Delhi District Court
State vs Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. on 21 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors.
FIR No. 411/97
PS:Ashok Vihar
U/s 325/34 IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) The date of commission : 25/04/1997
of offence.
B) Name of the complainant : Smt. Pushpa
W/o. Sh. Bhishan Swaroop
C) Name of the accused : 1. Charanjeet @ Charanu
S/o. Late Sh. Tek Chand
2. Ashok Kumar @ Shoki
S/o. Late Sh. Tek Chand
3. Naraini Devi
W/o. Late Sh. Tek Chand
(proceedings qua her abated)
4. Rajesh Chugh
S/o. Late Sh. Tek Chand
D) Offence complained of : U/s 325/34 IPC
E) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
F) Final order : Convicted U/s. 325/323/34 IPC
G) The date of such order : 21/02/2012
Date of Institution : 16/04/1998
Judgment reserved on : 14/02/2012
Judgment announced on : 21/02/2012
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 1/18
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 25/04/1997 at about 04:15 pm at Dowry Cell Office, North West District, Ashok Vihar Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar, accused Charanjeet @ Charanu, Ashok Kumar @ Shoki, Naraini Devi and Rajesh Chugh voluntarily caused grievous injuries on the person of Smt. Pushpa and Sh. Bishan Swaroop when they had gone there to attend the proceedings before CAW cell.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s 325/34 IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused persons.
3. Vide order dated 07/07/1999 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused persons for trial of offence U/s 325/34 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During trial accused Naraini Devi expired and proceedings qua her was abated vide order dated 03.02.2007.
5. Prosecution has examined 7 witnesses to prove the guilt of accused State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 2/18 persons. A brief scrutiny of the examined witnesses is as below.
PW-1 is Renu who deposed that in the year 1997 she had filed a complaint against her brother in law Charanjeet, husband Ashok Kumar, mother in law Naraini Devi at CAW cell, Ashok Vihar. On 25.11.1997 police official name Darodiya, was recording her statement at about 03:30/03:45 pm at CAW cell and her father Sh. Bhishan Swaroop Grover was also there and her mother was sitting outside the room of the inquiry Officer. She further deposed that the accused persons were also present in front of the room of the inquiry officer. She deposed that while she was giving statement, all the accused persons started giving beatings to her mother and on hearing the noise she along with her father ran towards her mother and all the accused persons gave beatings to her mother and when her father went to her rescue, he was also given beatings as a result of which blood came out from his nose and her mother received grievous injuries. She further deposed that she was standing near that place and was raising noise for help. Thereafter, the matter was reported to PS Ashok Vihar and her father and mother were taken to Hindu Rao hospital for medical. Thereafter her parents came back to the PS and on the basis of statement of her mother case was registered, all the four accused persons were arrested and were released on police bail. She further deposed that her father's 2/3 tooth were broken due to beatings of the accused persons and her mother received injuries on her face.
The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel wherein she deposed that after registration of the case her statement was recorded by the police on 25.11.1997 and thereafter she has not made any statement to the police. She further stated that she had not made any statement to the police on 11.07.1997. She denied suggestion that when she came outside all the accused persons ran away from the spot. She further stated that after the occurrence they on their own went to the PS. Lastly she State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 3/18 denied the suggestion that the accused persons had not given any beatings to her parents or that she is deposing falsely due to enmity or due to the fact that matrimonial disputes are pending between them.
PW-2 is Smt, Pushpa who deposed that on 25th day of the month which she do not remember but in the year 1997 she along with her daughter and husband went to CAW cell where her daughter had filed a complaint against the accused persons. On that day in between 3 pm to 4 pm the statement of her daughter was being recorded by the police official namely Rohtiya. She further deposed that at that time her husband was inside the room along with her daughter Renu and she was standing outside the room. She further deposed that while she was standing there all the accused persons came together, who were present in the court that day, gathered there. Thereafter, accused Narini Devi caught hold of her and accused Charanjit and Rajesh started beating her. Thereafter, she raised noise for resuce and some one informed her husband and she was being beaten by the accused persons. She further deposed that her husband came outside along with her daughter for rescuing her and thereafter accused Charanjeet, Ashok and Naresh gave beating to her husband on his nose and he received grievous injuries and his two teeth were also broken. He further deposed that her daughter was also beaten and thereafter she lost her consciousness. She further deposed that she regained her consciousness in Hindu Rao hospital where she was medically examined. She further deposed that she remained admitted in the hospital for about 3 hours and police recorded her statement at the PS. She identified all the accused persons present in the court that day.
PW-3 Bishan Swaroop deposed that on 25.11.1997 he along with his daughter Renu and wife Pushpa had gone to attend the hearing of State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 4/18 complaint filed by his daughter against the accused persons before CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar and on that day they reached at CAW Cell at about 11:00 am. At about 02:30/03:00 pm Mr. Dua came and instructed them for recording the statement of his daughter to concerned official ASI Dharodhiya. While ASI Dharodhiya was recording the statement of his daughter he was inside the room and his wife was sitting outside the room. There all the four accused suddenly attacked on his wife Pushpa and on hearing the noises of his wife he came out of the room for rescuing his wife. He saw his wife badly beaten and thereafter all the accused persons attacked upon him. As result of beating given by the accused persons, his nose was fractured and two teeth were broken and he received multiple injuries. Thereafter a report was lodged at PS Ashok Vihar. Thereafter he and his wife Mrs. Pushpa were taken to hospital by police official where he and his wife were medically examined. His daughter Renu had not received any injuries in that incident.
He was cross examined by Ld Defence Counsel wherein he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and no such occurrence took place.
PW-4 SI Harbhajan Singh deposed that on 25.04.1997 complainant Pushpa along with her family members and accused persons came to CAW Cell for attending the complaint there and there the occurrence took place and the DD No. 16 A lodged by Pushpa with DO was marked to him for inquiry. The DO also got Pushpa and Bishan Swaroop medically examined and handed over him the MLCs of both the persons. The doctors opined the injuries on both the injured as blunt and injuries were under observation. On 09.07.1997 he obtained the results on the M.L.Cs and thus on the basis of DD No. 16 A and M.L.Cs he prepared rukka Ex. PW-4/A and got the case registered vide Ex. PW-4/B. On 11.07.1997 he prepared site plan Ex. PW-4/C on the pointing out of complainant Pushpa.
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 5/18The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein he deposed that he had not seen the occurrence.
PW-5 ASI Pushpa deposed that on 25.04.1997 at about 04:20 pm, Smt. Pushpa along with her husband Bishan Swaroop came to PS Ashok Vihar and told her taht a case of her daughter Renu was pending in PS> on that day proceeding was conducted in Women Cell and Pushpa was outside the women cell when the accused persons namely Ashok Kumar, Rajesh, Charanjit and Naraini Devi started beating her. She proved the DD No. 16 A as Ex. PW-5/A. PW-6 Dr. Ram Sharma proved the M.L. C. No. 5108/97 of injured Pushpa prepared by Dr. Rohit Modi as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-7 Dr. Sunil Kumar proved the MLC No. 5122/97 of patient Bishan Swaroop which was prepared by Dr. A.K. Pandita as Ex. PW-7/A. He also proved the M.L.C No. 5108/97 Ex. PW-6/A prepared by Dr. Ratna Chopra.
6. P.E. stood closed on 30.04.2011 whereupon statement of accused persons U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded to which they pleaded innocence of the charges. U/s. 315 Cr.P.C accused Ashok Kumar examined himself as DW-1.
DW-1 Ashok Kumar deposed that the complainant Smt. Pushpa is his mother-in-law. He married daughter of the complainant Smt. Renu and two children were born from the wed lock. His wife used to quarrel with him as well as with other members of the family and as such their relations were strained. He had requested many times to his mother-in-law and his father-in-law to advise their daughter Smt. Renu to live properly with him and behave properly State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 6/18 with other members of the family but of no use as they never advised her properly and rather used to ill advise her in order to cause harassment to him as well as to his other family members. On 03/12/96 his wife Smt. Renu kicked out him from the rented accommodation where he was residing with her. Thereafter his wife Smt. Renu got vacated the rented accommodation and shifted to some other unknown place and since then her where abouts are not known to him and since then they have no relation at all. His wife had lodged a complaint with CAW Cell against him as well as his other family member and an FIR No.443/97 U/s 498-A/406/34 IPC PS Mangolpuri was registered against him, his mother Smt. Naraini Devi and his two younger brothers Chanranjeet Lal and Ashok Kumar. As the said complaint was false and baseless therefore, in the above mentioned case they all had been discharged by the Hon'ble Court of Ms. Nisha Saxena, Ld. MM, Mahila Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi vide order dtd.21/02/03 certified copy of that order is Ex.DW-1/1 (colly. Running into 4 pages). He further deposed that the present case has also been emerged from the said complaint lodged by his wife with the CAW Cell and they were appearing in the investigation of the CAW Cell proceedings and because of the malafide intentions and designs of his wife and her parents a false report has been registered against the accused and his family members and that they are un-necessarily harassed by his wife and his mother-in-law Smt. Usha i.e. He further deposed that they are innocent and have not caused any injury to the complainant or any other person.
He was cross examined by Ld. APP wherein he admitted on 25/04/97 he along with his brothers/accused persons Rajesh and Charanjeet and with his mother Narayani Devi had appeared in the proceedings of CAW Cell N/W District Ashok Vihar, Delhi. He denied the suggestion that he along with other accused persons had beaten the complainant Smt. Pushpa Devi and her State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 7/18 husband Bishan Swaroop with the intention to threaten them and not pursue the case against him and other accused persons. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. D.E. was closed on 29.09.2011 and thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
8. It is submitted by Ld. APP that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is further stated that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and trustworthy which have been able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt.
9. On the other hand, the Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that no incriminating material has come on the record against accused persons and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits there are several inconsistencies and loopholes in the story of prosecution. He has argued that the FIR has been lodged after considerable delay which has not been explained by the prosecution. Further he has argued that it has come in the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that their statement was not recorded by the IO. It is further argued that the date of the incident as mentioned by the prosecution and that deposed by PW-1 and PW-3 are different i.e. 25.11.1997 and 25.04.1997. It is also argued that it is counter blast of the case filed by the accused Ashok against the complainant. Also it has been argued that none of the accused persons were arrested on State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 8/18 the spot as the prosecution submits that all this happened in the CAW office.
10. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
11. After going through the material on record and having heard the arguments advanced, I am of the I am of the opinion that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused.
12. Section 325 IPC provides "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine ".
Grievous hurt has been defined by section 320 IPC. It provided "The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":-
First. - Emasculation.
Secondly. - Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly. - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Fourthly. - Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly. - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly. - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly. - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 9/18
Eightly. - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Essential ingredients for an offence U/s. 325 IPC are as under:
a. that the accused caused hurt of any of the kinds described in section 320; b. that the accused intended, or knew that he was likely, to cause grievous hurt of any kind so described;
c. that the accused did so voluntarily.
13. Now I shall deal with contentions raised by Ld. Defence Counsel one by one.
14. First, the delay in lodging in the FIR is does not washes off the case of the complainant even if the delay is unexplained although it is submitted by the Ld. APP that the FIR was not registered pending for the result of MLCs of the injured. Though this is not a ground for non registration of FIR but it does sustain the reasons of delay for lodging the same. It has been held in Ranjeet Dass v. State of West Bengal 2000 Cr.L.J 1241 that mere delay in filing of FIR is not a ground in itself for discarding the case and the totality of the facts has to be looked into. In the instant case the delay in FIR has been explained and it was due to the result of nature of injuries being awaited.
15. Secondly, the contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that the IO had not recorded the statement of the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 is concerned, it has State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 10/18 come in cross examination of PW-1 that "I had made a statement only on the date of occurrence on 25.11.1997. I had not given any statement to the police on 11.07.1997". Further it has come in examination in chief of PW-2 that "I remained admitted in the hospital for about three hours and police recorded my statement at PS.". Further it has come in cross examination of PW-3 that "I did not make any statement to the Police on 11.07.1997.". No where the PWs have stated that their statements were not recorded but only that they were not recorded on a particular date. All have coherently deposed about giving their statements to the police. Even otherwise it is not obligatory upon the IO to record the statement of witnesses. Further if as per the arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel the present case is a concocted one with the connivance of the complainant and the police officials then the PWs would have deposed on the lines of the IO and there is no reason for them to delineate from the lines of the prosecution.
16. As far as the discrepancy in the mentioning of the date of the incident is concerned, the same is of trivial in nature as the testimony of the witnesses were recorded almost four years after the incident and there was all the more reasons for the witnesses to have forgotten the same. The date of incident has been duly corroborated by the testimonies of PW-4 SI Harbajan Singh, M.L.C Ex. PW-6/A, D.D. No. 16 A Ex. PW-5/A and most importantly by the testimony of DW-1 Ashok Kumar who in his cross examination by Ld. APP have accepted that on 25.04.1997 i.e. the date of incident he along with other accused persons had appeared in the proceedings of CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar, Delhi. DW Ashok Kumar has admitted that on 25.04.1997 which as per the prosecution is the date of incident, the accused persons and the complainant were present at CAW Cell, Ashok Vihar.
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 11/1817. As held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a criminal case, the testimony of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, by itself is a sufficient and sound basis, in fact the best basis, for convicting accused person because, injuries guarantee the presence of such witnesses on the place of incident and once that is ensured, the limited question which remains is whether they are credible or not. It is only where the testimony of such witnesses is found incredible and untrustworthy vis-a-vis the core of the prosecution case that it should be discarded. This norm of appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses is based on the trite that injuries only guarantee their presence but, do not ensure their truthfulness and no Court ever convicts accused persons unless the evidence of witnesses is truthful and inspires confidence, on the material aspects of the prosecution case.
18. Further, a witness cannot be expected to narrate the incident like a parrot. Some improvements/contradictions may creep in due to fading of memory with lapse of time. These minor contradictions should not be given undue importance unless they are so glaring so as to destroy the confidence in the witness. In the instant case I do not find any infirmity in the testimony of the injured that her testimony should be looked with suspicion.
19. Applying the above principles of law to the facts of present case, it is evident that the investigation conducted including the documents prepared in the present case have been substantially proved by the police witnesses including the investigating officer. The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel that State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 12/18 none of the accused persons were arrested on the spot despite the fact that as per the prosecution story the incident happened in the CAW office in my opinion does not hold water. It is prerogative of the IO to arrest or not the accused persons. In fact the need of arrest is different from its justification. It is admitted that there were many litigation going on between the parties and there was no reason for the accused persons to flee away from the hands of law. The IO arrested them only after the result of MLC. Accordingly, non arresting the accused persons on the spot does not give any edge to the case of the defence. Further more,the witnesses cannot be held unreliable in case the IO has not complied with his duty in toto.
20. In my view an injured witness is least likely, unless injuries are self inflicted, to shield or screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. A conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of an injured person unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration to satisfy its judicial conscience. In the present case, all the witnesses have corroborated each other in material particulars and their testimonies are coherent.
21. Now, the question arises whether the nature of injuries are grievous or simple in nature so as to adjudicate whether offence u/s 325 I.P.C or 323 I.P.C is made out. The concerned doctor who prepared the M.L.C was never got examined by the prosecution and thus the accused did not got opportunity to cross examine him as to the basis on which he opined the injuries as grievous.
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 13/1822. The case of the prosecution is that grievous injuries had been caused upon the victims Pushpa and Bishan Swaroop during the incident. The M.L.C Ex. PW-6/A and Ex. PW-7/A is quite explicit regarding the nature of injuries received by the victims. It shows that the incisor tooth of Bishan Swaroop were loose. Though the doctor who prepared the MLC did not himself come to the witness box to prove the same but the fact that the tooth of the injured (PW-3 Bishan Swaroop) was broken, which has been proved by testimonies of other witnesses and finds mention in his MLC squarely covers the same within the definition of grievous hurt u/s 320 I.P.C clause seventhly. Court is not bound by the opinion of any expert if the Act itself provides for it. Injuries caused to victim Bishan Swaroop are therefore held to be grievous. But as per material on record, there is nothing to show if the injured Pushpa had fracture , permanent loss of hearing or sight,dislocation of tooth etc. Though the M.L.C Ex. PW-6/A mentions the injured being referred for X-Ray but neither the report nor the X-RAY are on record. Further, it has not been proved as to for how many days the injured suffered from body pain or the date on which he was discharged from the hospital.
23. In my opinion, the ingredients of Sec.320 is not made out though the injuries sustained by the injured can be said to cause hurt to him within the domain of Sec.319 I.P.C which reads as under.
" Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
It can be deduced safely from the state of things that has emanated that the accused caused hurt to the injured.
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 14/1824. I am fortified in my opinion by the law laid down in Nazar Mohd. @ Hanuman v.State of Delhi by Hon'ble High Court Of Delhi in para 12, "The prosecution had examined Hari Babu Gupta, Record Clerk Irwin Hospital, New Delhi as PW/7, who has proved the M.L.C. Exhibit PW/7/A, in respect of Kanhaiya Lal having signatures at point X to be in the hand of Dr. O.P. Khere. This M.L.C. was prepared by Dr. Khere. He has also proved the endorsement at point Y to be in the hand of Dr. S.K. Kukreja who declared the injuries of Kanhaiya Lal to be grievous. He has also proved endorsement at point 'Z' regarding the injured to be unfit for statement to be in the hand of Dr. Vijay Kumar Sharma. He has also claimed that the whereabouts of these Doctors were not known. As already referred to, all that has been stated by Kanhaiya Lal, injured was that he remained in the hospital for seven days. There is nothing in his statement to indicate that the accused had expressed his intention to kill this witness by use of force. The Doctor who declared the injuries to be grievous has not been examined and thus we do not have on record the material to indicate as to what were the reasons for the Doctor coming to the conclusion that the injuries were grievous in nature. The M.L.C. does not indicate that there was any fracture nor there is any such claim by Kanhaiya Lal injured. In these circumstances I am clearly of the view that the injuries have to be termed as simple caused by sharp object and in this way offence would fall under Section 324. In case Ganga Ram v. State, (1968 Crl. LJ. (Vol. 74) it has been held that even if the Doctor is examined but the record of the operation, etc. is not produced and it is not clear from his statement as to how he came to the conclusion about the injury to be 'grievous' it should be deemed to be "simple" in nature. In case Om Prakash Daulat Ram v. State, 1969 Cr. LJ (Vol. 75) 250, it has been held that if the reasons on which the injuries are declared as grievous are not given in court, the same are to be treated as 'simple'. In these circumstances the offence proved against the appellant would be under Section 324, IPC only" .
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 15/1825. Therefore I hold that the injuries caused to victim Pushpa are simple and punishable u/s 323 I.P.C and further that the medical evidence on record is compatible to the oral testimonies of the victim.
26. By virtue of Sec222(2) Cr.P.C ,which reads as under
"When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it"
27. The charge need not be amended as neither any prejudice has been caused to the accused persons as they always had the knowledge of the kind of injuries received by the injured nor it will result in failure of justice. Reliance can be placed on Dinesh Seth v.State of N.C.T. of Delhi 2008 CriLJ 4345 SC.
28. Now adjudicating upon whether all the accused persons had common intention to beat the injured persons and that if Sec34I.P.C can be attracted to fix their liability.
In Virender Pal @ Neelu v. State (Delhi)(D.B.) 2011 CriLJ 3082Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed :
" Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence. It simply states that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. The constructive liability under this Section would arise if following two conditions are fulfilled :- (i) there must be a common intention to commit a criminal act and (ii) there must be State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 16/18 participation of all the persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention . Common intention requires a prior concert or pre-planning. Common intention to commit a crime should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop at the instant when such crime is committed.
48. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence of common intention . In most cases it has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused persons and other relevant circumstances of the case. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence. In other words, intention has to be gathered from the acts of the accused persons and the attendant relevant circumstances enwombing the act. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which he could be convicted."
PW-1 and PW-3 have deposed that all the accused persons had attacked Pushpa and Bishan Swaroop while PW-2 has specified the role of each of the accused. So it can safely be presumed , since all had participated in the commission of the offence that all the accused persons were having common intention to beat the victims/injured persons.
29. There is nothing which could shatter the veracity of the prosecution witnesses or falsify the claim of the prosecution. The incident has been duly proved along with the nature of injuries received by the victims/injured. All the State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 17/18 prosecution witnesses have materially supported the prosecution case and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses do not suffer from any infirmity, inconsistency or contradiction and are consistent and corroborative. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is natural and trustworthy and corroborated by each other and the witness of the prosecution have been able to built up a continuous link.
30. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Accordingly the accused persons are held guilty and convicted for offence U/s. 325/323/34 IPC in the present case.
. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused persons free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on February 21, 2012.
State V/s Charanjit @ Charnu & Ors. FIR No. 411/97 PS: Ashok Vihar Page No. 18/18