Delhi District Court
State vs . Vikas Dass on 26 November, 2021
-: 1 :-
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA:
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SOUTH - EAST, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC NO. 174/2018
FIR NO. 50/2018
PS KOTLA MUBARAKPUR
STATE VS. VIKAS DASS
State
Versus
Vikas Dass S/o Sh. Sukhdev Dass
R/o: Jhuggi No. 51, Ganda Nala,
East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi
First date before this Court: 20.04.2018
Judgment pronounced: 16.11.2021
JUDGMENT
1. Charge sheet under Section 308 IPC was filed against accused Vikas Dass.
2. The facts in brief are that on 11.02.2018 at about 08:30 pm, while the complainant Shankar Dass was standing near his house, the accused who resides in the neighbourhood, came and an argument took place on the issue of money lending. In the meanwhile, mother of accused Vikas Dass came and took him to their house. After sometime, accused came back and again started fighting and he attacked the injured on his back with the glass bottle. He suffered injuries which started bleeding. His brother Saajan Dass took him to the hospital for SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 1 of 22 -: 2 :- treatment. On the complaint of Shankar Dass, FIR under Section 308 IPC was registered.
3. During the investigations, IO SI Ravi Yadav prepared the site plan. He also collected the MLC. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused was arrested from his house. The injuries on the MLC were certified as grievous sharp . On completion of investigation, charge sheet under Sections 324/308 IPC was filed in the court on 12.04.2018.
4. Learned MM vide order dated 13.04.2018 took cognizance of the offence under Section 308 IPC and committed the case to the Ld. Court of Sessions.
5. Charge under Sections 308/326 IPC was framed against the accused on 15.10.2018 to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses. Complainant/Shankar Dass appeared as PW-1 and proved his complaint as Ex. PW1/1. Site plan prepared at his instance is Ex. PW1/2 and arrest memo of the accused is Ex. PW1/3.
7. PW-2 Sh. Sajan Dass is the brother of the accused who had taken the injured to the hospital for his treatment.
8. PW-3 HC Munshi Lal recorded the DD No. 41A, Ex. PW3/1 vide which the information about a fight was received in the Police Station. The information was thereafter, forwarded by him to SI Ravi Yadav. He again received the information from hospital which was recorded SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 2 of 22 -: 3 :- vide DD No.45A, Ex.PW3/2. The rukka was sent by SI Ravi Yadav on which he registered FIR No. 50/2018, Ex.PW3/3.
9. PW-5 Sh. Tara Chand was a Paramedic in Ambulance and had taken the injured in the Ambulance to AIIMS Trauma Centre.
10.PW-9 SI Ravi Yadav had conducted the initial investigations along with PW4 HC Ram Chander. He had got the FIR recorded and collected MLC of the injured. Thereafter, the investigations were handed over to PW-7 ASI Ved Pal.
11.PW-7 SI Ved Pal was handed over the FIR for investigation. He along with PW-6 Ct. Amit visited the scene of incident where he met the injured Shankar Dass and his brother Sajan Dass. He inspected the scene of incident and prepared site plan. He made the search for the accused who was found near Jhuggi and Ganda Nala in the area of East Kidwai Nagar and was arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/3. His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW6/1. He recorded the disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW6/2. The opinion on the MLC was obtained which is Mark PW7/A.
12.PW-10 Dr. Pankaj Meena had proved the MLC of the injured which is Ex. PW-10/B that was prepared by Dr. Rajender Singh.
13.PW-8 Dr. Avin Goel had given his opinion Ex. PW-8/A about the nature of injuries as grievous .
SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 3 of 22 -: 4 :-
14.Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C. in which the accused pleaded his innocence.
15.Accused in his defence has examined DW-1 Ms. Sadhna, his mother and DW-2 Ms. Laxmi Dass who have deposed that it was the injured who was under the influence of liquor and had pelted the stones on the accused.
16.Detailed testimony of the witnesses shall be considered subsequently.
17.Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. The consistent testimony of the complainant supported by medical record proved that injuries were caused with the glass bottle with an intent to kill the complainant and the offence under Section 308 IPC is clearly proved.
18.Learned Counsel on behalf of the accused has submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that no pieces of glass bottle were collected from the spot and there is nothing on record to show that the injuries were inflicted by the accused. Rather, he was a victim who had beaten up by the complainant. It is argued that statements of the witnesses are contrary and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
19.I have heard the arguments and perused the entire record and the evidence led therein. My observations are as under:
SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 4 of 22 -: 5 :-
20.The entire case of the prosecution rests on the testimony of injured Shankar Dass, who appeared as PW-1. He has deposed that on 11.02.2018 at about 07.00 pm to 08.00 pm he was standing near his house by the side of drain. Accused Vikas Dass came there under the influence of liquor and demanded money from him to buy liquor, but he refused. Accused Vikas Dass started exchanging hot talks with him but in the meanwhile his mother came and took the accused away. After sometime, accused again came back and assaulted him on his head, forehead and back with a broken bottle. On hearing his screams, his brother Sajan Dass reached and called the PCR and the Ambulance, which took him to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi, where he was treated and police recorded his statement Ex. PW-1/1. He was referred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi and on the next day he was discharged. On the next morning, police came to his house and took him to the scene of incident and the Site Plan Ex. PW-1/2 was prepared at his instance. The testimony of the complainant is consistent to his statement given to the police Ex. PW-1/1.
21.The testimony of PW-1 Shankar Dass is fully corroborated by his brother PW-2 Sajan Dass, who has deposed that on hearing the screams of his brother PW-1 Shankar Dass he came out and saw that his brother was bleeding from head and back and the accused was holding a broken bottle in SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 5 of 22 -: 6 :- his hand. He called the PCR, which came and took his brother to the hospital.
22.Both the witnesses i.e. PW-1 Shankar Dass and PW-2 Sajan Dass were cross-examined but no contradiction, whatsoever could be brought forth in their testimony.
23.Moreover, PW-5 Tara Chand was driver of the ambulance, who accompanied the injured/ complainant from the scene of the incident to the hospital. He also deposed that while accompanying the injured to the hospital in the Ambulance, he noticed that the injured had multiple injuries.
24.The accused Vikas Dass in his defence has examined his mother DW-1 Ms. Sadhna who has deposed that the complainant Shankar Dass after consuming liquor used filthy languages against her and threw stones on the gate of her house to which she objected and told him not to abuse and disturb her and to go back and sleep. Thereafter, she told her son/accused not to go outside.
25.DW-2 Ms. Laxmi Dass has also deposed that she was present in the gali at the time of the incident. The complainant Shankar Dass was under the influence of liquor, he was abusing and was pelting stones. She further stated that there was a crowd, police came and took the accused Vikas Dass with them.
26.The testimony of both the defence witnesses also corroborate about happening of the incident. A quarrel did take place between the complainant and the accused. The SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 6 of 22 -: 7 :- version given by the complainant is supported by the defence witnesses which is by way of DD Entry No. 41-A Ex. PW-3/1 vide which an information was received in the Police Station that one boy had been stabbed with the knife and a bottle. DD Entry No. 45-A Ex. PW-3/2 was also recorded vide which an information was received from AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi about injured having been admitted in the hospital.
27.DW-1 Ms. Sadhna and DW-2 Ms. Laxmi Dass, both have deposed that the complainant was under the influence of alcohol. The MLC Ex PW-10/B of the injured also mentions that the breath alcohol was suspected. However, the blood alcohol level has not been given and even if it is held that the complainant had consumed liquor it does not lead to any inference of his being an aggressor.
28.PW-9 SI Ravi Yadav was assigned the DD Entry No. 40-A Ex. PW-3/1 for investigation. He along with PW-4 Ct. Ram Chander went to the scene of incident where they came to know that the injured had been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. They went to the hospital, recorded the statement of the injured Ex. PW-1/1 and got the FIR Ex. PW-3/3 registered in the Police Station. The DD Entries that were recorded at the time of the incident fully corroborate the testimony of the complainant.
29.In order to prove the guilt for the offence under Section 308 IPC, it has to be shown that the injury was caused with SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 7 of 22 -: 8 :- the intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act it would cause death of a person. From the testimony of PW-1 Shanker Das, what emerges is that the accused was in inebriated condition and was desperate for money to buy alcohol. For this purpose, accused had asked the complainant and sought money from him. The mother of the accused came and took the accused away in the first instance, but he returned back with the glass bottle and caused injuries to the complainant. It is quite evident that accused did not have any intention to cause death but to inflict injuries upon the complainant as the complainant had refused to oblige him with money. The intention or knowledge to cause death of the complainant is not established from the facts as proved by the Prosecution to bring home the offence under Section 308 IPC. INJURIES & THEIR NATURE:
30.Now what needs to be ascertained are the injuries caused to the complainant and their nature. The MLC Ex. PW-
10/B states that three injuries were suffered by him; first is laceration on his right forehead region, second is the abrasion over anterior chest, right side scapular region and left side axilla and the third is incised wound over back lumbar region. The injuries suffered by the complainant are in consonance with the injuries described by the complainant. The nature of injury was defined as grievous.
SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 8 of 22 -: 9 :-
31.However, it needs to be examined whether the nature of injury as described in the MLC and X-Ray Report comes in the definition of grievous. Section 320 IPC defines grievous hurt and reads as under:
"320. Grievous hurt.-- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
First-- Emasculation.
Secondly--Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly-- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly--Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly-- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly-- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly--Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly--Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Clause Eighthly of Section 320 IPC which envisages that any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 9 of 22 -: 10 :- unable to follow his ordinary pursuits, is a grievous hurt.
32.From the medical record as discussed above it is quite evident that the injuries suffered by the injured do not fall in clauses from First to Seven but may get covered under clause Eight. Indian penal code has nowhere defined the injuries which endanger human life. The term "endangers life" is more serious than the expression "dangerous to life". This term is designedly used to exclude cases of hurt, which, however dangerous to life, do not put life in a given case, in danger. The question is one of degree of gravity and must be ascertained in each case to what extent the hurt bears proximate relation to the risk of life.
33.There is an exceptionally thin line of distinction between 'hurt which endangers life' and 'injury as is probably going to cause death'. In Mohammad Rafi vs. Emperor , the accused caused damage on the neck of the perished from behind, the Lahore High Court held the accused at risk for under Section 322 IPC (intentionally causing grievous hurt) for causing demise by grievous hurt as against guilty of culpable homicide not adding up to the murder. The articulation 'endangers life' is a lot more grounded than the articulation 'risky or dangerous to life'.
34.The concept of an injury dangerous to life cannot in the very nature of things be very precise. While there may be cases which can be easily placed either in the category of injury dangerous to life or in the other category, there may SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 10 of 22 -: 11 :- be marginal and border line cases where it may be very difficult to categorise the injuries as dangerous to life or not and in such cases the medical experts may also differ. Since the concept of injury dangerous to life being not very precise, it is necessary that the medical witness should not remain content with making a bald statement that the injury in a particular case is dangerous to human life. He should explain all relevant data namely, whether the injury caused hemorrhage or shock or implicated important structures or organs or was very extensive or otherwise caused imminent danger and should also state the various grounds on which he considers the injury to be a dangerous one. The medico-legal expert should clearly mention in his report that the injuries are life threatening. Where the medico-legal expert in his report records that the general condition of the patient is very bad but the medical certificate omits that the Injuries are in fact dangerous to life, it fails to provide the proper guidance to the Court.
35.The medico-legal examination of the injured is intended to enable the Investigating Agency and the Court to find out the nature of the offence and, therefore, the doctor examining an injured person has to opine that the injury in question is one or the other of the type recognized in the Indian Penal Code for the purposes of a given offence. When a doctor describes an injury as "dangerous to life", SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 11 of 22 -: 12 :- one has to see what had the doctor intended to convey thereby.
36.Modi in his book on medical jurisprudence 61Rai Bahadur Jaising P. Modi, A Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology (Butterworth- Heinemann, 6 th Edn. 2013 states "danger to life should be imminent before the injuries are designated 'dangerous to life', such injuries are extensive, and implicate important structures to organs, so that they may prove fatal in the absence of surgical aid. For instance, a compound fracture of the skull, a wound of a 'large artery' or rupture of some internal organ, such as the spleen, should be considered dangerous to life". But the injuries which prove fatal remotely by inter current diseases, such as tetanus, erysipelas, etc. should not be considered as dangerous. Dangerous injuries are those injuries which require surgical intervention. If no surgical aid is available it is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Whether it is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter to be inferred from the proved facts about the nature of the injury as explained in Virsa Singh vs. The State of Punjab AIR 1958 S.C 465. If an injury is inflicted on a vital part of the body but no vital organ of the body is injured then it cannot be considered to be grievous hurt under Clause-VIII. The fact cannot be legally decided per se. In fact this is a matter of medical determination whether an injury endangers life or not and SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 12 of 22 -: 13 :- would depend upon attending circumstances. Any injury whether it endangers life will normally depend on the weapon used to cause the injury or the part of human body where the injury has been caused or the manner of causing injuries.
37.Reddy K.S Narayan and Murty O.P The Essentials of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology 294 (Jaypee Brothers, New Delhi 2014) have stated that dangerous injury is a variety of grievous injury. Dangerous injuries are those which cause imminent danger to life, either by involvement of important organs and structures, or extensive area of the body. If no surgical aid is available, such injuries may prove fatal.
38.Dasari Harish and Chavali have stated in their study that it is true that injuries inflicted on vital parts of the body, such as the head, chest, or the abdomen, tend to endanger life, and are therefore dangerous, but they will not fall under this clause unless they are of such serious nature as to make the victim waver between life and death."
39.In Ramla vs. State 1963 Cri. L. J 387(Raj) the High Court of Rajasthan observed "It may be pointed out that the perusal of the very definition given above shows that an injury may be called grievous only if it "endangers life"...... a simple injury cannot be called grievous simply because it happens to be caused on a vital part of the body, unless the nature and dimensions of the injury or its effect SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 13 of 22 -: 14 :- are such that in the opinion of the doctor it actually endangers the life of the victim."
40.Thus, the litmus test to determine whether an injury is grievous hurt is whether in any way the injuries threaten the life. Thus, injuries caused to vital part are not grievous if they are not life threatening, though injuries on vital parts are usually life threatening but it is not a thumb rule that injuries on vital parts are life threatening.
41.The Court is not absolved of the responsibility while deciding a criminal case to form its own conclusion regarding the nature of the injury, Expert's opinion notwithstanding. The Court has to see the nature and dimension of the injury, its location and the damage that it has caused. Even when an injury is described as to be one which endangers the life the court has to apply its own mind and form its own opinion in regard to the nature of injury, having regard to the factors that should weigh with the Court, already mentioned. An injury caused on vital part of the body cannot be called grievous hurt unless the nature and dimensions of the injury or its effects are such that the doctor is of the opinion that it actually endangers the life of the victim. If the life of the person is not endangered, it is not a case of grievous hurt. Indian penal code has nowhere defined the injuries which endanger human life. The term "endangers life" is more serious than the expression "dangerous to life". The Supreme Court of India in Niranjan Singh vs. State Of Madhya Pradesh SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 14 of 22 -: 15 :- Appeal (Crl.) 487 of 2001 decided on 14 th June, 2007 observed that any injury can be said to grievous if the injury is sufficient in itself to endanger life. Any injury in order to endanger life should be imminent.
42.In Neelam Bahal vs. State of Uttarakhand, Criminal Appeal 1012 of 2009 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the report lacked the valuable guidance to the court by stating if the injury endangered life. Even though injuries were caused on vital parts since there was explanation of injuries explaining that injuries were life endangering, it was held that no conclusion of injuries being dangerous to life could be presumed.
43.In Atma Singh vs. The State Of Punjab 1980 Cri L J 1226 it was observed that the expression 'dangerous' is an adjective and the expression 'endanger' is verb. An injury which can put life in immediate danger of death would be an injury which can be termed as 'dangerous to life' and, therefore, when a doctor describes an injury as 'dangerous to life', he means an injury which endangers life in terms of clause (8) of Section 320 Indian Penal Code, for, it describes the injury 'dangerous to life' only for the purpose of the said clause. He instead of using the expression that this was an injury which 'endangered life' described it that the injury was 'dangerous to life', meaning both the times the same thing.
44.In Jagdish Chand vs. State of HP 1992 Cri. L J 3076 (HP) it was held that "Where injury was caused on the SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 15 of 22 -: 16 :- abdomen with a sharp edged weapon and the doctor had stated that the weapon had penetrated the abdominal cavity but had not involved any vital organs/ important structures, but had just touched the stomach, it was held that the accused had caused only simple hurt."
45.In Ganga Ram vs. State 1968 Cri L J 134 (Rajasthan) the doctor should place all relevant informations, viz. "the nature, extent of injury, the kind of weapon used, the part of body struck, whether the injury caused hemorrhage or shock, affected important structures or organs or that the injury was very extensive otherwise caused imminent danger and should also state the various grounds on which he considers the injury to be dangerous one."
46.With a perspective on the reality of the damage bringing about the weakening of the person in question for a base time of twenty days, Indian Penal Code in its Clause-8 of Section 320 IPC has assigned certain hurts as grievous however they probably won't be fundamentally risky or dangerous to life. The injury can also be grievous if it is of such a nature that the victim is compelled to suffer severe bodily pain or is unable to follow normal pursuits for at least 20 days. A hurt may cause extreme substantial and severe bodily pain, but not be dangerous to life. It must be indicated that such hurt was adequate to cause serious bodily pain for twenty days. Else, it might happen that such agony or pain was caused yet there might be nothing to show that it was caused in outcomes of that damage. In SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 16 of 22 -: 17 :- conclusion, the trial of terribleness is the sufferer's failure to take care of his standard interests for a time of twenty days. On the off chance that, where the impact of damage doesn't last for twenty days, such a hurt can't be assigned as grievous.
47.However, "mere remaining in the hospital for 20 days or more cannot be itself equated with the patient remaining unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for twenty days". Whether the victim suffered severe bodily pain cannot be objectively determined with accuracy? So it is probable that injury is erroneously reported as simple or grievous hurt. Here it is relevant to point out that the phrase "ordinary pursuit" is very vague and can have different interpretations. It can mean every day routine of the victim like eating, bathing using toilets on his own without taking assistance from others. It can also be interpreted to mean that the victim could not pursue his profession or avocation which he could follow before the injury. However, it has been established that ordinary pursuits pertain to daily acts like eating, bathing or using toilets etc.
48.It has been ruled in Queen Empress vs. Vasta Chela ILR (1895) 19 Bom 247 that an injured man may be quite capable of following his ordinary pursuits long before 20 days are over and yet for the sake of permanent recovery or greater case or comfort, be willing to remain as a convalescent in a hospital, especially if he is fed at the public expense. Similar view has been expressed in Khair SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 17 of 22 -: 18 :- Din vs. Emperor AIR 1931 Lah 280; Mathu Paily vs. State of Kerala 1962 Cri L J 652 (Kerela High Court) and State (Delhi Administration) vs. Mewa Singh (1969) 71 PLR 290 . Thus, mere remaining in a hospital as a patient for 20 days or more cannot by itself be equated with the patient remaining unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
49.In Shyamrao Vishnu Patil vs. State Of Maharashtra & Another 1998 (5) Bom CR 757 in a case under Section 307 IPC, Injury No. 1 caused to the victim was an incised wound over parietal region 3" x 1" bone deep which was certified as grievous in nature. The Hon'ble High Court refused to accept it as grievous because the doctor had also not stated that the incised injury sustained by the victim was dangerous to life or was such that the victim during the space of 20 days was in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his pursuits.
50. Reddy K.S Narayan and Murty O.P (Supra) have observed that whether the victim suffered severe bodily pain cannot be objectively determined with accuracy. The phrase "ordinary pursuit" is very vague and can have different interpretations. It can mean every day routine of the victim like eating, bathing using toilets on his own without taking assistance from others. It can also be interpreted to mean that the victim could not pursue his profession or avocation which he could follow before the injury. However, it has been established that ordinary SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 18 of 22 -: 19 :- pursuits pertain to daily acts like eating, bathing or using toilets etc.
51.In terms of Section 320 IPC it can be logically concluded that if the victim can follow his ordinary pursuits but unable to carry out his profession or avocation, for the reason of injury, it will not amount to grievous hurt. 52.46 The Supreme Court in the case of Mathai vs. State of Kerala (2005) 3 SCC 260 has observed that some hurts which are not like those hurts which are mentioned in the first seven clauses, are obviously distinguished from a slight hurt, may nevertheless be more serious. Thus, a wound may cause intense pain, prolonged disease or lasting injury to the victim, although it does not fall within any of the first seven clauses. Before a conviction for the sentence of grievous hurt can be passed, one of the injuries defined in Section 320 IPC must be strictly proved, and the eighth clause is no exception to the general rule of law that a penal statute must be construed strictly.
53.In any case, there must be proof that what the accused had planned or known to be likely wasn't only hurt, yet grievous hurt. So as to attract this provision, Court needs to see that the accused expected to cause hurt, or that he realized that grievous hurt is probably going to be caused and that such grievous hurt is really caused. Regardless of whether the individual knows himself prone to cause grievous hurt, he is said to be intentionally causing terrible hurt. All together that an individual might be held liable for SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 19 of 22 -: 20 :- an offence of causing grievous hurt, it must be demonstrated that he either expected to cause or realized that himself will generally be liable to cause grievous hurt and not otherwise. The prerequisite in the clarification will be fulfilled if the guilty party had the information that by his demonstration he was probably going to cause grievous hurt. Clarification clarifies that either the element of aim or on the other hand that of information must be available so as to establish the offence of grievous hurt. So as to decide if the hurt is intolerable one, the degree of the hurt and the expectation of the guilty party must be considered.
54.In the light of above discussion facts of present case need to be considered to ascertain the nature of injuries.
55.PW-8 Dr. Avin Goel, Senior Resident had examined the CT Head + Cervical, Chest & Abdomen Report dated 11.02.2018 Ex. PW-8/A of patient Shankar and opined that "right frontal lobe shows a small hyper-dense with subtle surrounding edema at GM junction-likely small intra-parenchuymal hematoma. Right posterior abdominal wall shows small laceration with ill-defined subcutaneous hematoma at L4 level."
56.PW-10 Dr. Pankaj Meena, Senior Resident had examined X-Ray Plate of injured Shankar and proved the X-Ray Report as Ex. PW-10/A. He had also seen the MLC that was prepared by Dr. Rajender Singh and had proved the same as Ex. PW-10/B. It was deposed by him that SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 20 of 22 -: 21 :- Dr. Rajender Singh had opined the nature of injury as grievous caused by sharp object (glass bottle).
57.The MLC Ex PW 10/B describes the injuries as under:
1. Laceration 3X1 cm over right side forehead region, 2X1 cm over left side parietal region.
2. Abrasion over anterior chest, right side scapular region and left side axilla.
3. Incised wound 8X2 cm over back lumbar region.
58.None of these injuries have been certified by the doctor to be dangerous, as discussed above. The only fact which has proved is that the injuries which are in the nature of laceration, abrasion and incised wound have been caused by a sharp weapon, which has been proved to be glass bottle. In order to qualify as grievous injury, it has to fit in any of the classes of Section 321 IPC. None of these injuries fall in that category and also there is no evidence whatsoever on record to show that these injuries can endanger the life.
59.The Medical History Mark PW-7/B also shows that he was admitted in the AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi on 11.02.2018 at about 21.26 hours and was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 12.02.2018 at about 02.00/03.00 am. The NCCT Head and CX Spine E-Fast were also got done though nothing significant was noted. At the time of discharge, the complainant was advised to take medicines for five days. No active or surgical SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 21 of 22 -: 22 :- intervention was required. The Discharge Summary also does not reflect any prolonged treatment. As per the Discharge Summary, the complainant/injured was recommended to take medicines for five days. The Prosecution has not been able to prove the nature of injuries as grievous and it has to be necessarily held that the injuries caused to the complainant were of simple nature.
60.The Prosecution has been able to prove that the injuries were caused to the injured with the sharp weapon and hence the offence under Section 324 IPC is made out against the accused.
61.In view of above, the accused Vikas Dass is convicted for committing the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
62.Put up for arguments on the point of Sentence on 26.11.2021.
Announced in the open (NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA) Court on 16.11.2021 Principal District & Sessions Judge South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi SC No. 174/2018; FIR No. 50/2018 PS Kotla Mubarakpur; State vs. Vikas Dass Page No. 22 of 22