Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu on 24 July, 2013
SC No.81/12
FIR No.93/12
PS: Palam Village
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIJAY KUMAR DAHIYA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : DWARKA COURTS:
NEW DELHI
In the matter of :
SC No. : 81/12
FIR No. : 93/12
Police Station : Palam Village
Under Section : 365/342/354/307/506/392
IPC
Received on assignment : 14.08.2012
Reserved for orders on : 18.07.2013
Judgment announced on : 24.07.2013
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
S/o Late Sh. Rajpal
R/o House No. 13, Village Sarai Sohal
Manglapuri, Palam, New Delhi.
J U D G E M E N T
1. Accused has been sent up for trial for the offence punishable u/s 307/342/354/365/392/506 IPC.
2. Stating briefly, as per prosecution it is alleged that on 18042012, ASI Birender Singh received an information from Mobile No.9211406896 regarding lodging of DD No.31A the contents of which are that a girl has been stabbed in Gali No.3, SC No.81/12 Page 1 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu Phase I, D2 Block, Mahavir Enclave, Near Shiv Mandir and ASI Birender Singh along with Ct. Mukesh Kumar reached at Gali No.3, Phase I, D2 Block, Mahavir Enclave, Near Shiv Mandir and found some people gathered near the spot of incident and on inquiry it transpired that a boy has caused injury to a girl with bricks and halves of bricks in the adjoining narrow lane of Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave and injured has been shifted to hospital by PCR. It is further alleged that in the mean time SHO along with beat staff came present at the spot and crime team was summoned and the injured girl was got admitted in injured condition vide MLC No.7143/12. It is further alleged that IO ASI Birender Singh left Ct. Mukesh Kumar at the spot of incident and went to DDU Hospital to record statement of victim who was declared unfit to make statement by the doctor and no eye witness was found at the hospital. IO ASI Birender Singh returned to the spot of incident and after inspection he found blood scattered at two places at the spot of incident and two ladies plastic footwear (chappal) and some cemented halves of brick as well as other blood stains articles were found lying on the spot and, prima facie offence under Section 308 IPC was made out and IO/ASI Birender Singh prepared rukka and got FIR lodged.
SC No.81/12 Page 2 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
3. It is further alleged that Crime Team inspected the spot of incident and further investigation was carried out by IO ASI Birender Singh and reprepared the rough site plan and exhibits,i.e. blood in cotton pieces, earth control, blood stained earth, blood stained earth control from gali, earth control from other place, cemented concrete/ halves of bricks, plastic ladies chappal were sealed and seized. It is further alleged that IO took the blood sample and the clothes worn by the injured Kiran and sealed the pulandas with the seal of CMO, DDU Hospital and got deposited the same with MHC(M). It is further alleged that during the course of investigation, IO recorded statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of the witnesses and on 20042012, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was arrested and his personal search was conducted and after interrogation, accused given the disclosure statement and in his disclosure statement, he has stated that he was released on bail in February, 2012 and residing on the second floor of a house in Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave and used to take liquor even in the day and kept on roaming in Mangla Puri and on 18042012, he has taken liquor in the morning and went in Mangla Puri and at about 4 pm, he was standing in the lane situated at the back side of the house of her maternal aunt Sunita and her daughter Kiran was going in the lane and he tried to stop her but she tried to evade and she was caught hold of by SC No.81/12 Page 3 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu the accused and he pressed her throat, in the mean time, Rohit S/o Raj Kumar who is a resident of Harijan Basti, Nasirpur came on his motorcycle and he was also stopped by the accused and when he tried to fled away, accused slapped him and asked Rohit to take Kiran on his motorcycle and on this Rohit accosted him as to why accused has caught hold of said girl and she should be freed, otherwise, her mother will kill him but accused threatened Rohit either to allow the said girl to sit on his motorcycle, otherwise, he will be stabbed and accused snatched his motorcycle from Rohit and made Rohit and said girl to sit on motorcycle and brought the motorcycle in flat no.D2/29, Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave and parked the said motorcycle in the parking and brought Kiran and Rohit on the second floor in his flat and kept Kiran in bed room and Rohit was sent out from the flat and accused has also bolted main door of the said flat from inside and further asked Kiran to put up her clothes but she refused and on this he threatened her that he will torn her clothes and accused tried to rape her and she kept on refusing and Kiran asked for water and accused went in kitchen to bring water, in the mean time, girl opened the door of the balcony and jumped from there and accused also came down stairs and went in the narrow lane situated in the gali and found Kiran lying in the lane and blood was oozing out from her mouth. Accused SC No.81/12 Page 4 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu picked her up and tried to take her away but she raised an alarm and again fell down in the lane and accused picked up some cemented/ stone halves of bricks and hit Kiran on her head, face and teeth and she became unconscious and accused fled away from the scene of occurrence as many persons had come in the lane.
4. It is further alleged that accused was arrested. Police custody remand was taken. Thereafter, accused got recovered motorcycle make pulsar bearing no.DL4S BN 4309 and pointed out the place of occurrence,i.e. Flat No.D2/29, Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave and statement of victim was recorded who stated therein that on 1842012 at about 10.30 am, her mother went for her work and she along with her two younger brothers were present in her house and at about 4 pm, she had gone to bring rice from the shop situated at the back side of her house and the accused, who happens to be a brother in relation, was standing in the lane under the influence of liquor and he tried to forcibly stop her and victim tried to go away and he pressed her neck, in the mean time, a boy Rohit, who is a resident of Harijan Basti, Nasirpur Road came on a motorcycle and accused stopped him and slapped him 2/3 times and when Rohit asked accused as to why said girl is stopped by him and she should be SC No.81/12 Page 5 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu freed otherwise her mother will kill him and accused asked Rohit to allow victim to sit on his motorcycle, otherwise, he will be stabbed and accused snatched the keys of the motorcycle from Rohit and he started plying the vehicle and forcibly made the victim as well as said Rohit to sit on the said motorcycle and brought that motorcycle at his flat and sent back Rohit from his flat and bolted the main door of the flat from inside and asked the victim to put off her clothes, otherwise, he will torn them and accused started teasing the victim and, thereafter, attempted to commit rape on her but the victim in order to save herself asked water from the accused and accused went in the kitchen to bring water, in the mean time the, victim opened the door of the balcony and jumped in the narrow lane and she tried to stand up but she was unable to move and accused tried to take her away but she raised an alarm and again fell down in the lane and accused picked up some cemented/ stone halves of bricks and hit Kiran on her head, face and teeth and she became unconscious and accused fled away from the scene of occurrence as many persons had come in the lane. Thereafter Section 342/354/365/506 IPC were added and thereafter statement of victim was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. It is further alleged that IO took the opinion of doctor regarding injury which were suffered by the victim and injuries were SC No.81/12 Page 6 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu declared dangerous to her life, thereafter, Section 307 IPC was added and Section 308 IPC was deleted. Sealed samples / exhibits were sent to FSL and statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, charge sheet was filed.
5. After supplying copy of the charge sheet to the accused by Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, case was committed to the Session and charge under section 365/342/354/307/506/392 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence to establish its case as per law. Prosecution has tendered 21 witnesses in all in support of its case namely:
PW1 Smt. Sunita
PW2 Rohit
PW3 HC Rattan Singh
PW4 ASI Birender Singh
PW5 Dr. Nitin Seth
PW6 Ms. Kiran (complainant/victim)
PW7 Sh. Sachin Sangwan
PW8 SI Shanti Prakash
PW9 Const. Sushil Kumar
SC No.81/12 Page 7 of 42
SC No.81/12
FIR No.93/12
PS: Palam Village
State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
PW10 Const. Mukesh
PW11 Const. Lal Chand
PW12 HC Satyawan
PW13 HC Nihal Singh
PW14 Dr. Sanjay Rai
PW15 HC Satpal
PW16 ASI Khazan Singh
PW17 HC Krishan Kumar
PW18 Dr. John Mohd. Mushtaq
PW19 Dr. Shefali
PW20 ASI Jagdish
PW21 Dr. Aruna Singh
7. PW1 is Sunita, mother of the complainant, whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
8. PW2 is Rohit, who has deposed that on 18.04.2012 at about 4:00 pm, he was going on his motorcycle bearing No. DL 4S BN 4309 from his house to towards Jaat Dharamshala for bringing a Dosa himself and when he reached near a lane at ManglapuriII, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was present there alongwith a girl namely Kiran had stopped him and he knew both accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and the complainant Kiran and when he asked the accused Ravinder @ Sadhu why he had SC No.81/12 Page 8 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu stopped that girl then accused Ravinder @ Sadhu slapped him 23 times and, thereafter, he told him that, in case, mother of Kiran came to know about this, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu would not be spared and thereafter accused Ravinder @ Sadhu asked PW2 Rohit to allow the complainant to sit on his motorcycle, otherwise, PW2 will be stabbed by acucsed Ravinder @ Sadhu and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu snatched the motorcycle and he himself started driving the motorcycle and forcibly under threat asked PW2 and complainant to sit on the said motorcycle and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu took both of them to a flat in Gali No.5, Mahavir Enclave and parked the motorcycle there and get the keys with him and took PW2 Rohit and complainant Kiran to second floor and, thereafter, accused took the complainant Kiran inside the flat and sent PW2 Rohit outside and further threatened PW2 if he told this fact to anyone, he would be killed.
9. PW3 is HC Rattan Singh, who deposed that on 18.04.2012, IO had deposited with him the sealed exhibits parcel and he had made entry in register No. 19 at sl. No. 725, 727 and 730 and the same is proved vide Ex. PW3/C. He further deposed that on 24.05.2012, on the direction of the IO, he had sent the sealed exhibits to the FSL Rohini through HC Satyawant vide RC SC No.81/12 Page 9 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu No. 53/21/12 alonwith form FSL and after depositing the same in FSL, copy of the RC and receipt were handed over to him and the photocopy of the FSL receipt is proved as Ex. PW3/A and photocopy of the RC is proved as Ex. PW3/B.
10. PW4 is ASI Birender Singh, who on 18.04.2012 was posted as ASI at PS Palam Village and on receipt of DD No. 31A, he alongwith Const. Mukesh went to Gali No.3, Near Shiv Mandir, Mahavir Enclave and he found gathering of persons at gali No. 4 and 5 and on inquiry, he came to know that in the adjoining gali, one boy had stabbed one girl with a knife and had also beaten her with stone, in the mean time, SHO also came there. Crime team was summoned and in the mean time, PW4 received information regarding recording of another DD No. 32A regarding admission of a girl in DDU hospital and he left Const. Mukesh at the spot and went to DDU hospital and unknown girl found admitted vide MLC No. 7143/12, who was declared unfit for statement and no eye witness was found and PW4 came back to the spot and inspected the spot and found blood stained articles lying on the place of incident and prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A and sent Constable Mukesh for registration of FIR. Investigation of this case was assigned to ASI Jagdish Rathi, who had prepared site plan on the instance of PW4 ASI Birender SC No.81/12 Page 10 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu Singh and seized lady chappal from the spot as well as other samples in terms of Ex. PW4/B to PW4/H and in the mean time, PW2 Rohit came there and informed that the name of injured girl is Kiran and the boy, who has caused injury on the girl is Ravinder @ Sadhu.
11. PW5 is Dr. Nitin Seth, who on 18.04.2012 had examined the complainant Kiran vide MLC No. 7143 and same is proved as Ex. PW5/A.
12. PW6 is prosecutrix Kiran, whose testimony will be discussed in later part of the judgment.
13. PW7 is Sh. Sachin Sangwan, Ld. MM, who deposed that on 24.04.2012, IO had moved an application Ex. PW7/A for recording of statement of injured witness Kiran and at about 2:00 pm, he went to DDU hospital for recording the statement of the injured witness Kiran and her statement was recorded vide Ex. PW6/A and PW7 had drawn the proceedings under section 164 Cr.PC vide Ex. PW7/B and the copy of the statement was given to the IO vide Ex. PW7/C.
14. PW8 is Shanti Prakash, who had recorded the FIR No. SC No.81/12 Page 11 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu 93/12 after having receiving the rukka from constable Mukesh sent by ASI Birender Singh and proved the same vide Ex. PW8/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW8/B.
15. PW9 is Const. Sushil Kumar, who has deposed that on 22.04.2012, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu pointed out the place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW9/A.
16. PW10 is Const. Mukesh, who had deposed that on 18.04.2012, he alongwith ASI Birender Singh went to the place of occurrence. This witness has also deposed on the line of PW4 ASI Birender Singh, so far as, investigation is concerned.
17. PW11 is Const. Lal Chand, who had joined the investigation alongwith IO on 20.04.2012 and IO had recorded the statement of PW1 Sunita, mother of the complainant at about 8:00 pm when the police party reached near Mangla Puri Chowk. One boy was apprehended and thereafter, he was interrogated and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/A. His personal search was taken vide Ex. PW11/B and his disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex. PW11/C. This witness has also identified the case property i.e motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SBN 4309 alongwith keys vide Ex. PX. On 21.04.2012, PW11 alongwith ASI Jagdish Rathi and Nihal Singh produced the SC No.81/12 Page 12 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu accused Ravinder @ Sadhu before the concerned court at Dwrka and thereafter, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu led the police party to the place where he had parked the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SBN 4309, which is used in the commission of offence and thereafter, accused went to flat No. FF3, 2nd floor and same was opened and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu pointed out place of occurrence vide pointing out memo Ex. PW13/B and thereafter, ASI Jagdish recorded the statement of injured person Kiran in hospital.
18. PW12 is HC Satyawan, who on 24.05.2012 on the direction of the IO, he had taken the four sealed parcels and got deposited the same in FSL and received acknowledgment and, thereafter, handed over the acknowledgment to the MHCM.
19. PW13 is HC Nihal Singh, who stated that on 20.04.2012, he alongwith ASI Jagdish and Const. Lal Chand went to DDU hospital for investigation and IO recorded the statement of Sunita, mother of the injured witness and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was apprehended. Thereafter, this witness has also deposed on the line of PW11 Lal Chand and on 21.04,.2012, the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SBN 4309 was seized at the instance of accused vide Ex. PW13/A and pointing out memo was SC No.81/12 Page 13 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu prepared vide Ex. PW13/B.
20. PW14 is Dr. Sanjay Rai, who has proved the MLC Ex. PW5/A of unknown patient, which was examined by Dr. Nitin Seth on 18.04.2012.
21. PW15 is HC Satpal, who had deposed that on 18.04.2012, he had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence at the instance of Incharge Crime Team and proved the same as Ex. PW15/A1 to Ex. PW15/A9 and negatives are proved as Ex. PW15/B1 to Ex. PW15/B9.
22. PW16 is ASI Khazan Singh, who has proved his crime team report as Ex. PW16/A.
23. PW17 is HC Krishan Kumar, who was posted as incharge PCR Van Zebra 79 in the circle of Mangla Puri Chowk and after getting information that one girl has been stabbed at gli No. 3, near Shiv Mandir, Mahavir Enclave, he shifted the said girl to DDU hospital.
24. PW18 is Dr. John Mohd. Mushtaq, who had proved the MLC Ex PW5/A, prepared by Dr. A.P.Nayak as he had seen Dr. SC No.81/12 Page 14 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu A.P.Nayak signing and writing in the ordinary course of business.
25. PW19 is Dr. Shefali, who has proved the MLC No. 7143 Ex. PW5/A in respect of injured witness and proved the endorsement from portion X to X1 and Y to Y1 on the MLC, which was made by Dr. Sushant, as she had seen Dr. Sushant writing and signing in the ordinary course of business.
26. PW20 is ASI Jagdish, who was entrusted the investigation of this case on 18.04.2012 and constable Mukesh handed over the original rukka and copy of FIR to PW20 and thereafter, PW20 reached at the spot alongwith Const. Mukesh where ASI Virender, ASI Khazan Singh, Incharge Crime Team and HC Subhash, photographer. HC Subhash has taken nine photographs of the place of occurrence and ASI Khazan Singh prepared the crime team report after inspecting the spot and PW20 lifted the blood stains which were lying on the road and same were put in plastic container. He had also lifted the blood stained earth control and plain earth control and same were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/E and PW4/D and he had also taken the blood stained earth control and plain earth control from the place where the injured witness Kiran had jumped from the flat vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/C and PW4/F. SC No.81/12 Page 15 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu This witness has also lifted the two stones and some pieces of bricks from the spot vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/G and one lady's slippers vide Ex. PW4/H and prepared the site plan Ex. PW20/A and, thereafter, PW2 Rohit met PW20 on the spot and he recorded the statement of PW2 Rohit. This witness also deposed on the line of PW10 Mukesh and submitted that he recorded the statement of ASI Birender Singh alongiwth Const. Mukesh and went to DDU hospital where injured was found unfit for making statement and blood samples and blood stained clothes of injured Kiran were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW20/B and PW20/C.
27. On 20.04.2012, he moved an application Ex. PW20/D before the concerned doctor for getting recording of statement of injured witness Kiran but she was declared unfit and IO/PW20 recorded the statement of mother of the injured witness and section 342, 365, 354 and 506 IPC were added and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was arrested on the same day and personal search was taken and thereafter, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu made disclosure statement and on 21.04.2012, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu had accompanied the police party to the spot and he also got recovered the motorcycle used in the crime and also pointed out the place where he tried to commit rape upon SC No.81/12 Page 16 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu the complainant and pointing out memo was prepared and thereafter accused led the police party to village Chauma, Near Palam Vihar, Gurgaon where he had thrown his clothes, which he was wearing at the time of incident but said clothes could not be recovered and accused was medically examined and therefore, Kiran, injured was declared fit for recording statement and her statement was recorded and on 22.04.2012, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was taken out from the lock up and he left the police party to the place where he committed the offence and IO prepared the pointing out memo Ex. PW9/A and on 24.04.2012, IO moved an application for getting recording of statement of injured witness Kiran under section 164 Cr.PC and injured witness this witness identified the case property i.e the stone pieces and bricks pieces Ex. P1 and photographs of the motorcycle bearing No. DL 4SBN 4309 are mark PW20/PA.
28. PW21 is Dr. Aruna Singh, who has proved on record xray report, prepared by Dr. Pankaj as Ex. PW20/A as she had seen Dr. Pankaj signing and writing in the ordinary course of business.
29. Statement of accused was recorded in which he denied to led DE and, thereafter, final arguments were heard.
SC No.81/12 Page 17 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
30. It may be relevant to note here that there are certain principles with regard to appreciation of evidence of witness including injured witness and following principles are kept to be in mind while appreciating the testimony of witnesses namely:
(i) While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
(ii) If the Court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form an opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of the evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on ground of minor variations or infirmities SC No.81/12 Page 18 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu in the matter of trivial details.
(iii) A former statement though seemingly inconsistent with the evidence need not necessarily be sufficient to amount to contradiction. Unless the former statement has has the potency to discredit the later statement, even if the later statement is at variance with the former to some extent it would not helpful to discredit said witness.
(iv) Animosity is doublededged weapon. It cuts both sides. It could be a ground for false implication and could also be a motive for committing the crime.
(v) The presence of an injured witness at the place and time of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
(vi) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(vii) The evidence of an injured witness has a greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their SC No.81/12 Page 19 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(viii) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(ix) If there be any contradiction, exaggeration and immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(x) In a situation of a kind where the entire members of a family are roped in as accused, it is the duty of the judge to carefully see whether the complainant group is using an opportunity where the folly of a few of the opposite group is used; nay misused, as a golden opportunity to ensnare in the clutches of criminal law the entire family of the ones who have committed the folly. How is this task to be performed? No straight jacket formula can be prescribed, but the quintessence and signature tune of whatever formula is applied will have a common denominator i.e. use of commonsense as a prudent person and have a 360 degree microscopic look at the evidence.SC No.81/12 Page 20 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12
PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
31. The star witness of the case is complainant/victim PW6 Kiran, who has made three statements, one before the police under section 161 Cr.PC, second before Ld. MM under section 164 Cr.PC and third before the court and there is a consistency in her testimony so far as the alleged offence committed by the accused persons on the complainant is concerned. During her deposition, she has stated that on 18.04.2012 at about 4:00 pm, she had gone to purchase rice and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu called her and threatened her by pressing her neck, in the mean time, PW2 Rohit came there on motorcycle and accused stopped him and beat him and forcibly took the keys of motorcycle of PW2 and compelled PW6 and PW2 to board the said motorcycle and started driving the said motorcycle and took the PW6 to 2nd floor in a room in the area of Mahavir Enclave and PW2 was also threatened and he was asked to go away from there and PW6 was taken in a room and accused asked her to put off her clothes, otherwise, she would be killed and accused started teasing her forcibly but the PW6 asked the accused to bring a glass of water and in the meantime, she observed that the latch of the door is at a big hight and it was bolted and she was unable to open the door and therefore, she went to the balcony and jumped from there and when she was SC No.81/12 Page 21 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu hanging outside by holding the grill, accused came with water and pushed her down and she got fractured in her body and she was unable to move and in the mean time, accused came there and started beating her with stone and accused also gave first blows on her face and she also admitted that her statement was recorded by Ld. MM Vide Ex. PW6/A. During leading question, put by Ld. Add. PP for the State, she had admitted that accused also threatened PW2 Rohit to sit on the motorcycle, otherwise, he would be stabbed and she had further admitted that accused had teased her and tried to do a galat kam (rape) upon her.
32. In cross examination, she had stated that her statement was recorded by the police in the hospital as well as by Ld. MM. She further admitted that accused Ravinder @ Sadhu is not her cousin, otherwise, mother of the accused and mother of the complainant belongs to same village. She had further denied the suggestion that accused had not asked her to remove her clothes. She further denied that she was having an affair with the accused and she further denied the suggestion that she in connivance with PW2 has falsely implicated the accused. The testimony of PW6 is further corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Rohit in whose presence, complainant/PW6 was abducted alongwith him after he was being robbed of his SC No.81/12 Page 22 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu motorcycle by accused and he has fully corroborated the testimony of PW6 so far as the alleged abduction of the complainant by the accused as he had stated that he had gone to purchase Dosa on the fateful day and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and PW6 were standing in the lane, who are earlier known to him and the accused asked PW2 that he must allow PW6 to sit on his motorcycle, otherwise, PW2 will be stabbed and took the motorcycle by driving himself towards Mahavir Enclave and took the prosecutrix inside his flat and sent him down stairs by threatening that if he stated to anyone, he would be killed. During cross, he had stated that he had seen accused and PW6 in a standing position in a normal way and no quarrel has been taken place and PW2 was asked to stop the motorcycle by accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu forced PW6 to sit on his motorcycle and no hue and cry was raised by PW6 Kiran while sitting on his motorcycle and PW2 had stated that she was going to her house and when all the three reached near the parking place, the motorcycle was parked by accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and PW6 Kiran went up the stairs and PW6 has not raised any hue and cry while going to the flat of accused and accused had also taken the keys of motorcycle from PW2.
SC No.81/12 Page 23 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
33. PW1 is mother of the prosecutrix PW6, who has further corroborated the testimony of PW2 and PW6 by stating that she was told by her daughter the whole incident in which PW6 has received injuries. She has further stated that her daughter PW6 Kiran has received fracture in her leg. Other police witnesses have also supported the prosecution story, so far as the conducting of the investigation and recoveries effected on the spot as well as at the instance of accused is concerned.
34. The question arises whether the accused person had robbed PW2 and after having committing the robbery upon PW2, accused Ravinder @ Sadhu abducted PW6 Kiran and thereafter tried to outrage the modesty of PW6 and she was further compelled to jump from the flat and after having jumped from the flat, PW6 got injured and got fractured in her legs and thereafter, accused came out from his flat and again caused injuries with stone on the face of the injured witness PW6. PW6 has deposed in categoric terms that she was going to bring rice and accused accosted her and pressed her neck and he also stopped PW2 Rohit, who was coming on his motorcycle and robbed him of his motorcycle and, thereafter, abducted the prosecutrix on the said motorcycle and took her to his flat and tried to outrage her modesty and she was compelled to jump SC No.81/12 Page 24 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu and accused also pushed her down and she fell on the ground and sustained fracture on her legs and accused did not stop there, he came there and caused injuries on the body of PW6 Kiran. So far as, abduction of PW6 is concerned. PW2 has supported that she was forced to board the motorcycle driven by accused after the same was snatched from PW2 by accused and PW2 was also made to ride the motorcycle as a pillion rider and accused took his motorcycle to his flat alongwith complainant PW6.
35. The contention of the counsel for the accused is that the complainant has submitted that she was abducted by accused Ravinder @ Sadhu after having robbed PW2 Rohit of his motorcycle but PW2 has stated that accused Ravinder @ Sadhu was not pressing the neck of the complainant, otherwise, accused and complainant were talking normally and PW2 has also admitted that complainant PW6 was stating that she was going to her home as such the complainant was a consenting party, so far as, accompanying the accused to his flat but this contention appears to be attractive but same is found falacious in as much as PW2 has also corroborated PW6, so far as, taking her away forcibly as PW2 has deposed in categoric terms that PW6 was forced to board the motorcycle driven by the accused.
SC No.81/12 Page 25 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu In addition to it, PW6 is an injured witness and testimony of the injured witness is standing on a higher footing then that of a witness. Therefore, in view of the impacable testimony of PW6, it cannot be held that PW6 was a consenting party so far as her taking from the gali by the accused Ravinder @ Sadhu to his house. The testimony of PW6 is also corroborated by medical evidence in as much as per the MLC of PW6, the following injuries are observed on the body of PW6 in terms of Ex.PW5/A :
1. Punchured wound at right knee joint =1 x 0.8 cm.
2. CLW below lower chin =2.5 x 0.5 cm.
3. Swelling c of instability at right thigh.
4. CLW at right pasito region is 2 in number is =4.5 x 0.5 cm.
5. CLW at left pasito temporal region is 3 in number is 4.5 x 1 x 0.5 cm =3 x 0.5 cm = 2 x 0.3 cm.
6. CL W at left ocipetal region = 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm.
7. CLW at left temporal region = 3 x 1 x 0.5 cm.
8. CLW at lower hip inner aspect = 1.5 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm.
9. Loosening of multiple teeth upper and lower jaws.
10. Pain and swelling at left side face. Apart from these injuries, PW6 has also sustained fracture on her body i.e right parietal lobe, fracture b/l mandibular condyle.SC No.81/12 Page 26 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12
PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
36. The accused did not stop after PW6 jumped from the flat and she got fractured in her legs but accused came down and he again caused injuries on the face of the complainant with stone and left the spot after satisfying that the injured witness PW6 Kiran has died as deposed by PW6 complainant. Therefore, the oral testimony of PW6 is fully corroborated by medical evidence which make the prosecution story trustworthy and reliable.
37. It has been contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that information was supplied to the police by caller from his mobile No. 9211406896 and the said caller had neither been made a witness nor any statement under section 161 Cr.PC of that person has been recorded. It is further contended that PW4 ASI Birender Singh has deposed that on 18.04.2012 on receipt of DD No. 31A , he alongwith const. Mukesh had gone to gali No.3, near Shiv Mandir, Mahavir Enclave and no quarrel was found to have been taken place there, otherwise, he had seen a crowed gathered in Gali No. 4 and 5 and on inquiry, it was found by PW4 that a girl has been stabbed by a boy. So there is contradiction with regard to place of occurrence and nature of offence and information of such occurrence supplied by the informant as the caller has not stated that the said girl was SC No.81/12 Page 27 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu beaten with stones, therefore, the version of incident has been varied by PW4 in his deposition. But this contention appears to be attractive but the same is falacious and is hereby rejected as the injured witness Kiran PW6 has specifically stated that she was abducted and when accused tried to attempt to commit rape upon her, she jumped from the said flat and when she was hanging from the grills, accused got the grill slipped from her hands and she fell from those grills and she sustained injuries and accused came down and hit her with stones and, therefore, the alleged contradictions are no contradictions as earliest information was neither supplied by injured PW6 nor by PW2, otherwise, these contradictions are not going to affect the prosecution case being minor contradictions and in addition to DD No. 31A was lodged not on the statement of any eye witness including injured witness Kiran PW6. Otherwise, the blood stained stones recovered by the IO from the spot of incident also corroborate the fact that the accused caused injuries to the body of the injured witness Kiran with stones and in addition to it, it is relevant to mention that DNA profiling of the blood found on the clothes of the victim Kiran matched with that of blood stains found on bricks pieces/stones in terms of DNA report Ex. PXY.
SC No.81/12 Page 28 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
38. The further contention of the counsel for the accused is that PW4 in his deposition has stated that the injured witness has found admitted in DDU hospital but she was declared unfit for statement by the doctor and nothing has come on record that she is unfit for making statement and he has moved an application before CMO/Doctor to record the statement of the injured girl after two days of the incident and even injured girl PW6 Kiran has not given the name of the accused as the person who has caused injuries on her body as in MLC, it has been written that the injured girl Kiran was admitted with alleged history of assault and she was conscious and oriented then why the injured Kiran has not disclosed the name of the accused as the person who is author of the crime and this was the first opportunity to the injured witness to disclose the name of the accused which makes her conduct highly unnatural and conviction cannot be based on such doubtful statements and the accused has been named by PW6 after six days in her statement. In this regard, he had relied upon Kishan Pal vs. State 2004(2) JCC 1149 DHC but this contention is also not sustainable in the eyes of law as PW6 and IO have submitted that she regained consciousness on 20.04.2012 and PW6 Kiran is not the sole witness of this incident, another witness PW2 Rohit has also supported the prosecution story so far as SC No.81/12 Page 29 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu abduction of the injured witness Kiran is concerned as well as snatching of motorcycle of PW2 Rohit by the accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and his statement was recorded by IO on the same day i.e date of incident at about 9:00 pm. Otherwise, injured witness in all her three statements have corroborated her testimony and there is nothing could be elicited during the course of cross examination which may cause any dent in her testimony and even during cross examination, no suggestion has been given to Kiran that she was conscious at the time when she was admitted in hospital, otherwise, in cross examination, she has stated that police official visited her in hospital when she regained consciousness.
39. The next contention of the counsel for the defence is that the contractions with regard to the place of occurrence as well as point of gaining consciousness by the injured Kiran as PW1 Sunita, mother of the injured witness Kiran has deposed that her daughter gained conscious on the next day whereas PW20 ASI Jagdish has moved application Ex. PW20/D for recording of statement of the injured witness Kiran but she was declared unfit for statement by concerned doctor but the said doctor has not been cited as a witness nor his name appeared in the list of witnesses, so there are three contradictory statements by three SC No.81/12 Page 30 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu persons namely Dr. A.P.Nayak, who has examined the injured witness Kiran at the first time has reported that injured witness Kiran was conscious and oriented and mother of the injured witness Kiran has deposed that she regained conscious on 19.04.2012 whereas IO PW20 has deposed that the injured regained conscious on 21.04.2012. Therefore, this is a major contradiction in the testimony of these two witnesses so far as regaining of the consciousness by the injured witness Kiran as such the statement of the injured witness Kiran has been recorded after due deliberation just to falsely implicate the accused in the present case but this contradiction is also not going to affect the case of the prosecution as no suggestion has been given to PW1, PW20 as well as injured witness that she has regained consciousness on or before 21.04.2012. Therefore, there is no question on any false implication of the accused. This contention can be viewed from another angle also as PW2 Rohit has deposed in very categoric term that accused Ravinder @ Sadhu robbed his motorcycle and thereafter took the victim to his house and he was asked to fled away from his flat by accused Ravinder @ Sadhu, so there is no question of falsely implication of accused in this regard.
40. The further contention of the defence counsel is that SC No.81/12 Page 31 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu injured witness has contradicted her mother so far as her admission in the DDU hospital as she has stated that she was admitted in the hospital by her own family members whereas PW1 Sunita, mother of the injured witness Kiran has deposed that she came to know about the admission of her daughter in DDU hospital at about 6:00 pm on 18.04.2012 and she went to DDU hospital where the injured Kiran was found admitted. But this contradiction is immaterial in view of the testimony of PW17 HC Krishan Kumar who has deposed that he had shifted the injured witness to the DDU hospital in a PCR van.
41. It has been further contended by the counsel for the defence that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW4 ASI Birender Singh and PW20 ASI Jagdish, IO of this case as PW20 has stated that he had lifted two stones and some pieces of bricks on the spot of incident on 18.04.2012 whereas PW4 had nowhere stated that he found two stones and some pieces of bricks lying on the spot of incident. Although, he had admitted that blood stained concrete pieces were also lying in the gali but in cross, he admitted that in his rukka, he has not mentioned that any blood stained pieces of bricks were lying on the spot of incident. Therefore, evidence of PW20 cannot be relied upon in so far as injuries caused to the injured witness by stones by SC No.81/12 Page 32 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu accused as per prosecution story and further, no opinion of the doctor has been taken whether these injuries were sustained by the injured witness could have been caused by such stones and the said recovery is also not relevant under section 27 of the Evidence Act and recovery affected at the instance of police without joining any independent witness is immaterial and having no value in the eyes of law. In this regard he had relied upon Aslam Parvez vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi 2003(4) ADSC 150. So far as applicability of section 27 of Indian Evidence Act is concerned, this section is not applicable so far as recovery of blood stained stones are concerned. There is no contradiction in the testimony of the witnesses as both the witness PW4 and PW20 have deposed that blood stained stones/concrete was lying at the spot of incident and PW20 has got recovered the same. It is relevant to mention here that PW4 has stated in cross that he has not mention in rukka regarding recovery of blood stained haves bricks/complete stone but this statement is also contradictory to the contents of rukka, wherein it is written that blood stained stones/halves of brick also lying on spot. Therefore, there was no such contradiction in testimony of PW4 & PW20 as alleged, as such, the ratio of case law Aslam Parvez (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case and prosecution is not relying upon the recoveries of the stones to SC No.81/12 Page 33 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu be relevant under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
42. The next contention of the counsel for the defence is that the rukka sent by the IO PW4 on the basis of which FIR was lodged cannot be treated as FIR and on the statement of PW2 Rohit, FIR should have been recorded as only that statement depicts that a cognizable offence has been committed by the accused. Therefore the present FIR cannot be treated as FIR under section 154 Cr.PC. In this regard he had relied upon Anand Mohan vs State of Bihar III (2012) DLT (CRL) 104 (SC). It is further contented that a cryptic message sent soon after the incident cannot be treated as FIR. It is further contended that when police officer went to the spot and recorded the statement of any witness after getting any information telephonically then such statement can be treated as a statement under section 162 Cr.PC but cannot be treated as FIR. In this regard he had relied upon 2009(2) Crimes 424 (SC) but contention is also falacious as the FIR has not been lodged on DD No. 31A, otherwise PW4 on receipt of said DD went to spot of incident and found none on the spot and prepared his rukka regarding commission of cognizable offence wherein one girl is stated to have been caused injuries by one boy and said rukka clearly depicts that cognizable offence has been committed and IO set the criminal SC No.81/12 Page 34 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu law in motion and got the FIR lodged on information which is sent neither on telephone nor on a cryptic message received by the police, otherwise, rukka has been made the basis of the FIR. So the above said case laws are distinguishable to the facts of the present case and has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
43. It is further the contention of the defence counsel that no offence under section 307 IPC is made out as the injuries caused to the injured witness were not dangerous to life, otherwise, they were simple injuries and she was found conscious and oriented as observed by Dr. A.P. Nayak, who had prepared MLC of the injured witnesses on 18.04.2012. The accused was neither having any intention nor knowledge to inflict those injuries on the injured witness as alleged to have been caused on the injured witness. In the present case, the act of the accused at the most comes within the purview of the offence that the accused had used criminal force to injured Kiran to outrage her modesty and for the offence under section 307, it must be proved that the act should have been done under such circumstances that death might be caused and act must be capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature and until and unless, the injury are capable of causing death, no SC No.81/12 Page 35 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu offence under section 307 IPC is made out and the prosecution must prove that the facts and circumstances are falling within four corners of section 300 IPC and if the ingredients of section 300 IPC are lacking, no offence under section 307 IPC is made out. In this regard, he had relied upon State of Maharashtra vs Harish Chandra Tukaram Awatade 1997 Cri L.J 612 (DB) and Arjun Thaklur vs State 1994 Cri L.J. 3526. But this contention is also wholly erroneous and is wholly rejected.
44. It is relevant to mention here that section 307 applies to attempt to murder, in which there has been not merely a commencement of an execution of the purpose, but something little short of a complete execution, the consummation being hindered by circumstances independent of the will of the author. The act or omission, although it does not cause death, is carried to such a length as, at the time of carrying it to that length, the offender considers sufficient to cause death. It is sufficient if the act was one capable of causing death and there was an intention to cause death. A person commits an offence under Section 307 when he has an intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not. In this regard, I found support from SC No.81/12 Page 36 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu Parkash vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782. To convict under this section it is not necessary to show that bodily injury capable of causing death was inflicted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention of knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Attempt need not be penultimate act. It is sufficient if there is intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. In this regard, I found support from State of Maharashtra v Balaram Bama Patil, AIR 1983 SC 305. An attempt is an intentional preparatory action which fails in its object, which so fails through circumstances independent of the person who seeks its accomplishment. An attempt is an intended, but unfinished, crime, tending, but failing, to effect its commission. Specific intention to commit the crime of murder is a necessary prerequisite of the section. To bring a case within the ambit of Section 307, the prosecution has to make out facts and circumstances envisaged by Section 300 IPC. If the ingredients of Section 300 are wholly lacking, there can be no conviction under Section 307. Unless it can be said that the intention or knowledge of the accused was to cause such bodily injury as would come within one of the four clauses of Section 300 IPC, he cannot be held guilty of an offence under Section 307 IPC.
SC No.81/12 Page 37 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu
45. In addition to it, it may be observed here that in order that an act shall amount to an attempt to murder all that it is necessary to prove is that if the act had caused death it would have amounted to murder provided that it was done with such intention or knowledge as would be necessary to be proved in the case of murder, The fact that an act results in minor injuries or even in no injuries at all is not relevant for the purpose of deciding whether it amounted to an attempt to murder or not. The illustrations to the section are themselves quite clear that the section provides different punishment far cases where the act results in hurt being caused and where no such result follows; therefore, it is the intention or knowledge of the accused and the circumstances in which he commits the offence which are material in a case under Section 307 IPC and if there is other evidence direct or circumstantial to indicate his intention or knowledge, then the fact that the injury caused is simple or grievous or that no injury is caused does not matter. Under Section 307 IPC the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the SC No.81/12 Page 38 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention.
46. So the injury caused by the accused to the injured PW6 Kiran is falling within the four corners of definition of section 307 IPC as not only sustained more than the injuries which are grievous in nature but she has also received fracture on her body i.e right parietal lobe, fracture b/l mandibular condyle.
47. Now coming to the next contention that the MLC has not been proved by the doctor who had prepared the same as PW18 has admitted that he has joined the hospital after the transfer of Dr. A.P.Nayak and MLC was not prepared in his presence but no question has been suggested to this person that he had never seen Dr. A.P.Nayak signing and writing, therefore, it cannot be said that MLC of the injured witness has not been proved as per law. Otherwise also, PW5 has prepared the MLC after examining the injured Kiran and Dr. A.P.Nayak had individually examined PW6 Kiran. Similarly, the contention of the counsel of the defence is that stones with which the accused alleged to have been caused injuries on the injured witness Kiran have not been shown to the doctor when his testimony was recorded and under these circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the SC No.81/12 Page 39 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu accused has caused injuries to the injured witness by stones as alleged by the prosecution. In this regard, he had relied upon Bishnu vs State 1996 JCC 470 but this contention has also no force in law as PW6 Kiran has deposed that she has been injured by the stone lying in the gali/lane and doctor has already given his opinion when the said stone was produced by the IO and doctor had seen the said stone before giving his opinion that these injuries could have been inflicted by that stone and apart from this, DNA report as discussed in foregoing paras corroborated that accused caused injuries on the body of the victim Kiran with stones/halves of bricks.
48. The next contention of the counsel for the defence is that no offence under section 365 IPC is made out as there was neither kidnapping nor abduction of the injured witness with intention to secretly and wrongfully confining her, therefore, wrongful confinement of the injured witness and PW2 Rohit cannot tantamount to kidnapping/abduction as the whereabouts of these witnesses were not concealed from the other persons. But this contention is also falacious as PW6 Kiran and PW2 Rohit have deposed in unequivocal term that they have been abducted by the accused by extending threat that they could be stabbed. Similarly, regarding applicability of SC No.81/12 Page 40 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu section 392 IPC, it has been the contention of the counsel for the defence that no offence under section 392 IPC of robbery is made out as neither the case property has been produced nor there was any threat when the alleged vehicle/motorcycle was snatched by accused from PW2 Rohit but this contention is also falacious as witness PW2 Rohit has deposed that he was slapped twice before his motorcycle was snatched by the accused Ravinder @ Sadhu and he was threatened that he will be stabbed if he would not allow injured witness to sit on his motorcycle and thereafter, accused himself started driving the said motorcycle and asked PW2 Rohit and PW6 Kiran to board the said motorcycle on the threat that otherwise, they will be stabbed and after reaching his flat, he took the keys of the said motorcycle in his possession and threatened PW2 Rohit to fled away from there. Therefore, ingredients of section 392 IPC is made out in the present case.
49. By keeping view the above said principles as deailed in para 30 regarding the appreciation of evidence with regard to the witness including injured witness PW6, I am of the opinion that the testimony of PW2 Rohit and PW6 Kiran is impeccable so far as the involvement of the accused in the present case is involved as they have categorically deposed that accused is the SC No.81/12 Page 41 of 42 SC No.81/12 FIR No.93/12 PS: Palam Village State Vs. Ravinder Kumar @ Sadhu perpetrator of the offence involved in the present case and their testimony is further corroborated by the medical evidence.
50. From the above discussion, I am of the opinion that accused Ravinder @ Sadhu deserves to be convicted and is hereby convicted for the offence under section 365/342/354/307/506/392 IPC.
51. Put up for order on sentence on 29.07.2013.
Announced in the open court (Vijay Kumar Dahiya)
on the 24 Day of July 2013 ASJ/ Dwarka Courts
th
New Delhi/24.07.2013
SC No.81/12 Page 42 of 42