does not know whether brother-in-law of Ram Ashish had also a quarrel with three four boys near Hanuman Mandir, regarding teasing of a lady, namely, Raj Bala. The house of Aman is situated in the other gali and not in the same gali, where house of Ram Ashish is situated. He admitted that that accused Narauttam is a barber.

23. He stated that he does not know, whether in the morning of 30.03.2008, accused Narauttam had gone to his shop. He denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, accused Narauttam had not seen by him in the house of Ram Ashish. He also stated that he does not know, whether in the morning of 30.03.2008, accused Pankaj had gone to his duty at Metro Station, Pitampura. He also denied suggestion that accused Pankaj had not come to the house of Ram Ashish, as he had returned from his duty at 11:30 p.m. However, as regards his statement, he stated that his statement was written by the police officials in his presence. However, he does not remember the name of the police official, who wrote the same and does not know the time when her statement was recorded. He does not know, whether a dispute is going on with regard to a plot in the family of Ram Ashish.

24. Nothing material inconsistency has come in his testimony. His testimony is corroborated by testimony of Ram Ashish and Bhola Mehto. All these witnesses have given consistent version FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 12 of 35 13 regarding injury sustained by each of them and the presence of all five accused persons in the house of injured Ram Ashish. PW-3 Manjit is an independent witness who is neighbour and young boy, therefore, his testimony is trustworthy and has ring of truth.

25. As regards testimony of Ram Ashish, he stated in his cross-examination that his house is situated at a distance of 10-15 steps from Holi Chowk and Hanuman Temple is situated, near the said chowk. One Jafruddin is his immediate neighbour. The house of Aman is situated leaving three/four streets from his house. He does not know whether accused Aman, Deepak and Aakash are relative of accused Narottam or not. He admitted that on 29.3.2008, a minor altercation had taken place between accused Narottam and his wife with him, at his house, when they came there. But no quarrel had taken place on that day, hence, he did not lodge any complaint to the police. He stated that at the time of incident, his wife was watching the TV on the backside room of his house and she had made a call the police on 100 number.

26. Therefore nothing material has come in his cross-examination as to why he has deposed against accused persons.

27. Ld. Counsel for the accused persons submitted that testimony of wife of Ram Ashish is not believable as she was watching T.V. inside the house and therefore could not be eye witness of the incident.

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 13 of 35 14

28. PW-4 Smt. Ram Dai Devi also admitted in her cross-examination that at the time of quarrel, she was watching TV along with her children in the inner room. Jafru was not present, as he had gone to his duty. Merely because she was watching T.V. at the time of quarrel, it cannot be said that she was not eye witness as after a quarrel which may be verbal she had seen the incident. No question has been asked to her as to where she was present and how she came to witness the incident. Further merely because the house of Jafru is in between the house of Ram Ashish and Manjeet and he is not witness of the present occurrence which had taken place, it cannot be said that Manjeet is not eye witness of the incident as his house is one house away from the house of Ram Ashish. Manjeet is injured witness. Moreover the cross-examination of Ram Dei shows that Jafru had gone to his duty and was not present in his house. Therefore he could not have been present.

29. Therefore the prosecution has proved on record that the accused persons forcibly entered inside the house of Ram Ashish armed with lathi and danda and gave beatings to injured. They gave saria blow on head of Ram Ashish, gave blow with sharp edged object on the thigh of Manjeet and also gave beatings to the father of the Ram Ashish.

30. Now coming to the injury. PW-1 Dr. Samir Pandit had examined injured Bhola and on local examination, noted one lacerated wound left arm mid 1/3 size 3x½ cm, and swelling, tenderness, crepitus and abnormal movement of left arm mid FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 14 of 35 15 1/3 and also noted abrasion nose tip ½x½ cm and linear bruise over left side back of chest 7x1 cm and referred the patient to S. R. Ortho for further management and opinion regarding nature of injury and Dr. V. K. Jha had proved that the nature of injury was grievous on the person of injured Bhola. Bhola himself stated that he has sustained fracture. As per x-ray report proved by PW-10 as Ex.PW-10/A, fracture noted in shaft of left humerus bone in lower half of shaft and fractured noted in lower end of left radius and in the head of fourth metacarpal bone. Therefore it is proved that accused persons having formed common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt on the person of Bhola.

31. As regards the MLC of Manjeet and Ram Ashish, the doctor who had examined them could not be examined as they left the services of the hospital and PW-10 had proved the MLCs. As per MLC, injured Ram Ashish sustained one CLW over frontal region 2x1x0.5 cm, abrasion over right shoulder and over left side of eyebrow and nature of injury is given as simple. As per the MLC of Manjeet, he had sustained one incised wound over left thigh size 8x4x1 cm.

32. In the Charge framed against the accused persons, the place of occurrence is shown as Premise No.A-1798, Near Holi Chowk, Ugna Chowk, Agar Nagar, Prem Nagar-III which his house of Manjit whereas he is only witness and injured and the place of incident is house of Ram Ashish. However, as per testimony of the witnesses as well as the documents clearly show that the FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 15 of 35 16 incident took place in the house of Ram Ashish. It is nowhere seen that they were examined the witnesses on the line of wrong address. The cross-examination is also conducted on the line of place of occurrence being the house of Ram Ashish. The accused persons in no manner misled by wrong mentioning of address and therefore no prejudice has been caused to the accused persons on that account.

33. As regards the offence u/s 308 IPC, there has to be intention to cause culpable homicide. Apart from one blow on the head of Ram Ashish there is no other circumstance which suggest that there was intention to cause culpable homicide. Accused persons have merely stated that they would teach them lesson. It does not necessarily mean that they intended to cause death. Therefore offence u/s 308 IPC is not proved. However it is proved on record that accused persons armed with danda and saria, they had preparation to cause hurt and they entered inside the house and tress passed the house and therefore offence punishable u/s 452 IPC is proved against them. Offences punishable u/s 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC also proved against accused persons.

34. As regards the recovery of weapon of offence, PW-9 Ct.

Ramphal testified that accused Aman was apprehended from E-492 on the identification of Ram Ashish. He was interrogated and made disclosure statement and got recovered one danda and saria from the roof of his house. In his cross-examination, it was admitted that public persons were present but none agreed FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 16 of 35 17 to join the investigation. No site plan of the recovery was made. PW-11 Ct. Anand similarly testified that accused Aman got recovered one saria and danda from the roof of his house. In his cross-examination, IO made effort to join the independent witness in the investigation but none agreed. No notice u/s 160 Cr.PC was given. PW-13 HC Surender also corroborated other witness regarding recovery of danda and saria from the roof of the house at the instance of accused Aman. In his cross-examination, he admitted that roof of the house of accused is joined by the house of roof of neighbour and one can come to the roof of the place from where the danda was recovered by climbing the wall.

35. IO also deposed regarding recovery of danda and saria from the roof of the house. In his cross-examination, he stated that had not joined the public witnesses at the time of recovery of danda and saria as public witness Ram Ashish (injured) was with them.

36. Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that although it is case of prosecution that accused persons were apprehended at the instance of Ram Ashish and saria and danda were recovered but Ram Ashish has not stated so in his examination nor he stated that accused persons were arrested on his pointing out from their houses. Further as per prosecution the witness Ram Ashish was present at the time of recovery as well as at the time of arrest of accused Aman, but disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/C as well as seizure memo of danda and saria Ex.PW-9/D do not FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 17 of 35 18 bear signature of Ram Ashish as witness, which cast doubt about recovery. I find force in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that had Ram Ashish been present at the time of arrest and recovery his signature would have been on the memos. However, surprisingly the signature of Ram Ashish appears on the arrest memo of Aman alongwith Ct. Ramphal but his signature as witness does not appear on the personal search memo. Therefore recovery does not inspire confidence.

37. Now coming to the defence of the accused. All the accused persons denied the prosecution evidence and claimed alibi being not present at the time of incident at the spot. They examined DW-1 Sh. Dharmender Sharma and DW-2 Sh. Devender Kumar in support. DW-1 Sh. Dharmender Sharma is priest in Hanuman Mandir. He testified that on 30.03.2008, at about 7:00-7:15 p.m, he offered Arti and left to the market for buying the vegetables and when, he was returning after buying the vegetables and reached at Holi Chowk, he saw some woman was teased by some person. The passersby collected and started beating the said boy. The said boy was in drunkard condition. Thereafter, he returned to the temple. He again heard some noise. The said boy had called some persons and thereafter a quarrel had started on the Holi Chowk between the associate of the boy and some other persons. In the meantime, somebody called the police. In his cross-examination he stated that he does not know the name of the said boy. He admits that he is deposing regarding the incident, which had taken place at around 7:00-7:15 p.m. and regarding the second incident, which FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 18 of 35 19 is of time 7:30-7:40 p.m. He does not know what happened thereafter. This witness is of no help of the accused persons. Admittedly the present incident is of 9:30/10:00 p.m. Initial DD Ex.PW-5/A is of 9:55 p.m.

38. PW-2 Sh. Devender Sharma testified that the accused Narottam Sharma has barber shop opposite to his shop, situated at Main Mubarakpur Road, Prem Nagar, Nangloi, Delhi. He closed his shop around 10:00-10:30 p.m, and accused Narottam Sharma closes his shop after closing his shop. On 30.03.2008, the accused Narottam Sharma was at his shop around 10:00-10:30 p.m, when he left my shop. In his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that he intentionally and deliberately concocted this fact in favour of the accused Narottam Sharma, being colleague shopkeeper only to save him by showing his presence at his shop at that time. DW-2 is witness of alibi of accused Narottam Sharma who claims that shop was closed at 10:00/10:30 p.m. The time of incident is also 9:30 to 10:00 p.m. The closing time of the shop and time of incident is having variation of half an hour and shop of victim is located in the same area as per cross-examination. Therefore it does not mean that he was not present there at the time of incident keeping in view human error in estimation of time. Therefore this witness also does not help accused persons in any manner.

39. Keeping in view overwhelming, consistent and cogent testimony of the prosecution witnesses, which is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, I am of the opinion that FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 19 of 35 20 prosecution has succeeded in proving their case for offences punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Accused persons namely Pankaj @ Guddu, Narrotam Sharma, Deepak, Akash and Aman are accordingly convicted for said offences and are taken into custody.

40. Let accused persons be heard on quantum of sentence. Announced in the open court today i.e. on 04.08.2012.

GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 04.08.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 20 of 35 21 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 112/2008 PS : Aman Vihar U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - PANKAJ 08.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State Convict Pankaj in j/c Sh. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for convict.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted that convict is young person aged about 24 years. He is married and having two children to support. He is sole bread earner of the family. He is not previous convict and has clean antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view be taken and benefit of probation be given to them.

On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the state submits that the convict be given maximum punishment and he does not deserve leniency as the offences are of serious nature in which they had entered in the house of some other in the night and gave injuries to them.

In this case convict has been held guilty for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. In this case five accused persons armed with lathi and danda after making common intention entered into the house of injured and caused injury FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 21 of 35 22 to three persons including person who had come to intervene and therefore no leniency can be shown.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, role of the convict, nature of offence, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period three years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two months.

The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- for offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the injured Bhola Mehto and his LRs. as compensation.

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 22 of 35 23

Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to the convict, free of cost. The case property, if any, be destroyed after the expiry of the period of appeal. Document, if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 8.8.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 8.8.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 23 of 35 24 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 112/2008 PS : Aman Vihar U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - NARROTAM SHARMA 08.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State Convict Narrotam Sharma in j/c Sh. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for convict.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted that convict is aged about 42 years. He is married and having wife, and two daughters of marriageable age and two grand children to support. He was gainfully employed as barber and he is sole bread earner of the family. He is not previous convict and has clean antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view be taken and benefit of probation be given to them.

In this case convict has been held guilty for offence punishable FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 24 of 35 25 u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. In this case present convict alongwith his son Pankaj @ Guddu alongwith three others, who are also convict armed with lathi and danda after making common intention entered into the house of injured. He despite being elder to them instead of guiding them incited them to cause injury and caused injury to three persons including person who had come to intervene and therefore no leniency can be shown. Moreover, he deserves more punishment than other persons with whom he had gone and caused injuries.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, role of the convict, nature of offence, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would be met in sentencing the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.

The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period four years and fine of Rs.3,000/- for offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for Two months.

The convict is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months and fine of Rs.500/- for FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 25 of 35 26 offence punishable u/s 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week The benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the injured Bhola Mehto and his LRs. as compensation.

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 8.8.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 8.8.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 26 of 35 27 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 112/2008 PS : Aman Vihar U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - DEEPAK 08.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State Convict Deepak in j/c Sh. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for convict.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted that convict is young person aged about 26 years. He was gainfully employed as driver and he is sole bread earner of the family. He has parents, brothers and sisters to support. He is not previous convict and has clean antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view be taken and benefit of probation be given to them.

In this case convict has been held guilty for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. In this case five accused persons armed with lathi and danda after making common intention entered into the house of injured and caused injury FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 27 of 35 28 to three persons including person who had come to intervene and therefore no leniency can be shown.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the injured Bhola Mehto and his LRs. as compensation.

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 28 of 35 29

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 8.8.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 8.8.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 29 of 35 30 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 112/2008 PS : Aman Vihar U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - AKASH 08.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State Convict Akash in j/c Sh. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for convict.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted that convict is young person aged about 27 years. He is married and having two children and parents to support. He was gainfully employed and he is sole bread earner of the family. He is not previous convict and has clean antecedents. Therefore, it is prayed that lenient view be taken and benefit of probation be given to them.

In this case convict has been held guilty for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. In this case five accused persons armed with lathi and danda after making FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 30 of 35 31 common intention entered into the house of injured and caused injury to three persons including person who had come to intervene and therefore no leniency can be shown.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the injured Bhola Mehto and FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 31 of 35 32 his LRs. as compensation.

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 8.8.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 8.8.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 32 of 35 33 IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH ADDITIONAL SESSION JUDGE-03, OUTER DISTRICT ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No. : 112/2008 PS : Aman Vihar U/s : 452/308/324/34 IPC Unique Case ID : 02404R0 144212009 ORDER ON SENTENCE - AMAN 08.08.2012 Pr.: Sh. A. K. Srivastava, Ld. Addl. PP for State Convict Aman in j/c Sh. Kishan Kumar, Advocate for convict.

Arguments heard.

It is submitted that convict is young person aged about 24 years. He is married and his wife is five months pregnant. He is not previous convict and has clean antecedents. He is sole bread earner of the family. Further, it is submitted, he has been already remained in j/c for 8/9 days and there was previous case in which he was acquitted and therefore, it is prayed that lenient view be taken and benefit of probation be given to them.

In this case convict has been held guilty for offence punishable u/s 452/34 IPC, 325/34 IPC, 324/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC. In this case FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 33 of 35 34 five accused persons armed with lathi and danda after making common intention entered into the house of injured and caused injury to three persons including person who had come to intervene and therefore no leniency can be shown.

All sentences shall run concurrently.

FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 34 of 35 35

Fine, if recovered, shall be paid to the injured Bhola Mehto and his LRs. as compensation.

Announced in the open court today i.e. on 8.8.2012 GURDEEP SINGH ASJ-03/Outer/Rohini/ Delhi 8.8.2012 FIR No. : 112/08, PS : Aman Vihar State v. Pankaj etc. Page 35 of 35

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

The State vs Pankaj @ Guddu S/O Sh. Narottam Sharma on 4 August, 2012