Delhi District Court
Sc No.7494/16, State vs . Puneet Maan Etc., Fir No.83/2010, Ps ... on 6 April, 2019
In the Court of Sh. Ajay Kumar Jain, Additional Sessions Judge02,
South District, District Court Saket, New Delhi.
Session Case No. 7494/16 (Old No. 116/15)
In the matter of :
State
Versus
1. Puneet Maan
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Maan
2. Bimlesh Maan
W/o Ashok Maan
3. Harender Maan
S/o Late Sh. Naresh Maan
4. Mange Ram
S/o Late Sh. Kehar Singh
5. Ashok Maan
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
6. Suresh Kumar @ Sussu
S/o Sh. Mange Ram
All R/o 94/9, Village Kishan Garh
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi.
FIR No. : 83/2010
Police Station : Vasant Kunj(North)
Under section. : 307/147/148/149/323/324
/427/506 IPC
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 1 of 62
Date of assignment : 12.09.2012
Reserved for judgment : 01.04.2019
Date of decision : 06.04.2019
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case as per chargesheet in brief is that on receiving DD No. 71B dated 09.03.2010 lodged at P.S Vasant Kunj ( North) at around 10.24 p.m regarding quarrel, SI K. P. Singh alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam reached the spot i.e 134/9 Kishangarh village, New Delhi where noticed one damaged Alto car, bricks and stones and broken pieces of dandas were also lying nearby. In the meanwhile, beat Ct. Kapil also reached the spot. On enquiry, it was found that injured were already taken to hospital by PCR. Thereafter, Ct. Kapil was left the spot and he alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam reached the hospital where the injured Kishan Singh, Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Pushpa Maan, Sunil Maan, Suman and Ravinder Maan were found admitted. On being declared Kishan Singh fit for statement, SI K. P. Singh recorded his statement.
2. Kishan Singh in his statement alleged that between him, Raj Singh and Aman Singh there was consensus regarding the ancestral property but his fourth brother Mange Ram was always in opposition to them, and in this regard their cases are pending in the courts. The sons of Mange Ram are involved in criminal cases and want to grab that property and used to quarrel on small issues. He further alleged that today at around 1.00 p.m, when Pushpa, wife of Ravinder, was going to take the children from the school, Ashok SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 2 of 62 started abusing her and when she told him not to do the said act, then, the entire family beaten her, therefore made complaint in the police station, thereafter, the police conducted medical examination of all of them and asked both the parties to keep peace. When they were returning back from the police station and reached near their house at around 10.00 p.m in the Alto car, the persons of Mange Ram side obstructed their Alto car with Tata Safari and Zen car, and thereafter from the said car, Mange Ram, Suresh @ Sussu having dandas, Ashok having sword, Puneet having baseball bat, Harender having danda and the two brothersinlaw of Ashok started beating them with intention to kill, and taken out all of them from the car and made them fall on the ground. Ashok with intention to kill hit and beaten him with sword, as he managed to save himself, the injuries were inflicted on his leg and he also suffered injuries on other parts. All the assailants while beating saying that they will kill them, and in the meanwhile Bimlesh, wife of accused Ashok, also started throwing stones from the roof. He alleged that in this incident, he alongwith Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Ravinder, Sunil and Pushpa, Suman suffered injuries and their vehicle also got damaged. After hearing the shouts, public gathered there, thereafter, they all ran away from the spot in their vehicles. He further alleged that they were beaten by the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention to grab the property. Pursuant to this statement and on the basis of MLCs, present FIR u/s 307/147/148/149 IPC was registered.
3. During investigation site plan was prepared, damaged Alto car, brick stones and pieces of dandas were seized. The blood stained SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 3 of 62 clothes of injured were also seized. Later on, after discussing with the seniors, offences u/s 323/427/506 IPC were added. The car was mechanically inspected. Injured Kishan Singh found to have suffered grievous injuries from sharp object, Raj Singh suffered grievous injuries from blunt object, injured Aman Singh, Pushpa Maan, Sunil Maan, Suman suffered simple injuries from blunt object and Ravinder suffered grievous injuries from blunt object, thereafter, offence u/s 324 IPC was also added.
4. During investigation, accused Puneet Maan, Harender Maan, Bimlesh, Mange Ram, Suresh @ Sussu, Ashok Maan arrested, however, no evidence warranting the arrest of accused Ajay @ Bablu and Sukhwinder @ Rinku brothersinlaw substantiated therefore kept in column no.12. On completion of investigation, accused Mange Ram, Ashok Maan, Suresh @ Sussu, Puneet Maan, Harender Maan and Bimlesh Maan were chargesheeted.
5. On committal, charges u/s 147/307/506(1)/427 r/w 149 IPC were framed against accused Puneet Maan, Bimlesh Maan, Harender Maan, Mange Ram, Ashok Maan, Suresh Kumar @ Sussu to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution for substantiating its case examined 23 witnesses. PW5 Kishan Singh, PW6 Pushpa Devi, PW7 Aman Singh, PW8 Raj Singh, PW9 Ravinder @ Bunty, PW10 Sunil and PW12 Suman Maan are the injured witnesses. PW15 Ct Radhey Shaym who reached the spot after getting the information of incident with IO SI K. P. Singh. PW14 Ct. Kapil is the beat Constable who also reached the spot just after the incident. PW21 SI Rai Singh, subsequent IO, who filed the chargesheet and further identified in his testimony SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 4 of 62 the documents prepared by SI K. P. Singh as SI K. P. Singh reported to have retired and settled in Canada, and prosecution not able to produce him for deposition. The summary details of prosecution witnesses is reproduced as under:
7. PW5 Kishan Singh stated that they are four brothers and two of his brothers, Raj Singh and Aman Singh, residing with their family at 134/9 Kishan Garh, Vasant Kunj and Mange Ram at 94/9 Kishan Garh, and he has filed a suit against Mange Ram, Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Bimlesh and Sarla Devi for partition of property. Mange Ram, Ashok Kumar and Suresh Kumar, Puneet and Harender used to threaten him from time to time that he should withdraw the aforesaid civil case. On 09.03.2010, Pushpa Devi, daughter in law of his brother Raj Singh when going to take children from school, she was stopped by Suresh, Ashok, Puneet and Harender who abused and beaten her, and after getting the knowledge of the incident, he also reached Kishan Garh where he found local police, Pushpa Devi and Ravinder, husband of Pushpa Devi were taken to hospital, thereafter, police took him, Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Pushpa Devi to the police station where settlement took place. When they were returning to their house at around 10.00 p.m, and about 2025 steps away from the house, Ashok stopped their car with the help of his car make Tata Safari and another vehicle was also behind the car, thereafter, he was dragged by accused Ashok out of the car having sword in his hand, then 23 associates of accused Ashok caused injuries with the help of lathi. Accused persons also caused injuries to Ravinder who sustained fracture. Raj Singh sustained injuries on his head, tooth of Pushpa was broken SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 5 of 62 and Suman sustained injuries on her face. Aman Singh also sustained injuries on his head. Suman Singh also sustained injuries on his head and back. Several locality people gathered there and thereafter, accused persons ran away from the spot. PCR van took them to the hospital. He further stated that all the accused caused injuries with intention to kill them as they wanted to grab the land and further while running away, they threatened them to teach them a lesson if they pursue with the case. Police recorded statement in the hospital. He further stated that his Alto car was also got damaged. On 10.03.2010, he handed over his clothes to the police.
8. In crossexamination stated that the partition was according to the court orders, and prior to 09.03.2010 he lodged a complaint with PS with regard to fight with Mange Ram and his family, however, the matter got compromised. No written complaint was made as PCR call was made. He denied the suggestion that they were the aggressors and had beaten Mange Ram and his family. He further stated that FIR No. 28/2013 was registered on 05.02.2013 in respect of quarrel which took place on 04.02.2013. He stated that he does not know whether any FIR No. 92/2013 dated 25.02.2013 was registered against his family with regard to recovery of pistol and katta. He also stated that he alongwith his family resides in Mehrauli. He further stated that there was quarrel in the morning hours on 09.03.2010 and he reached the spot after getting the call from Kishangarh and at that time, ASI Rai Singh was present who made enquiries from him and his son, however not recorded the statement of any other witnesses. Nobody told him that PCR van also came. He further stated that no public person told him about SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 6 of 62 the incident, and he do not know whether PCR was called by accused Puneet Maan. He also denied the suggestion that no incident took place between 11.00 a.m to 12.00 noon. He also stated that he do not know whether Suresh Kumar, Mange Ram and Puneet were hospital in Safdarjung Hospital on 09.03.2010. He do not know whether aforesaid three persons sustained injuries during the day time on 09.03.2010. He also do not know whether the family of his two brothers Raj Singh and Aman Singh caused injuries to Suresh, Mange Ram and Puneet Maan. He further stated that Alto car was delivered as a gift by the inlaws of his son Manish and the said car was in the name of maternal aunt Lalita of wife of his son Manish. He further stated that injured was taken by ASI Rai Singh to the hospital and in hospital, no statement of injured was recorded in his presence. He further stated that he do not know in which school, the children of Pushpa were studying.
He further stated that on 09.03.2010, he remained at police station from 7.00 p.m. to 9.00/9.15 p.m, and during day time he was not present in the place of incident and in the evening, he went to trauma center. He further stated that during his visit at trauma center on 09.03.2010, he observed that Ravinder suffered injuries on his right forearm towards palm side and Pushpa has suffered bruises and scratches on her neck due to blunt object.
He further stated that on the night of 09.03.2010, at around 10.00 p.m, after he sustained injured he was taken to hospital by PCR and besides him Sunil Maan or might be Aman Singh or any other person in the said van, however, he was unconscious but not unconscious to the extent that he could not identify the persons in SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 7 of 62 the van. He further stated that he did not tell the doctor that he had become unconscious during his travel to the hospital. He further stated that he had also seen the gamcha wrapped around his injuries but the said gamcha was not handed over by him to the police. He denied the suggestion that no stitches were given by the doctors at AIIMS Trauma Center. At AIIMS Trauma Center, he had not told any doctor that Ashok and his associates caused injuries, volunteered that none of the doctors have made enquiries from him in this regard. He further stated that he cannot recall that he had put signatures on any documents at AIIMS Trauma Center. He further stated that the MLC Mark A do not bear his signatures and also not showing that he was taken to trauma center by PCR van. He further stated that he cannot recall besides giving stitches, what other treatment was given by the doctors of AIIMS trauma center. He denied suggestion that he was not given stitches by the doctors of AIIMS Trauma Center. He was also confronted with document Mark B which do not show any stitches were given to him. Position of injuries were also not mentioned on the reverse of the MLC. He denied suggestion that he had got the medical documents fabricated as he did not sustain any injuries. He also denied that in the evening of 09.03.2010 no incident had occurred wherein he or any of his family members sustained injuries. He also denied suggestion that the false FIR is register to bargain with the accused persons regarding the ancestral property. He further stated that it is incorrect that Alto car was not involved in the present incident and no damage was caused to Alto car. He stated that the police seized his blood stained clothes from his house at Mehrauli on 10.03.2010 SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 8 of 62 between 12.00 p.m to 3.00 p.m. He denied the suggestion that at the time of incident, Ashok and his wife Bimlesh were not present at Kishan Garh but were in Hotel Royal, Manesar Gurgaon.
9. PW6 Pushpa stated that on 09.03.2010 at 12.30/1.00 p.m, when she had gone to take her children from school, accused Mange Ram and Ashok were standing in the gali. They started abusing her, thereafter, her fatherinlaw Raj Singh, husband Ravinder, sisterin law Suman, brotherinlaw Sunil Maan, uncle Aman Singh went to the house of Mange Ram, then they started quarreling with them and she alongwith Suman sustained injuries. She further stated that accused Ashok had given beatings to them. Someone from her family called 100 number. PCR van came and took all seven persons to the hospital, thereafter, took them to P.S. Police called accused Puneet Maan, Bimlesh, Harender, Mange Ram and Suresh Kumar and warned them to maintain peace and they all left the police station simultaneously, and when they reached back to their house in Alto car, accused persons stopped their Scorpio car and got down from the car. Accused Mange Ram was holding stones and bricks, accused Harender and Suresh were having dandas, accused Ashok was having sword and Puneet was having base ball bat. Two brotherinlaw of accused Ashok also came at the spot and started attacking them. Accused Mange Ram caused injuries on her face with a piece of brick, as a result, her tooth got broken. All the accused caused injuries to other family members also. She further stated that when she came out of the car to save herself, accused Bimlesh caused injuries on her forehead and uttered "ise jaan se maar dalo, isne aaj jhagda kiya tha Ashok se", then villagers SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 9 of 62 gathered there but accused persons fled away from the spot stating Aaj to bach gaye, aage nahi bachoge. In first incident, accused Ashok torn her clothes.
10. In crossexamination stated that her children used to go to school in RTV bus and in March, 2010, they were taking their examinations and it is correct that her children used to return to their home after taking examination by 12.30 p.m. She also stated that it is correct that sons of Jagdish Maan who is son of accused Mange Ram also used to come together in the same RTV from the school. She also stated that she had not pointed out the place of incident occurred in the day time on 09.03.2010 as police never asked her to do so. She further stated that her statement was recorded by the police but she again stated that she do not remember whether her statement was recorded or not. She also stated that it is correct that she cannot recall as to what was stated by her to the police and what was not stated during the investigation of the case. She further stated that she cannot tell that the facts which she stated during her examination in chief were stated by her to the police or not, however volunteered that she stated true facts before the court. She also stated that the first incident took place at around 12 noon and at that time, Kishan Singh was not present. She stated that after reaching Kishan Garh, Kishan Singh accompanied them to the hospital and thereafter at the police station and remained at Kishan Garh till evening. She further stated that she do not know as to how many police officials came to the spot in the day time or whether they have recorded her statement or of any of the family members. She stated that in the day time, she and her husband suffered SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 10 of 62 injuries and her husband Ravinder was given bite by teeth on his arm but she cannot recall on which arm he sustained injuries however she suffered injuries on her neck due to scratches and her clothes were also torn in the day time on 09.03.2010. She further stated that police had not seized her torn clothes as already been washed by the maid servant. She further stated that she do not remember whether any treatment was given for her scratches on the neck in the day time, however she was medically examined in day time but cannot recall whether Suman sustained injuries on 09.03.2010 during the day time, and also do not know if Suman was also given medical treatment on 09.03.2010 in the day or not, however she accompanied her to the hospital in day time. She also stated that she accompanied them to the police station and came to the house two days prior to the incident and stayed for 56 days. She stated that she told the doctor her tooth was broken but she could not find the broken tooth nor seized by the doctor or police however denied suggestion that her tooth was not broken. She denied the suggestion that Ashok had not torn her clothes. She also denied the suggestion that in collusion with the police, she got prepared the false medical documents.
11. PW7 Aman Singh stated that on 09.03.2010 at about 1.00 p.m, when Pushpa went to take her children, then Mange Ram and Ashok gave her beatings. Thereafter, Pushpa, Ravinder and Sunil went to the house of accused Mange Ram where they were beaten by the accused Mange Ram, Ashok , Harender, Puneet and Suresh and someone called 100 number. Injured Ravinder, Sunil, Pushpa were taken to AIIMS and he also accompanied them. Thereafter, he SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 11 of 62 called his brother Kishan who came to hospital, then, they all went to P.S. SHO called the accused and tried to pacify the matter thereafter directed to go to their houses. Thereafter, he alongwith Ravinder, Kishan Singh, Pushpa, Suman, Sunil and Raj Singh left the PS by Alto car. Accused Puneet, Mange Ram, Harender, Ashok, Suresh and Bimlesh left the P.S in their vehicle. When they reached in front of the house of Mange Ram, accused stopped their Alto car and came out with danda, sword, baseball bat and stones and thereafter they attacked them, and damaged the Alto car. Ashok caused injuries to Kishan Singh with sword, Harender caused injuries on his right hand with danda and other accused also caused injuries to the other injured, and they all seven persons sustained injuries in the said incident. Villagers also gathered there at the spot and someone called 100 number. PCR van took them to the hospital where they were medically examined. In the hospital, SI K. P. Singh recorded their statements and they were discharged in the morning. He further stated that on 10.03.2010, SI K P singh came to his house, recorded his statement. Then, he pointed out the place of occurrence, SI lifted some stones and dandas and his clothes having blood stains were also taken into possession. In crossexamination of behalf of Addl. PP on the point of preparation of seizure memos etc, he stated that police had taken their Alto car into possession and lifted the pieces of bricks, base ball and hockey. In cross examination stated that during the day time, Pushpa and Bunty sustained injuries and Bunty sustained injuries due to teeth biting and when he came out of the house, quarrel had already taken place. He came to know of the quarrel from the children playing there. In SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 12 of 62 the day time, police had not taken his statement. He also do not know how many police persons came to Kishan Garh in day time. However, he alongwith Pushpa, Bunty, Kishan Singh, Raj Singh, Sunil and Suman went to hospital in the day time. Kishan Singh reached the spot after the police reached the spot in the day time. He also stated that for day time incident, they remained in the hospital for about 34 hours. He stated that he do not know whether in day time incident, any stitches were given or bandage was applied to Pushpa. He further stated that colour of Alto car was golden and he do not know the length or the colour of the danda used in the night. In his presence, police did not prepare the site plan. He also do not know whether the police persons who came to collect his clothes on 11.03.2010 and in his presence, police had not seized the broken glass of the car or took the photographs of the car. He further stated that on 09.03.2010 in the night, he met the police in the hospital, he, however volunteered that police took them to the hospital. Police did not ask him regarding handing over of his clothes. He further stated that he suffered injuries on the right thumb, Sunil on the back of the head, Suman on the face and his brother Kishan Singh suffered sword wound on left leg. He denied the suggestion that he got prepared his forged and fabricated medical papers.
12. PW8 Raj Singh stated that their relations are not cordial on the issue of property and at around 10.15 a.m, his daughterinlaw Pushpa went to take her son from the school. Family of Mange Ram quarreled with Pushpa, beaten them including him, Aman Singh, Kishan Singh, Ravinder, Pushpa, Sunil and Suman. Thereafter the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 13 of 62 matter was referred to police and they were medically examined in the hospital. Police took them to the police station. Family of Mange Ram also reached the police station and they were warned not to indulge in any quarrel in future. Thereafter, they came back to their houses at around 10/10.15 p.m. When they were in front of the house of Mange Ram and were in Alto car driven by Ravinder and his daughter Suman and Pushpa were sitting near the driver seat and he alongwith Kishan Singh, Aman Singh and Sunil were sitting on the back seat. When they reached in front of the house of Mange Ram, their Alto car was stopped by one Scorpio car from which six accused persons attacked them, Ashok was having sword, Mange ram was having stone, Suresh was having base ball bat, danda and stone. He further stated that he sustained injuries on head, left wrist and they had tried to kill them however someone called police and they were taken to AIIMS Trauma Center. In crossexamination stated that during the fight in the day time, no neighbours came on the spot and during day time, accused family and his family called the police. On 09.03.2010 in the day time, no paper work was done by the police in his presence. Kishan Singh during day time came to spot after the police left the spot and after incident, he had taken the injured to the hospital alongwith Kishan Singh, Aman, his daughterinlaw Pushpa, Ravinder, Suman and Sunil in Alto car. Police reached the hospital in their own vehicle and they remained in the vehicle for about 45 p.m. He denied suggestion that his daughterinlaw Pushpa was beaten in day time however stated that he cannot recall if Ravinder sustained injuries or not. He further stated that they remained in the police station for about 12 hours SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 14 of 62 and he alongwith his family members were also sitting outside the police station but he had no knowledge if any document of compromise was prepared however denied the suggestion that he had not visited the police station alongwith his family members.
13. He further stated that the stones used in the incident were of the same size and had not shown the stones to the police. Mange Ram was having stones and Bimlesh was throwing bricks from the roof. Bimlesh hit Pushpa with a brick. However, he cannot tell the size of the sword and denied the suggestion that no sword was used in this incident. In his presence, police had not recovered any articles from the place, however, he sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious and got consciousness at the spot itself. He further stated that he do not know if his clothes were having blood stains and if the police had seized his clothes or not. He further stated that he do not know how many stitches were given on his head, however stated that one piece of wood was taken out by the doctor from his head.
14. PW9 Ravinder @ Bunty stated that during the day time on 09.03.2010, accused abused his wife Pushpa and molested her. Thereafter, his wife told the incident to them. Then the accused persons had beaten them and he had sustained injuries of tooth bite. Accused persons were also called at the police station. SHO made them understand that they should not indulge in quarrel in future. Thereafter, on the same day at around 10.15 p.m, they proceeding in their Alto Car and when they reached near the gate of the house of Mange Ram, one Tata Safari driven by Ashok was stopped in front of Alto car and all the six accused persons were inside Tata SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 15 of 62 Safari and one Zen car also stopped behind the Alto car. In the meantime, Ashok got down from the car having naked sword, Mange Ram was having stones, Puneet was carrying base ball bat, Harender and Suresh were carrying dandas. All started beating them and he sustained injuries on both his hands and right leg. Accused Bimlesh was throwing stones from the roof and two brotherinlaw of accused Ashok were in Maruti Zen and they had also thrown stones over them. He can identify both brothersinlaw of accused Ashok. Kishan Singh sustained injuries on the left leg with sword. Accused Ashok torn the wearing clothes of his wife and sister and ran away from the spot while extending threats that "abke to bach gaye ho, aage nahi bachoge". Police took them to AIIMS Trauma Center, their vehicles were also damaged by the accused persons. They were all medically examined there and on the following morning, they got discharged. Doctors were of the opinion to refer him for opinion however he refused the same and got his further treatment from private hospital. In crossexamination stated that in the day time, he suffered injuries on right wrist however in the night suffered injuries on both hands and knees. He stated that after treatment in day time, no medical papers were given to him and after the injuries on 09.03.2010, he visited Safdarjung Hospital once but cannot recall what treatment was given. He denied suggestion that on 09.03.2010 in the day time, none of his family members suffered injuries. However volunteered that he and Pushpa suffered injuries but not other persons. He however denied the suggestion that no such incident occurred in the day time on 09.03.2010. He denied the suggestion that he was not driving the Alto car. He SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 16 of 62 further stated that in the night incident, his wife Pushpa suffered injuries on her forehead and her tooth was also broken. Kishan Singh suffered sword injury, his father injuries on his left arm and back of his head. Sunil Maan suffered injuries on the back of his head and his sister Suman suffered injuries on her cheek below her eyes. However, he do not know if any stitches were given to his father Raj Singh. He also cannot recall whether the stitches given to Sunil were removed or not. He denied the suggestion that none of the family members received injuries and also denied suggestion that the clothes of Pushpa and Suman were not torn. He further stated that during the day time, he remained in the hospital for 1 ½ hours and thereafter went to police station where the matter was compromised but nothing was reduced in writing. He further stated that he cannot recall the length and colour of the base ball bat however also cannot tell whether any stone was used in inflicting injuries on him and other persons in the night, however, volunteered that he was lying in the car as his both hands were fractured and there were injuries on his leg. He had also shown the plaster on his hand but he cannot tell whether the police recorded his statement after observing plaster on his hand. He denied suggestion that he is consistently making false statement.
15. PW10 Sunil Singh stated that on 09.03.2010 at about 1.00p.m, accused Ashok abused Pushpa and beaten her. Thereafter, he alongwith Ravinder and Pushpa had gone to Safdarjung Hospital where they were medically examined. Then they reached PS Vasant Kunj where the matter was compromised. On the same day, at around 10.30 p.m, when he alongwith his family members i.e. SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 17 of 62 Kishan Singh, Pushpa, Ravinder, Suman and Aman Singh were returning in Alto car and when reached in front of house of accused Ashok, accused Ashok, Harender, Puneet, Mange Ram, Suresh and Bimlesh stopped their two vehicles and blocked the Alto car and thereafter accused Ashok was having Sword, Mange Ram having stones, Suresh and Harender having dandas, Puneet having baseball bat, Ajay and Bablu and 57 others persons were having bricks and dandas. Ajay gave danda blows on his head. Accused Ashok gave sword blow to Kishan and Ashok also threatened that they should not be spared. They also smashed the window panes of the car and accused Bimlesh threw stones from the roof. Kishan Singh informed the police. Police took them to trauma center and due to injuries, he started bleeding and blood also came on his clothes and thereafter, on 10.03.2010, police seized his blood stained shirt.
16. In crossexamination stated that on 09.03.2010, Kishan Singh reached the spot. After reaching of the police at the spot, he do not know as to how many police persons reached at the spot during day time. In the day time, police has not recorded his statement. During day time, he had no discussion about the incident with Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Pushpa, Ravinder and Suman. He also stated that on 09.03.2010 in the day time, he alongwith his family members went to the hospital in their own vehicle. When Kishan Singh reached the spot, Raj Singh and Aman Singh and he himself were present in their house. He further stated that during day time, he had not sustained any injury and police also did not seize their clothes. He remained in the hospital for about 1 ½ hours and initially he was standing outside the emergency. However Ravinder and Suman SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 18 of 62 were inside and with the doctor. They both were medically examined but he cannot recall if any other family member was examined. No family member of Mange Ram was medically examined in his presence and neither of his family members were seen in the hospital. He also stated that Suman sustained injuries on her face, Ravinder on his hand but he cannot tell the size of the injury however no stitches were given. In his presence, police has not recorded the statement of any persons in the hospital. He also stated that he cannot recall if any member of his family was medically examined in his presence in the hospital. He also stated that he remained in the police for about two hours in the evening. He denied suggestion that on 09.03.2010 that he had neither visited the hospital nor the police station. He stated that on 09.03.2010 in the evening when police reached at the spot, he alongwith other persons was present in the ground in front of the house of Ravinder. He further stated that on 09.03.2010 in the evening, police had not seized any articles in his presence. The colour of baseball bat was silver. However police never shown him the base ball bat or danda or even the stone or brick. Police had also not shown him the damaged car. However volunteered that the car was damaged in his presence. He denied suggestion that no such incident occurred in the evening and the shirt Ex. P5 do not bear his blood stains. He denied suggestion that in collusion with police and doctor, he got prepared the false MLC report. He also denied suggestion that he falsely deposed about the property dispute and falsely implicated the accused persons in this case.
17. PW12 Suman Maan stated that during the day time, Pushpa was SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 19 of 62 stopped, abused and beaten by Mange Ram and Ashok. Then they protested against Mange Ram and Ashok Maan. Thereafter, Mange Ram, Ashok, Harender, Puneet and Suresh abused and beaten Pushpa. After sometime police came and they were taken to hospital. Then they went to police station and at police station, accused were also present. The matter was compromised. On 09.03.2010, at around 9.30/10.00 p.m, when she alongwith her family came in Alto car and reached near the house of accused, accused put his Tata Safari in front of their car and Maruti Zen behind the car. Then, accused Mange Ram, Ashok, Suresh, Puneet, Harender and 57 persons came out of the car and attacked them. Accused Ashok Maan was having sword and other accused persons were having lathi, danda and hockey and they have smashed the window panes of the car. Suresh pulled her hair and slapped her and also given fist blows. Accused Ashok gave a sword blow on the leg of his uncle. One teeth of Pushpa was also broken. Bimlesh had thrown stones from the roof. Police was also informed and took them to trauma center. In crossexamination, she stated that she noticed bluish mark of injury on the face of Pushpa but she did not saw any cut mark or bleeding on her person. She denied the suggestion that no incident took place during day time. She also stated that she visited the hospital on the intervening night of 09/10.03.2010 and remained in the hospital till about 6.00 a.m to 7.00 a.m. She did not tell the doctor as to who caused injuries to her however she told this fact to the police. She further stated that police had taken them to hospital. She was in semi conscious condition. None of the other family members were unconscious.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 20 of 62 During the second incident, Kishan Maan was with them and was conscious. She do not know as to how many danda, swords were seized by the police. She do not know if statement of any neighbour was recorded by the police. She further stated that after the second incident, on reaching the hospital, police recorded their statement. She stated that she was taken to the hospital only after the second incident.
18. PW1 Taslimuddin Siddiqui, Motor Vehicle Inspector exhibited the mechanical inspection report of Alto Car. PW2 Dr. Wasim Akhtar exhibited the Xray reports of injured Kishan Singh, Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Suman Singh and Ravinder Maan. PW3 ASI Ram Tanwar Duty Officer who registered FIR. PW4 Ct. Kishan is the witness to the arrest of accused Puneet, Harender and Bimlesh. PW11 Jitender Kumar is the witness to the arrest of accused Mange Ram. PW13 Dr. Vikas Kaushal examined and exhibited the MLC of injured Kishan Singh, Pushpa Maan, Suman, Ravinder. PW14 Ct. Kapil stated that on the said night, he reached the spot at about 11.00 p.m and found SI K. P. Singh and Ct. Radhey Shyam, and came to know that quarrel had taken place. One Alto car was lying there is damaged condition. Stones and dandas were also lying inside the car. He came to know that injured were already removed to hospital by PCR, therefore, SI K. P. Singh alongwith Ct. Radhey Shyam left for hospital and he remained there to guard the spot and after about 2 ½ years, SI K. P. Singh returned back and injured Aman Singh and his family members went inside their house. SI K. P. Singh brought some blood stained clothes, and SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 21 of 62 he took them to the police station. On being declared hostile, in crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP stated that in his presence police seized Alto car, brick and stone pieces, blood stained shirt and handkerchief produced by Aman Singh, blood stained shirt of Sunil and Kishan. He however denied the suggestion that the accused persons were searched. He also identified the photographs of the Alto car. In crossexamination stated that the articles might have been seized by the IO after 3½ hours. He also stated that it is correct that there are no signatures of the IO and person who produced the clothes and there is no mention over the case property that which cloth was produced by which person. IO did not mention the specific places over the clothes where the blood stains were found. He also stated that at the relevant time, one SI Ravi Yadav, ASI Rai Singh, HC Rajpal, Ct. Kishan were at the place of incident. He further stated that in the day time also, some arguments took place and the matter was resolved at P.S. He further stated that arguments were over property dispute. He do not know if any person got injured or not in the quarrel. He also stated that articles were lying outside the car and not inside the car and Alto car was not taken to the hospital. The photographs were taken in his presence. The respective injured produced their clothes to the IO on the intervening night and IO also recorded their statements. PW15 Ct. Radhey Shyam accompanied IO SI Kishan Pal to the spot and stated that one Alto car was lying in damaged condition. The wooden sticks, stones and bricks were also lying in the Alto car. In the meanwhile, Ct. Kapil reached the spot and he alongwith SI K. P. Singh reached AIIMS trauma Center where the IO recorded the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 22 of 62 statement of injured Kishan and handed over him the rukka, got the FIR registered. On being declared hostile, in crossexamination by Ld. Addl. PP, he stated that broken pieces of stones and dandas were lying on the car. In crossexamination stated that they reached the spot at about 10.15 p.m and remained there for 45 minutes. In the meanwhile, no enquiry was made from any of the neighbour. Nobody pointed out the spot or the manner in which quarrel took place. He had not put any signatures on the documents of recovery of danda, car etc. Except Kishan, he did not meet any other person in the hospital. He do not know as to how many persons got injured in the present case. PW16 Lady Ct. Shakuntala is the witness to the arrest of accused Bimlesh, Puneet Maan and Harender Maan. PW17 Dr. Inderjeet Senior Resident exhibited the MLC of injured Aman Singh and Sunil Maan. PW18 K. C. Malik, owner of the Alto car, stated that the car is in the name of his wife which was given on the occasion of marriage of his niece. PW19 HC Raj Pal is the witness to the arrest of accused Ashok Maan. PW20 Insp. Umesh Malik is the witness to the arrest of accused Suresh @ Sussu. PW21 SI Rai Singh subsequent IO stated that he was entrusted the investigation on 01.07.2011 and during investigation, he made search of accused Ajay @ Bablu and interrogated him, however not arrested him as no sufficient evidence came on record. He further identified the documents prepared by SI K. P. Singh as worked in the same police station and seen him writing and signing. In crossexamination stated that he did not record the statement of SI K. P. Singh and and met the complainant Kishan Singh, Raj SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 23 of 62 Singh and others during investigation. He denied the suggestion that he filed the chargesheet in connivance with the complainant. PW22 ASI Subhash Chand exhibited the malkhana entry relating to deposit of the Alto car. PW23 ASI Jagmal Singh also exhibited the malkhana entries.
19. Accused Bimlesh Maan, Ashok Maan, Harender Maan, Puneet Maan, Mange Ram, Suresh Kumar @ Sussu denied all the incriminating circumstances put to them during their examination u/s 313 CrPC. Accused Bimlesh and Ashok Maan took the plea that at the time of incident, they were in Hotel Royal Inn IMT Manesar, Gurgaon. Other accused persons took the plea that the complainant party beaten Suresh, Puneet and Mange Ram, and the PCR was called by them and they were medically examined, and as counter blast, complainant party concocted a false case in collusion with local police, and family dispute regarding the property is pending between the parties.
20. Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence.
21. In defence, accused persons examined DW1 Vikram Yadav on the factum that accused Ashok Maan with his wife Bimlesh were at Hotel Royal Inn from 09.03.2010 to 10.03.2010. DW2 Kailash Kamal Hasan stated that on 09.03.2010, at around 12.00 /1.00 p.m, accused Puneet Maan, Mange Ram and Suresh were assaulted by the Mange Ram family, and there was no fight in the evening on that day. In the night on 09.03.2010, 23 police officials came at around 10.30/11.00 p.m and left the said place. DW3 Jai Karan stated that on 09.03.2010, he alongwith his wife and Ashok Maan SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 24 of 62 with his wife went to Manesar to see a property and they checked in the Hotel Royal Inn, Manesar and they stayed there till the afternoon of 10.03.2010. DW4 HC Rajpal exhibited the DD entry no. 34B regarding the incident took place at around 12.30 p.m. DW5 Saurabh Aggarwal exhibited the mobile phone record of mobile no. 9899943218. DW6 Dr. Surender Kumar Goyal, CMO exhibited the MLCs of injured Puneet Maan, Mange Ram and Suresh Kumar.
Material exhibits
22. Ex. PW5/A is the statement of Kishan Chand. Ex. PW 3/B is the endorsement on the rukka. Ex. PW 3/A is the FIR. Ex. PW 21/A is the site plan. Ex. PW 3/C is DD no. 71B. Ex. PW 3/D is DD no. 72B. Ex. PW 13/A is the MLC of injured Kishan Singh. Mark B is the discharge summary. Ex. PW 2/A is the Xray report showing no bony injuries. Ex. PW 17/D is the MLC of Raj Singh with Xray report showing fracture of one third of shaft of ulna bone. Ex. PW 17/A is the MLC of injured Aman Singh showing simple injuries. Ex. PW 2/C is the X ray report of the same. Ex. PW 13/B is the MLC of Pushpa showing simple injury with discharge summary showing minor head injury. Ex. PW 17/B is the MLC of Sunil Maan alongwith discharge summary showing simple injuries. Ex. PW 13/C is the MLC of injured Suman with discharge summary showing simple injuries. Ex. PW 2/D is the Xray report of Suman showing no bony injury. Ex. PW13/D is the MLC of injured Ravinder Maan with discharge summary showing fracture injuries SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 25 of 62 and opined to be grievous in nature. Xray report also suggestive of fracture injuries. Ex. PW 7/A is the seizure memo of the Alto car. Ex. PW 7/B is the seizure memo of brick and stones. Ex. PW 7/C, Ex. PW 10/A, Ex. PW 5/B are the seizure memo of blood stained clothes of Aman Singh, Sunil Singh and Kishan Singh. Ex. PW 1/A is the mechanical inspection report of Alto car. Ex. PW 16/A, Ex. PW 4/B, Ex. PW 4/A, Ex. PW 11/A, Ex. PW 19/A, Ex. PW 20/A are the arrest memos of the accused persons. Ex. PW 22/A is the malkhana entry. Mark PW14/A to A4 are the photographs of Alto car.
23. Ex. DW 6/A, Ex. PW 6/B and Ex. DW 6/C are the MLCs of accused Puneet, Mange Ram and Suresh Kumar. Ex. DW 5/B is the Customer Application Form in the name of Puneet Maan. Ex. DW 1/A and Ex. DW 1/B are the register and receipt of rent of Hotel Royal Inn. Ex. DW 1/DX is the original arrival departure register of Hotel Royal Inn.
24. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the present case involves the incident of day time as well as of the night of 09.03.2010. The testimony of injured witnesses on the factum of description of incident during day time and night time are inconsistent and contradictory. Ld counsel submitted that the incident as described by the injured persons in day time or in the night time has never occurred. However the injured persons have attacked the family of accused Mange Ram in which they suffered injuries and their MLCs were also prepared. Ld counsel submitted that the accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh were not at Delhi at the time of incident SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 26 of 62 and same is also proved through defence evidence. Ld counsel submitted that the weapons used in the incident are not seized. The blood stained clothes are planted. Even no forensic examination over the blood stained clothes was conducted. Ld counsel submitted that the MLCs and the Xray reports are all false and fabricated and not proved in accordance to law. Ld counsel further submitted that the use of Alto car and its possession with the injured persons is not proved. The mechanical inspection report is fabricated. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel that no public witness was examined despite their presence. Accused persons are implicated in the present case by the injured persons in connivance with the police as counter blast to the incident of the day time incident. Ld counsel submitted that the prosecution also not able to prove any motive because the suit for partition has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. Ld counsel submitted that none of the witnesses could tell the number of the Alto Car or of the other cars involved in the incident. Ld counsel further submitted that recovery of weapons is tainted and weapons were planted subsequently. Ld counsel submitted that entire case of the prosecution is full of material deficiencies and contradictions and the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Hence, accused persons are entitled to be acquitted. Besides oral arguments, written submissions also filed on behalf of accused persons.
25. Ld Addl. PP on the other hand submitted that the injured witnesses have given the detailed description of the incident and their testimony is duly corroborated with the medical record. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the minor discrepancies or deficiencies are bound SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 27 of 62 to occur in these kind of incidents in which number of assailants are involved. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that there is no delay in sending the information of the incident to the police neither any delay in registration of FIR. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that the plea of alibi is not put to any of the material injured persons in the present case. The defence evidence as led by the accused persons is not at all credible. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
26. Arguments heard. Record perused.
27. Apex court in "Mohan Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1999 SC 883", held that effort should be made to find the truth, this is the very object for which courts are created. One has to comprehend the totality of the facts and circumstances as spelled out through the evidence depending upon the facts of each case.
28. In appreciating the evidence, the approach of the court must be integrated and not truncated or isolated meaning thereby inferences should not drawn by picking up an isolated statement from here and there; rather the evidence on a particular point should be examined in the background of the total statement of said witness or other witnesses as well as other evidence. The finding should be on the basis of objective assessment of the evidence and not on the conjunctures and surmises. In "Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1328", no hard and fast rule can be laid down about the appreciation of evidence and every case has to be judged on the basis of its own facts. While appreciating the evidence of the witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to have ring of truth. Once that impression SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 28 of 62 is formed, it is undoubtedly, necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in view the deficiency, drawbacks and the infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole, and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of evidence given by the witness as to render it unworthy of belief. In 'Bhagwan Tana Patil Vs. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21, the Apex Court ordained that the function of the court is to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to accept what it finds the truth and rejects the rest. It is only where the truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up, polluted beyond refinement down the core, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness then the court might be justified in rejecting the same. This legal position was further elaborated in 'State of UP Vs. Shankar, AIR 1981 SC 897', wherein the Apex court observed that mere fact that the witness has not told the truth in regard to a peripheral matter would not justify whole sole rejection of his evidence. In this country, it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence may be true in the main. It is only where the testimony is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the court should discard the evidence. Therefore, the duty is cast over this court to dispassionately disengage the truth from the falsehood and accept the truth and reject the same. This court is not meant to reject the testimony of a witness on slightest deflection, however has a bounden duty to search the truth. Apex court in 'Smt. Shamim Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 56/2016 dated 19.09.2018', in para 12 observed "while SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 29 of 62 appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole inspires confidence. Once that impression is formed. It is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise 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 and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error without going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof.......".
29. As far as the defective and illegal investigation is concerned, apex court held that if investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of faulty investigation otherwise criminal trial descend to the IO ruling the roost. Yet if the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 30 of 62 court is convinced that the evidence of eye witnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the IO in the case is suspicious (Abu Thakir, AIR 2010 SC 2119). An accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground of defective investigation; to do so would be playing into the hands of the IO whose investigation was defective by design. (Dhanaj Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2004 SC 1920). Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial (Paramjit Singh Vs. state of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 441). The lapses or the irregularities in the investigation could be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and evidence is of sterling quality. If the lapses or irregularities do not go the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored (Sunil Kundu & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013(4) SCC 422).
30. To sum up while appreciating evidence on record the duty of the court is to separate credible and incredible part of evidence.
31. The brief background facts are that injured Kishan Singh, Raj Singh, Aman Singh and the accused Mange Ram are the real brothers. Injured Kishan Singh, Raj Singh and Aman Singh are on the one side and accused Mange Ram is on the other side having dispute over ancestral property. The injured Raj Singh, Aman Singh and accused Mange Ram with their families resides in the village Kishan Garh however injured Kishan Singh with family resides in Mehrauli area. Injured Raj Singh is the father of injured Ravinder and Suman and fatherinlaw of injured Pushpa Maan. Sunil Maan is the son of Aman Singh. There exists bitter relationship between the parties having the history of disputes/quarrels between the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 31 of 62 families prior to the present incident and after the present incident.
32. As far as the present case is concerned, the FIR was registered on the statement of PW5 Kishan Singh ( Ex. PW 5/A) in which he alleged that a quarrel had taken place during the day time when PW6 Pushpa Maan, wife of injured Ravinder Maan, went to take her children. In the said quarrel, the entire family of Mange Ram had beaten her and all were taken to the hospital, then to the police station where the police after hearing both the parties asked them to maintain peace. However, when they were returning back to Kishan Garh and reached near the house of Mange Ram, accused persons put their Safari car and one Zen car in front and back of their Alto car and thereafter, accused Mange Ram, Suresh, Ashok, Puneet, Harender, two brothersinlaw of Ashok and Bimlesh, wife of Ashok, beaten them pursuant to which he, Raj Singh, Aman Singh, Ravinder, Sunil, Pushpa suffered injuries and their Alto car was also got damaged. Thereafter, they were taken to AIIMS Trauma Center in PCR van where they were medically examined.
33. As per this witness, there are two incidents of quarrel with the accused persons, firstly, in the day time when PW6 Pushpa went to take her children who were coming from the school, and secondly in night, when after conciliation at the police station, coming back to their house and reached in the gali, near the house of accused Mange Ram, they were attacked by the accused persons who came in two cars with sword, base ball bat, hockey, dandas, bricks and stones due to which they suffered injuries and their Alto car was also damaged. The chargesheet in present case is filed over the incident of night in which the injured suffered injuries at the hands SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 32 of 62 of the accused persons. During investigation, alongwith the present chargesheet, there is neither any complaint nor any report nor any DD entry or any medical examination report filed to corroborate the incident of day time as alleged by all the witnesses/injured.
34. However, before appreciating the evidence of day time, it is pertinent to appreciate the incident of night which is the main issue of the present case in which PW5 Kishan Singh, PW8 Raj Singh, PW9 Ravinder Singh suffered grievous injuries, PW6 Pushpa Maan, PW7 Aman Singh, PW10 Sunil Singh and PW12 Suman suffered simple injuries.
35. PW5 Kishan Singh in his testimony categorically stated that when they were returning from the police station and were about 2025 steps away from their house, Ashok stopped their Alto car with his Tata Safari car and one more car was put behind their car. He was dragged out of the car by accused Ashok having sword in his hand and 23 associates of the accused Ashok caused injuries with the help of lathis. PW6 Pushpa also stated that when they reached near their house, accused persons stopped their Alto car from their Scorpio car. Accused Ashok was having sword and two brothersin law of accused Ashok Maan alongwith Ashok Maan attacked them. PW7 Aman Singh also stated that when they reached in front of the house of accused Mange Ram, after leaving the police station in the night, their Alto car was stopped and accused Ashok caused injuries to Kishan Singh with sword and all the injured persons suffered injuries in the said incident. PW9 Ravinder @ Bunty also stated that when they reached near the gate of Mange Ram in Alto car at around 10.15 p.m, all these accused persons were inside Tata Safari SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 33 of 62 and Zen car, and accused Ashok get down from the car having a naked sword, and injured Kishan Singh suffered injuries on his left arm, left leg from sword. PW10 Sunil Singh also stated that when they reached at around 10.15 p.m in front of the house of accused Ashok in their Alto car, their Alto car was stopped. Accused Ashok gave sword blow to Kishan. PW12 Suman Maan also stated that accused Ashok was having sword and gave blow on the left leg of his uncle Kishan Singh. As far as the injuries to the injured Kishan Singh/PW5 are concerned, all the witnesses consistently stated that the accused Ashok was carrying the sword and caused injuries to injured PW5 Kishan Singh. PW5 Kishan Singh also stated that besides Ashok, his 23 associates also caused injuries to him. This witness stated that all the injured persons were taken to the hospital by PCR van which is also duly corroborated by the rukka Ex. PW5/A. The injuries caused to PW5 Kishan Singh are duly corroborated with the MLCs Ex. PW13/A ( Mark A). This MLC show that this injured is examined at around 23.55 hours on the day of incident. It is also mentioned in the said MLC that he was hit by the sword at Kishan Garh by known people and laceration injuries below knee on leg 5X6 cms. As per MLC, the Xray of shoulder and left leg with knee was also advised and this injured was found fit for statement as per the endorsement on the said MLC at around 2.00 a.m. The discharge summary Mark B show soft tissue injury and rushed to emergency department because of swelling of effected limb, numbness, severe pain and discolouration of the limb. The Xray was conducted of shoulder as well as the leg. The Xray report Ex. PW 2/A show minimally displaced fracture of SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 34 of 62 spine of scapula, however, no other bone injury seen and the injuries on the MLC opined to be grievous with sharp weapon. Therefore, as far as testimony of PW5 Kishan Singh over the manner of infliction of injuries is broadly corroborated with the testimony of the other injured as well as the MLC, discharge summary and the Xray report.
36. PW6 Pushpa Devi stated that when they reached their house, their Alto car was stopped and accused Mange Ram caused injuries on her face with the piece of brick, as a result, her tooth got broken and accused Bimlesh also caused injuries on her forehead. PW5 Kishan Singh stated that in the said incident, the teeth of Pushpa was broken by the accused. PW9 Ravinder @ Bunty in his cross examination also stated that in the incident of night, the tooth of Pushpa was broken and she also suffered injuries on her head. PW12 Suman Maan also stated that one tooth of Pushpa was also broken. All other injured persons also stated that she was injured by the accused persons during the said incident, however, they could not tell the particular injuries inflicted on Pushpa. The MLC of injured Pushpa Ex. PW 13/B shows that she was examined in the hospital at around 12.00 a.m in the night, and incident of assault occurred at Kishan Garg at about 10.30 p.m, and she suffered injuries on her forehead and abrasion on left hand. The discharge summary is also suggestive of the minor head injury, however, there is nothing in the MLC or the discharge summary that the tooth of Pushpa was broken. Admittedly, no tooth of Pushpa was seized and as per the MLC she is found to have suffered simple minor head injuries, but merely on the basis of the fact that no tooth injury SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 35 of 62 was noticed in the MLC, testimony of Pushpa or other injured cannot be discarded over the assault on Pushpa during the incident.
37. PW9 Ravinder @ Bunty also stated that at around 10.15 p.m, when they reached near the house of Mange Ram in Alto car, it was stopped by accused Ashok who was driving Tata Safari car. All the assailants were in the said car. One Zen car was also stopped behind their Alto car. He also stated that Ashok got down from the car having sword, Mange Ram having stones, Puneet was carrying base ball bat, Harender and Suresh were carrying dandas. They all started beating them. He sustained injuries on his both hands and legs. Accused Bimlesh was throwing stones from the roof. All other injured persons also stated that the accused persons also caused injuries to Ravinder in the said incident. Injured Ravinder categorically stated that he had suffered injuries in both his hands and right leg. The MLC Ex. PW 13/D of injured Ravinder show that he was examined in the AIIMS Trauma Center at 12.05 a.m with the history of assault at Kishan Garh at about 10.30 p.m, and a call was given to Orthopaedics and noticed to have suffered injuries on his right leg. The discharge summary accompanied the MLC show the diagnosis of fracture MC 4th, 5th, fracture distal phalynx, fracture distal end ulna RT. The Xray report Ex PW 2/E showing the above said fracture injuries. The injuries are opined to be grievous and inflicted through the blunt object.
38. PW8 Raj Singh also stated that when they reached at around 10/10.15 p.m in front of the house of accused Mange Ram in the Alto car, it was stopped by Scorpio car and they were attacked by accused Ashok, Mange Ram, Suresh etc and he sustained injuries SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 36 of 62 on his head and left wrist. PW5 Kishan Singh stated that Raj Singh sustained injuries on his head. All other injured also stated that they all suffered injuries at the hands of the accused persons. The MLC Ex. PW 17/D of injured Raj Singh showing the history of assault and he was found fit for statement at around 2.00 a.m. He suffered laceration injuries with blunt object and Xray of left forearm, left shoulder, left hip and knee was advised. The discharge summary attached with the MLC also shows diagnosis of fracture D/E Lt. The X ray report Ex. PW 2/B also show the fracture injuries.
39. PW7 Aman Singh in his testimony stated that when they reached in front of the house of accused Mange Ram, accused persons stopped their Alto car, attacked them and also damaged their Alto car. Accused Harender caused injuries on his right hand with danda. Accused persons also caused injuries to other injured persons. All the injured persons suffered injuries in the said incident. As per the testimony of other injured, this injured also suffered injuries in the said incident. MLC of injured Aman Singh Ex. PW 17/A showing history of assault and found fit for statement at around 2.00 a.m. MLC show laceration injuries and Xray of both hand right knee with left leg was advised. Discharge summary show soft tissue injury and xray report Ex. PW 2/C do not suggest any bony injury. As per the MLC, the injured is found to have suffered simple injuries with blunt object.
40. PW10 Sunil Singh also stated that at around 10.30 p.m, when he alongwith his family members came back in Alto car, they were attacked by the accused persons and one assailant Ajay gave danda blow on his head. Other injured persons also stated that during the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 37 of 62 said assault, Sunil also suffered injuries. The MLC of injured Sunil Ex. PW 17/B show history of assault with CLW over the head, multiple bruises over left shoulder and back however opined to have suffered simple injuries. The factum that he suffered injuries is also supported with the testimony of other injured persons as well as the MLC.
41. PW12 Suman Maan also stated that when they reached near the house of accused from the police station in the Alto car, they were assaulted by the accused persons. Accused Suresh pulled her hair and gave her fist blows. Other injured persons also corroborated her statement by stating that she was also assaulted in the said incident. MLC of injured Suman Ex. PW 13/C show that she was examined at around 12.05 a.m with history of assault at Kishan Garh at around 10.30 p.m with bruises over left eye and multiple abrasions. The discharge summary show soft tissue injury. Xray report Ex. PW 2/D suggests no bone injury. As per the MLC, nature of injury was simple with blunt object.
42. The genesis of the above incident at night is found to be the incident which has taken place during the day time. PW5 Kishan Singh in his statement ( Ex. PW 5/A) before the police stated that at around 1.00 p.m, PW6 Pushpa when going to take her children from the school. Accused Ashok started abusing her and when she told not to do the said act, then the entire family beaten her, therefore they made the complaint in the police station. This witness in his statement before the police nowhere stated that the other members of his family were also beaten by the accused Ashok or his family members. However, as per his testimony before the court, other SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 38 of 62 members of his family were also beaten in the said incident but the testimony of this witness regarding this incident is not material because admittedly he was not present at the time of incident, but called later on.
43. For appreciating the incident of day time, it is better to appreciate the testimony of other injured persons. PW6 Pushpa stated that at around 12.30/1.00 p.m, when she was going to take the children, accused Mange Ram and Ashok were standing in the gali and started abusing her. Thereafter, her fatherinlaw Raj Singh, Ravinder, Suman, Sunil Maan, Aman Singh went to their house. Then, they started quarreling with them and she alongwith Suman sustained injuries. As per her testimony, she alongwith other family members went to the house of accused Mange Ram where they sustained injuries. PW7 Aman Singh, on the other hand, stated that Pushpa, Ravinder, Sunil went to the house of accused Mange Ram where they were beaten by Mange Ram, Ashok, Puneet, Suresh and Harender. PW8 Raj Singh also stated that during the day time incident, family of accused Mange Ram beaten him, Aman Singh, Kishan Singh, Ravinder, Pushpa, Sunil and Suman. His statement regarding the involvement of Kishan Singh is not at all credible as Kishan Singh was not present at the spot at that time. PW9 Ravinder also stated that during the day time, Pushpa was abused and molested, thereafter, accused persons had beaten them and he had sustained injury of tooth bite. PW10 Sunil Singh also stated that accused Ashok abused Pushpa and beaten her. PW12 Suman Maan stated that during day time incident, Pushpa was beaten by Mange Ram and Ashok and thereafter, when they protested, then Mange SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 39 of 62 Ram, Ashok, Puneet, Suresh and Harender had beaten Pushpa. The statement of all these injured regarding the day incident over the manner of giving beatings and which member were beaten appears to be inconsistent. All these witnesses stated that they were medically examined after the incident, however, no MLC exists on the record. None of the police official examined in this case also testified to this effect though it has come in the crossexamination of PW14 Ct. Kapil that some incident of quarrel had taken place in the day time. Therefore, prosecution witnesses could not explain the incident of day time clearly in their testimonies, however, their testimonies regarding the factum of quarrel in day time cannot be brushed aside because of these inconsistencies, particularly when the accused persons had also raised the defence that during the day time they were beaten by the injured party. Ld Defence Counsel submitted during arguments that no such incident of day time as alleged by the injured persons had taken place. However, this submission is contrary to the crossexamination of PW5 and PW9. It is specifically suggested to PW5 and that they were the aggressors and beaten Mange Ram and his family, though he denied this suggestion. PW9 also denied the suggestion that no such incident occurred in day time.
44. Furthermore, in this regard, the accused in their statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that the complainant party had beaten Suresh, Mange Ram and Puneet and PCR was called by them, and they were medically examined, and as a counter blast complainant party concocted a false case in collusion with the local police. A family dispute regarding the property is pending between the parties.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 40 of 62
45. To corroborate this fact, accused examined DW2 Kailash Kamal Hasan who stated that he was running a grocery store at the spot and this fact found support through the site plan, and during the day time quarrel took place between the accused and family of the brother Mange Ram. He also stated that the family members of the brother of Mange Ram came to the house of Mange Ram and started yelling after drinking, and on hearing the same Puneet, Mange Ram and Suresh Maan came out of their house, and stated that they were assaulted by the Mange Ram's brother family. He also stated that this assault took place between 12 p.m to 1.00 p.m. This incident was also reported to the police and DD no. 34B was recorded in this regard at about 12.30 p.m. The MLC of accused Puneet, Mange Ram and Suresh Kumar also shows alleged history of assault at around 12.30 p.m.
46. Therefore, as far as incident of quarrel in day time is concerned, the same is corroborated by the defence version, however, as per defence version, it is the accused persons who were beaten by the complainant party. But it is surprising that none of the injured during crossexamination were suggested that which of the injured has caused injuries to the accused Mange Ram, Puneet or Suresh. DW2 Kailash Kamal Hasan only stated that brother's family of Mange Ram caused injuries however not stated name of any assailants. Therefore, on over all appreciation of day time incident, it can be inferred that a quarrel had taken place between both the parties during day time. As both the parties appears to have quarreled with each other, therefore, taken to the police station during the evening hours where the matter was somehow consoled.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 41 of 62 This fact of conciliation is also corroborated not only through the statement of injured but also through the crossexamination of PW14 Ct. Kapil.
47. The chronology of events of the day of incident i.e. 09.03.2010 suggest that quarrel had taken place between both the parties during the day time, thereafter, the parties were medically examined, though, no medical examination reports of present injured were filed. Thereafter, both the parties were called at police station where the matter appears to have been conciliated. This conciliation though not in writing but from the testimony of injured, and the fact that no FIR was registered, it can be inferred that conciliation arrived at police station. Furthermore, it is also not the case of the defence that during the crossexamination of injured or their own defence evidence that the police deliberately not registered the FIR on the basis of their MLCs.
48. It is vehemently argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that no such incident of night time, as deposed by the injured persons, had taken place. This argument of Ld Defence Counsel do not appear to be at all tenable particularly in view of the deposition of the injured witnesses, their medical examination, the immediate intimation of the incident recorded vide DD no. 71B ( Ex. PW 3/C) and DD no. 72B ( Ex. PW 3/D) recorded at around 10.24 p.m and 10.26 p.m in the police station duly corroborated from the rukka Ex. PW 5/A and the statement of Ct. Radhey Shyam and Beat Ct. Kapil. Even otherwise, the testimony of DW2 Kailash Kamal also suggest that the incident had taken place in the night though he had not stated anything in the manner projected by prosecution, and only stated SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 42 of 62 that 23 police officials came at around 10.30/11.00 a.m but left the said place. From this averment of DW2, it can be inferred that some incident must have happened that is why the police officials came in the night, therefore the plea of defence that prosecution is not able to prove any such incident of night is not acceptable.
49. Ld Defence Counsel for the accused vehemently submitted that prosecution not able to prove whether the Alto car is involved in the incident and the testimony of the injured regarding the factum of use of Alto car appears suspect because in the Alto car seven persons of the built of injured persons cannot accommodate. Ld counsel submitted that this itself creates doubt over the manner of commission of incident. On appreciation of evidence on record, all the injured stated that they came back from the police station in the said Alto car, nothing material came in their crossexamination that they have not come back from the police station. Their testimonies over the injuries inflicted cannot merely be made unbelievable because they unable to explain the exact sitting arrangements in the car. The involvement of the Alto car is also corroborated through the testimony of Ct. Kapil and Ct. Radhey Shyam who reached the spot after the incident, and the said Alto car was also duly mechanically inspected by PW1 Taslimuddin Siddiqui who prepared the mechanical inspection showing damages in Alto car and this witness was not even crossexamined. PW18 K. C. Malik categorically stated that this car was in the name of his wife which was given on the occasion of marriage of his niece. Therefore, nothing material came on record that it was not in the possession of injured Raj Singh family. However, the damages in Alto car on the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 43 of 62 other hand reinforce the testimony of injured persons regarding the manner of injuries inflicted upon them.
50. Ld Defence Counsel also raised the plea that none of the injured persons could tell the make and number of the cars used by the accused persons. Ld Defence Counsel also submitted that the injured also could not tell exactly the colour and registration number of the Alto car. All the injured have categorically stated that they were in Alto car and the said fact is also corroborated through the mechanical inspection report, and other police officials who reached the spot later on. Mere inconsistency in explaining the number or colour by one of the witnesses, who do not uses it, do not creates doubt over the involvement of Alto car.
51. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that it was stated by PW5 Kishan Singh before the police that one Safari car came in front of Alto car and behind their Alto car, there was zen car, but the injured are inconsistent over the description whether it was safari or scorpio, and also all the witnesses have not stated about the involvement of both these cars. The testimonies of the injured categorically show that the accused persons came in the Tata Safari/scorpio car and got down from the said cars and beaten them. Mere factum that all the injured are unable to state that two cars were involved or the fact that the brothersinlaw Ajay and Rinku of accused Ashok or other assailants were also involved do not make the entire incident discreditable. These are all minor deficiencies and on the basis of these discrepancies, the testimonies of the injured over the manner of incident or the injuries inflicted as discussed above cannot be discredited. Testimony of PW5 and other injured also shows SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 44 of 62 involvement of other assailants in the present incident. However, from mere nonidentification or nonapprehension of the other assailants or no sufficient material for assailant Ajay and Rinku, the testimony of injured persons cannot be disregarded.
52. Ld Defence Counsel also raised the plea that the injured could not state the exact role of each accused in their testimonies. Furthermore there is inconsistency in the statement of injured regarding the role of each accused and the weapons used. In present case scenario, the number of assailants of the same family are involved. Admittedly, there is background dispute. It is understandable that commotion might have taken place and in these circumstances, it is very difficult to separate the role of each accused persons over the factum how they had inflicted the injuries, particularly when others persons are also found involved though not identified or brought before court for trial. These discrepancies or inconsistencies over the specific role of accused in the present facts and circumstances, when common object is clear, not a material discrepancy and cannot be construed as these accused are not involved in the commission of the offence or the incident in the manner stated has not taken place. All these discrepancies are natural omissions in noticing the incident.
53. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that from the evidence on record, it can be inferred that during the day time incident the accused party were the victims who were injured by the injured party, and the testimony of injured party regarding the day incident is not at all credible, therefore this, alongwith other anomalies in the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the investigation also creates SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 45 of 62 doubt over the night incident as deposed by the injured witnesses.
54. However, it is also settled law that the maxim 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' means false in one thing, false in every thing. In our country, most of the witnesses, for one party or the other, while giving out substantial truth introduce exaggerations or add embroidery to their statements. If courts were to act upon the above maxim, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to decide majority of cases correctly. In view of a number of pronouncements of the Apex court, now it is well settled, that this maxim, which is neither a sound rule or law nor a rule of practice, is not applicable as far as criminal jurisprudence of our country is concerned [See Jakki @ Selvaraj v. State, 2007 Cr.L.J 1671 (SC)]. The skill of appreciation of evidence itself demands for disengaging truth from the falsehood, therefore, wholesome rejection of the testimony of a witness because some or the other part of his statement has not been found to be true, may lead to injustice. Apex court in case titled "Gangadhar Behera & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381", held that this principle is not applicable in India and it is only a rule of caution. Even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. The conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from chaff.
55. Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case titled "Kumersingh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2007 Crl.J 1349" in paragraph 17 observed as under:
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 46 of 62 "The next facet of the argument of the learned counsel that the witnesses adopted the method of pick and choose and therefore, they should not be relied upon for the present appellants. On consideration, we do not find support to this contention by law. The principle of "falsus in uno falsus in omnibus" (false in one this false in everything) is not applicable in India. It is merely a rule of caution and not a mandatory rule of evidence. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Udgarsingh v. State of Bihar [2004 (X) SCC 443] and in he case of 'Gubbala Venugopala Swamy & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 2004 SC 2477):
(2004 Crl. L.J 2557) has held as under:
"That even if a major portion of evidence of a witness is found to be deficient, in case the residual is sufficient to prove the guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other coaccused persons, conviction can be maintained. The duty of the Court is to separate the grain from the chaff and appreciate in each case, as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance".
56. Apex Court in a recent judgment Menoka Malik v. State of Bengal Crl. Appeal No. 1198 of 2006 dated on 28.08.2018 (2018 SCC Online SC 1196) held as under:
It is a well settled position of law that the testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments or exaggerations. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means false in one thing, false in everything has been held to be inapplicable in the Indian scenario, where the tendency to exaggerate is common. This Court has endorsed the inapplicability of the doctrine in several decisions, such as Nisar Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 366, Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC 277, Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643, Narain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 2 SCC 455 and Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar, (2018) 6 SCC 433. In Krishna Mochi v. State of Bihar, (2002) 6 SCC 81, this Court highlighted the dangers of applying the doctrine in the Indian scenario:
"51. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liars. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) has not received general acceptance nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. It is merely a rule of caution. All that it amounts to is, that in such cases testimony may be disregarded, and not that it must be disregarded. The doctrine merely involves the question of weight of evidence SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 47 of 62 which a court may apply in a given set of circumstances, but it is not what may be called "a mandatory rule of evidence". (See Nisar Ali v. State of U.P. [AIR 1957 SC 366 : 1957 Cri LJ 550] )... The doctrine is a dangerous one, specially in India, for if a whole body of the testimony were to be rejected, because the witness was evidently speaking an untruth in some aspect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Witnesses just cannot help in giving embroidery to a story, however true in the main. Therefore, it has to be appraised in each case as to what extent the evidence is worthy of acceptance, and merely because in some respects the court considers the same to be insufficient for placing reliance on the testimony of a witness, it does not necessarily follow as a matter of law that it must be disregarded in all respects as well. The evidence has to be sifted with care. The aforesaid dictum is not a sound rule for the reason that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries or embellishment. (See Sohrab v. State of M.P. [(1972) 3 SCC 751 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 819] and and Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar [ AIR 196 5 SC 277: (1965) 1 Cri LJ 256]. An attempt has to be made to, as noted above, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood".
It is not uncommon for witnesses to make exaggerations during the course of evidence. But merely because there are certain exaggerations, improvements and embellishments, the entire prosecution story should not be doubted. In Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1974) 4 SCC 552, this Court observed:
"26.It is trite that even when exaggerations and embellishments are galore the courts can and indeed are expected to undertake a forensic exercise aimed at discovering the truth. The very fact that a large number of people were implicated in the incident in question who now stand acquitted by the High Court need not have deterred the High Court from appreciating the evidence on record and discarding what was not credible while accepting and relying upon what inspired confidence. That exercise was legitimate for otherwise the Court would be seen as abdicating and surrendering to distortions and/or embellishments whether made out of bitterness or any other reason including shoddy investigation by the agencies concerned. The ultimate quest for the court at all times remains "discovery of the truth"
and unless the court is so disappointed with the difficulty besetting that exercise in a given case, as to make it impossible for it to pursue that object, it must make an endeavour in that direction"
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 48 of 62 In case titled State of Punjab v. Hari Singh (1974) 4 SCC 552, observed as follows:
"16. As human testimony, resulting from widely different powers of observation and description, is necessarily faulty and even truthful witnesses not infrequently exaggerate or imagine or tell half truths, the Courts must try to extract and separate the hard core of truth from the whole evidence. This is what is meant by the proverbial saying that Courts must separate the chaff from the grain. If, after considering the whole mass of evidence, a residue of acceptable truth is established by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt the Courts are bound to give effect to the result flowing from it and not throw it overboard on purely hypothetical and conjectural grounds."
Thus, it cannot be doubted that it is the duty of the Court to separate the chaff from the grain. Moreover, minor variations in the evidence will not affect the root of the matter, inasmuch as such minor variations need not be given major importance, inasmuch as they would not materially alter the evidence/credibility of the eye witnesses as a whole.
57. In view of above mandate of law, the testimony of injured witnesses cannot be brushed aside over the incident of night time because their depositions about the day time appears inconsistent over the timings or the manner of commission of injuries over them by the accused side or the fact that their testimony is not substantiated through the MLCs or immediate intimation to the police station whereas the defence version over the day time incident is corroborated through their intimation to the police as well as their MLCs. This Court has to scrutinize the evidence of injured over the night incident scrupulously and their testimony cannot be disregarded because of certain exaggerations and embellishments. This Court is duty bound to separate the chaff from the grain. The Court is bound to consider residual truth which make prosecution credible irrespective of exaggerations, embroideries or even SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 49 of 62 improvements. The testimony of the injured over injuries caused in night by the accused persons appears credible and duly corroborated through the MLCs.
58. Furthermore, Apex Court in case titled Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2010 (10) SCC 259 held that special evidential status accorded to the testimony of injured witnesses, trivial contradictions or omissions are immaterial where the witness to the occurrence was himself injured, the testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone else. The deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. Injured witnesses of the present case had given the credible description of the incident and their testimony is duly corroborated with the medical record as already discussed. Therefore, the testimony of injured witnesses cannot be disregarded merely because of exaggerations, improvements or certain omissions, particularly when the core of allegations not found displaced.
59. Ld Defence Counsel stated that the testimony of injured cannot be believed because on the day of incident accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh were in Hotel Royal Inn, Manesar, and not at the spot during the day time incident or in the night incident. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that this plea was raised by the accused persons in their anticipatory bail application as well as this fact was also suggested to PW5 in his crossexamination. Ld counsel submitted SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 50 of 62 that in defence these accused persons examined DW1 Vikram Yadav the owner of the said hotel, DW3 Jai Karan who accompanied the accused with his wife to the said hotel, and remained with them for one day in the said hotel. Ld counsel submitted that the original register in this regard is also exhibited.
60. As discussed, the incident of quarrel took place in the day time as well as in the night. PW6 Pushpa, PW7 Aman Singh, PW8 Raj Singh, PW9 Ravinder, PW10 Sunil Singh, PW12 Suman Maan categorically stated about the involvement and presence of accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh during the day incident as well as in the night incident. Nothing even suggested to these witnesses that both accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh were not present at the time of day incident or night incident. The defence remained silent on this factum in crossexamination of these material witnesses. Though Ld Defence Counsel submitted that they raised this point in anticipatory bail application of the accused persons, however not exhibited anything on record that they have made any complaint to any authority regarding this plea of alibi or false implication. Mere suggestion to PW5 who himself not present in the day incident that Bimlesh and Ashok were not present is not sufficient.
61. DW1 Vikram Yadav who runs the said hotel stated that one Ashok Maan booked two rooms and checked in at around 2.45 p.m on 09.03.2010 and checked out on 10.03.2010 at 1.30 p.m, and he had come with three people. This witness also correctly identified accused Ashok Maan and his wife Bimlesh present in the court, and further exhibited the bill book. In crossexamination stated that he had no occasion to meet Ashok Maan and his wife prior to SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 51 of 62 09.03.2010, and normally they could not identify the guests if they do not make enough complaints etc. He further stated that he remember the faces of the accused after eight years because some arguments took place over the bills.
62. This witness do not know the accused persons prior to their entry and just identified them in the court after about eight years in his testimony before the court, and took the plea that some arguments took place over the bills however not stated what kind of arguments took place. In the later part of his examination stated that he charged Rs.1100/ per room instead of Rs.1400/ per room because they had taken two rooms. There is nothing in his testimony that he reduced the said amount because of the arguments. Accused also relied upon the statement of DW3 Jai Karan who stated that he accompanied Ashok Maan with his wife to Manesar to see the property however not stated what kind of property they had seen.
63. As per the hotel register, the check in time is 2.45 p.m but as per defence version and MLC of accused, the injured/complainant party has caused the injuries to the family of accused at around 12.30 p.m. It is very unlikely that in such case where the family members were beaten and their medical examination was also conducted, the accused and his wife would leave to Manesar without any urgent work. Accused Ashok Maan or Bimlesh in their statement u/s 313 CrPC no where stated about any kind of urgency. Though the accused has to raise only probable defence however every assertion has to be seen in the entire facts and circumstances.
64. The cumulative consideration of the fact that there is no immediate written complaint to the police of alibi or false implication, no SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 52 of 62 crossexamination of injured witnesses except a mere suggestion to PW5 over this fact of alibi coupled with the testimony of the defence witnesses creates doubt whether infact accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh Maan went to Manesar and not present at Delhi at the time of incident. Even otherwise the distance between Manesar and Kishan Garh, Delhi is around 50 kms which can be travelled within an hour, therefore, it could not also be ruled out that the accused persons might have left the spot after the incident or because of these police station issues came back in the evening particularly as main injured were not confronted over this circumstance in crossexamination. The plea of alibi as raised in the present facts and circumstances do not appear to be probable. From this plea, the prosecution case as emnates from the testimony of injured witnesses cannot be displaced over the factum that accused Ashok Maan and his wife Bimlesh Maan were not present at spot during the incident.
65. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the MLCs of the injured are all false and fabricated. Ld counsel submitted that PW2 Dr. Wasim who exhibited the Xray report was neither the examining doctor nor present at the time when the Xrays were prepared. Ld counsel submitted that PW17 Dr. Inderjit was also not the examining doctor nor present when the MLCs were prepared, and merely identified the signatures of Dr. Prashant. Furthermore PW13 Dr. Vikas Kaushal neither mentioned the identity marks of the victim nor identified them in the court. Further details of persons who brought the victim is blank and there is nothing on the human diagram showing at what places the injury was found.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 53 of 62
66. PW13 Dr. Vikas Kaushal categorically stated that he examined one Kishan Singh at about 11.55 p.m and noticed the injuries, advised the patient Xray of left shoulder and left knee and also prepared his MLC. He further stated that he also examined Pushpa Maan, prepared her MLC. He also examined Suman and prepared her MLC. He also stated that he examined Ravinder Maan and observed fracture injuries and prepared his MLCs. This witness was suggested in crossexamination that whether these injuries were old or self inflicted, in reply stated that he cannot recall this fact. However, from this averment, his examination in chief that he had examined them and noticed the number of injuries on the injured cannot be discredited particularly when the MLCs were corroborated through the discharge summary as well as the Xray reports. The rukka also suggest that the injured were found admitted in the trauma center vide their respective MLCs. This rukka was prepared by SI K P Singh IO however he could not be examined as he settled out of India after retirement, but his signatures were duly proved. Nothing material came in crossexamination of PW15 Ct. Radhey Shyam that the rukka in the said manner was not prepared by IO SI K P Singh.
67. PW2 Dr. Wasim Akhtar identified the signatures of Dr. Prashant Gupta on the basis of record and explained the Xray reports of the injured persons in detail. There is nothing in the crossexamination of these witnesses that no such Xray of these injured took place in AIIMS Trauma Center. Nothing is also suggested to the injured/witnesses that their Xrays were not conducted at AIIMS Trauma Center. PW17 Dr Inderjit exhibited the MLCs of Aman SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 54 of 62 Singh, Raj Singh and Sunil Maan which were prepared by Dr. Shashank. There is nothing suggested to him in the cross examination that he had wrongly identified the signatures of Dr. Shashank or the record of the hospital in this regard is false and fabricated. Therefore the plea of defence counsel that prosecution is unable to prove the MLCs or the said MLCs are false and fabricated is devoid of any merit, and prosecution able to prove the MLCs, X ray reports etc of the injured persons.
68. Ld Defence Counsel also submitted that the recovery and use of weapon i.e. sword, hockey, base ball bat, stones, bricks is not proved by the prosecution. Ld counsel submitted that PW5 Kishan Singh stated that the accused persons ran away from the spot with the respective weapons, however, PW14 Ct. Kapil submitted that he found one damaged Alto car, and stones and dandas were also inside the car, but in crossexamination stated that these articles were found outside the car, whereas PW15 Ct. Radhey Shyam stated that pieces of stones, bricks and dandas were lying in the car. Ld Defence Counsel also stated that PW5 Kishan Singh in his examination in chief not stated about hockey or bricks and none of the injured were made the witness to the seizure of the said weapons. Furthermore, PW5 Kishan Singh not stated about broken pieces of hockey, base ball bat etc. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that all these recoveries are planted.
69. As per seizure memo Ex. PW 7/B, from the spot near Alto car, bricks and stone pieces, base ball bat pieces, hockey pieces were recovered. However, there is nothing in the testimony of injured/witnesses that all these articles got broken while using them SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 55 of 62 to cause injuries. Furthermore, PW5 in his examination in chief categorically stated that all the accused persons ran away from the spot alongwith their respective weapons. Admittedly, no weapon of offence is found to be recovered at the instance of accused persons. Therefore, the prosecution case appears to be dented over the fact whether infact the seized articles were used by the accused persons or not but because of this deficiency the testimony of injured corroborated through the MLCs and other facts and circumstances as already discussed cannot be discredited.
70. Ld Defence Counsel also raised that the accused persons stated that accused Ashok Maan used sword in the said incident however no injury from sword is found in the MLC of injured Kishan Singh. Injured Kishan was examined by PW13 Dr. Vikas Kaushal who opined that the injured suffered grievous injuries from sharp weapon. There is nothing in the crossexamination of this witness that the laceration injuries as inflicted over the injured Kishan Singh could not be through sharp weapon, therefore, merely on the basis of the fact that sword is not seized, it cannot be held that no sharp weapon is used in the said incident.
71. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the prosecution not able to prove the motive of the crime. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the main motive of the crime as per the testimony of PW5 is the property dispute, and the accused threatened them to withdraw the said case, however PW5 and PW6 in their crossexamination stated that partition matter has already been decided by Court. Ld counsel submitted that therefore, there is no question of threatening for withdrawing the matter from the Hon'ble High Court.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 56 of 62
72. It has come in the testimony of PW5 and other witnesses that there was bad blood between both the parties over the property dispute and therefore the quarrel used to take place between them. Accused in their statement u/s 313 CrPC also admitted that there is a land dispute going on between the parties. As discussed, the incident of quarrel had already taken place between the parties during the day time which appears to have been conciliated in the police station, and when the parties reached back to their homes, the present incident took place. The defence itself had exhibited the MLCs of accused Puneet, Mange Ram, Suresh Kumar over the assault in day time, however, all the injuries are simple. This itself suggest that the accused are not satisfied with the conciliation move at the police station, and thereby it can be inferred that to teach a lesson inflicted the injuries over the injured persons. The sequence of events suggest that the present incident took place as an outburst of the incident which happened during the day time and existing enmity over property dispute. Therefore, prosecution able to prove the motive of crime.
73. Ld Defence Counsel also submitted that no public persons were examined. PW6 Pushpa and other witnesses stated that her tooth was broken. However, no tooth was found to be seized neither any broken tooth injury is mentioned in the MLC of PW Pushpa. Furthermore Ravinder also stated that during day time incident, he received tooth bite injury but that injury is not mentioned in his MLC. Ld counsel submitted that all these discrepancies creates doubt on the manner of incident. It is a settled law that the public witnesses are not readily available to become the witness. The SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 57 of 62 incident is found to have taken place near the respective houses of the accused and the accused and the injured both are related to each other. The incident is reported immediately to the police and thereafter the injured persons were taken to the hospital where their medical examination was conducted. Therefore, from mere non joining of public witnesses, it cannot be inferred that no such incident had happened. Furthermore, mere nonseizure of the tooth or non mentioning of the tooth injury in the MLC of injured Pushpa on cumulative appreciation of the evidence is not of such a nature from which any doubt could be created over the manner of incident as already discussed.
74. Ld Defence Counsel submitted that the prosecution could not explain the delay in seizing of the clothes. Clothes were not seized at the spot and also not by the doctor who conducted MLC and alleged to be seized on next day, to give sufficient time to the injured persons to manipulate the evidence. Ld counsel submitted that injured Pushpa and Suman stated to have their clothes torn. Ld counsel further submitted that prosecution has not examined any PCR official and all the injured persons could not be taken to hospital from the spot in one PCR van. Therefore, it is doubtful that whether all the injured persons were taken to hospital from the spot in one PCR or not.
75. The testimony of the injured regarding handing over of the clothes appears inconsistent. IO also not seized the clothes immediately at the hospital itself. Furthermore, IO has not recorded the statement of PCR officials who brought the injured to the hospital. However, Apex court in "C. Muniappan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu,2010 (10) SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 58 of 62 SCC 567", observed that defective investigation by itself cannot be ground for acquittal. If the primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations then the faith and confidence of people in criminal justice administration would be eroded. There is legal obligation on the part of court to examine prosecution evidence dehors such lapses. The investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in the criminal trial. The conclusion of trial in a case cannot be allowed to be dependent solely on probity of investigation. The testimony of the injured persons alongwith the background facts and their medical examination as already discussed found credible over the factum of core incident of assault and the injuries suffered in the said incident. Therefore, on the basis of these omissions or negligence on the part of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.
76. Though the alibi regarding the presence of accused Ashok Maan and Bimlesh at Manesar not found credible, however as far as the role of accused Bimlesh is concerned, PW5 Kishan Singh do not mention her name in his examination in chief. PW12 Suman Maan could not tell the involvement of accused Bimlesh herself however after putting a leading question, she introduced her name. This accused is found to have reached the spot with other accused persons, however stated to have caused the brick injury from the roof top. It is nowhere came in the testimony of any of the witnesses as to how this lady reached the roof top. Therefore, on overall appreciation of evidence, her involvement in the said incident which is basically between the family members in the manner relied by the prosecution appears suspect. However, the SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 59 of 62 prosecution case over the involvement of other accused persons i.e. Puneet Maan, Harender, Mange Ram, Ashok Maan, Suresh Kumar @ Sussu in causing injuries to the injured is credible. But prosecution not able to prove the involvement of accused Bimlesh as member of unlawful assembly beyond doubt, therefore, no offence is proved against accused Bimlesh.
77. The accused persons were charged for commission of offence u/s 307 IPC. For attracting the offence u/s 307 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the clear intention to kill. The background facts as discussed is that a quarrel took place in the day time and thereafter, some conciliation took place at the police station, and subsequently when both the parties reached near their houses in the night, the incident took place. Though it is stated that one sword was used by accused Ashok Maan, however, no incised would was found on the body of PW Kishan Singh. The wound is found to be lacerated though from sharp object but on the leg. The fracture injuries were not on any vital part of the body. All other injuries are found to be simple in nature. Injured Pushpa Maan only found to have suffered minor head injury. The weapon of offences as stated to be used do not fall in the category of dangerous weapon. The sword could fall in the category of dangerous person however as no incised wound is noticed on the body of the injured Kishan Singh, and furthermore the sword was also not found to have been recovered, therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, it can be inferred that no dangerous weapons were used. Injured Kishan Singh, Raj Singh and Ravinder found to have suffered grievous injuries and other injured received simple injuries from blunt object but clear SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 60 of 62 intention to cause murder is missing in the testimony of injured persons. From overall facts and circumstances, it cannot be inferred that the injured were attacked with the intention to commit murder, therefore, no offence u/s 307 IPC is made out however from overall appreciation of evidence as discussed above, offence u/s 325 IPC is made out against all the accused persons.
78. Now the next pertinent question is that whether all the accused persons shared the common object to cause injuries to the injured persons. For commission of offence u/s 149 IPC, the only thing required is that the assembly was unlawful and was likely to commit any act which fall within the purview of Section 141 IPC. The word 'object' means the purpose or design and in order to make it common, it must be shared by all. A common object may be found by express agreement after mutual consultation or at once. Section 141 IPC defines unlawful assembly. The requirement of the unlawful assembly is that it should be an assembly of five or more with common object as per third clause, is to commit mischief or criminal trespass or any other offence. Common object may form on the spur of moment. Prior concert in the sense of meeting of unlawful assembly, members are not necessary. To make out an offence u/s 146 IPC 'rioting', the use of force or violence is necessary. In the present case, there is evidence of express use of force and violence against the present accused persons. Therefore, on overall appreciation of the evidence, offence u/s 147/149 and 325/149 are found to be made out against the accused persons.
79. The accused persons were also charged for offence u/s 427 and 506 IPC. The accused were not found to be beaten with intention to kill.
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 61 of 62 The necessary ingredients of intention to kill found wanting. Mere threatenings of the nature as come in the testimonies of the witnesses do not suggest that the accused were alarmed because of these threatenings. Therefore, on overall facts and circumstances, no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out. However the Alto car as already discussed is found to be damaged during the said incident by the accused persons. Therefore, offence u/s 427/149 IPC is also made out against the accused persons.
80. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused Puneet Maan, Harender Maan, Mange Ram, Ashok Maan and Suresh Kumar @ Sussu are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 147/149 IPC, 325/149 IPC and 427/149 IPC and are convicted thereunder.
81. However, prosecution not able to prove its case against the accused Bimlesh Maan beyond reasonable doubt, hence, she is acquitted of the offences charged with. Her bail bond and surety bond be cancelled. She is however directed to furnish bail bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount in compliance of Section 437A CrPC.
82. Let accused Puneet Maan, Harender Maan, Mange Ram, Ashok Maan and Suresh Kumar @ Sussu be heard on point of sentence.
Announced in the open Court (AJAY KUMAR JAIN)
On 06th day of April, 2019 Additional Sessions Judge02,
South District, Saket Courts,
New Delhi
SC No.7494/16, State Vs. Puneet Maan etc., FIR No.83/2010, PS Vasant Kunj(N) 06.04.2019 Page No. 62 of 62