Delhi District Court
State vs . Kuldeep @ Ashu 1 Fir No. 899/06 on 25 May, 2011
State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 1 FIR no. 899/06
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05, SOUTH
EAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Kuldeep @ Ashu
FIR NO: 899/06
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 324/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 40/2 (15.9.2010)
Date of its institution : 16.1.2007
Name of the complainant : Sh. Naresh Chand
Date of Commission of offence : 10.12.2006
Name of the accused : Sh. Kuldeep @ Ashu
Offence complained of : Section 324/506 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 14.05.2011
Final Order : CONVICTED
Date of judgment : 25.05.2011.
State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 2 FIR no. 899/06
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the accused persons namely Kuldeep @ Ashu on the police report filed by P.S. Ambedkar Nagar u/s 324/506 IPC.
2. According to prosecution story the present complaint is filed by complainant Naresh Chand alleging that he is conductor of a private bus. On 09.12.006 he came at Virat Ghar with his bus some boys were fighting there and he saw that one Hari Om Gupta and Virender were fighting with each other. He tried to intervened and separate them due to which both of them went away. On teh date of incident ie. 10.12.2006 at around 1.30 pm in the room when the complainant went to near Virat Cinema the accused Kuldeep called him and said that he has abused his father and started beating him. He was along with two three other persons. The accused inflicted a injury on his cheek, forehead and nose with a blade.
3. After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out in pursuance of which the chargesheet u/s 324/506/341 IPC was filed. The charge was framed against the accused u/s 324/506 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, in order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
5. PW1 is the duty officer HC Ram Sahib who proved the FIR as Ex.PW1/A upon State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 3 FIR no. 899/06 a rukka Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW 2 is the complainant Naresh Chand who deposed that on 09.12.06 at around 1.30 pm he was present near Virat Cinema where the accused whom he has identified in the court gave him blow of surgical blade on his face and he sustained injuries. Accused has also threatened him. He lodged his complaint Ex. PW 2/A.
7. PW 3 is Ct. Vivekanand who deposed that on 17.12.2006 he was poseted at PS Amd. Nagar and was involved in the investigation of this case. The accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 3/A.
8. PW 4 is Dr. Ajay who proved the MLC of the injured as Mark A,. However he has refused to identify the signatures of the Doctor who examined the accused.
9. PW 5 is Ct. Sushil Kumar who deposed that on 10.12.2006 he was posted at PS Ambedkar Nagar on receipt of DD no. 9A he along with IO reached at the spot where he found that the injured was already removed to the hospital. He reached the hospital where he met the injured. His statement Exs. PW 2/A was recorded upon which IO made endorsement. He was sent with the copy of the complaint to teh PS for registration of the FIR. FIR Ex. PW 1/A was registered and he returned the same to IO.
10. PW 6 is ASI Nawab Khan who is the investigating officer of this case and proved the investigation. He deposed that on 10.12.2006 on receiving DD no. 9A he along with Ct.
State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 4 FIR no. 899/06 Sushil reached at the spot where the injured was not found. He reached the hospital and recorded the statement Ex. PW 2/A, got the FIR registered and prepared the site plan Ex. PW 6/A, recorded the statement of witnesses, arrested the accused on 17.12.006 vide memo Ex. PW 3/A. After completion of the investigation prepared the challan.
11. PW 7 is Dr. Vikrant who examined the injured and prepared the MLC. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW 7/A and opined the injury as simple sharp.
12. The accused was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidences were put to him where he denied the allegations raised against him. He answered that he do not know about this case.
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused and perused the records.
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case has been proved against the accused and they should be convicted.
15. On the other hand the Ld. Defence counsel has argued that this is a false case foisted upon the accused person due to enmity. The complainant in his cross examination has said that on the date of incident he had not quarreled with anyone . It is further argued that there is no eye witness to this incident and the only incriminating State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 5 FIR no. 899/06 evidence is of injured himself. It is also argued that no independent witness was examined although the incident occurred at Virat Cinema which is a public place, which creates a doubt in the prosecution story.
16. Having dealt with the submissions advanced by both the sides, I proceed to adjudicate upon the most important question involved in the present case: whether the accused is guilty of the offence with which he is charged with.
17. The prosecution case is that on 10.12.2006 the complainant was injured on his face by the accused with a surgical blade. To prove this fact, the prosecution has examined the complainant Naresh Chand as prosecution witness. He has categorically deposed and corroborated the prosecution story. He has deposed about the manner in which the offence is committed. He has identified the accused in the Court. Therefore, there is categorical deposition on behalf of this witness that how the accused committed offence as alleged against him.
18. As far as the evidentiary value of the injured witness/witness who is the victim of the offence is concerned, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has this to say in the case of State of Gujrat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and Others 1990 CrLJ 2531 "For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that :
(1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 6 FIR no. 899/06 be doubted.
(2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence. (5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation. (6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
16. Now in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the testimony of the State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 7 FIR no. 899/06 injured witness stands on a very higher footing unless and until impeached by some clinching evidence. I have perused the evidence of the witnesses and I find that the same are quite consistent, truthful and creditworthy. The witnesses have withstood the cross examination and there is nothing in it which can impeach their credit or discard their testimony or to doubt their veracity. The witnesses have deposed about the date of incident correctly, the manner in which the incident occurred and their presence at the spot is proved. The complainant has categorically deposed that the injury was inflicted upon him by sharp blade. He categorically deposed the place and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The oral testimony of complainant/injured is further corroborated by medical evidences i.e his MLC Ex.PW7/A which proves the nature of injuries received by the injured. Considering the ocular as well as documentary evidences, charge against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
20. Now I consider the defences raised by the counsel for accused persons one by one.
21. As far as the first defence raised by counsel for accused that no independent public witness has been examined by the prosecution despite that the incident occurred in a residential area, I am of the view that this is not such a impelling ground to throw the case of the prosecution. It is a matter of common experience that the public persons are not interested in deposing in Courts in cases in which they do not have any personal interest. Not only this, there are cases where even the victim of the offence and the persons who are related to that case also shy away from coming to the Courts. As far as the defence that no public person was made a witness is concerned, the answer lies in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 8 FIR no. 899/06 Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988 SC Cr R 559 9 : AIR 1988 SC 696) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe: "It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the busstand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
24. The next argument is that there are material contradictions in the testimony of the injured in his examination in chief and cross examination. In cross examination he deposed that on the date of incident, he had not quarreled with anyone. I don't think that it is contradiction as misinterpreted by defence counse. It appears that the complainant want to say that he had not quarreled with anyone. But it does not mean that the accused has not inflicted injuries upon him. This fact is further strengthened by the suggestion given by defence counsel which is denied by complainant that the accused did not caused blade blow. One more thing which was argued by defence counsel that the witness has deposed the date of incident wrongly. The date of State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 9 FIR no. 899/06 incident is 10.12.2006 while the injured in examination in chief deposed that the date of incident was 9.12.2006.
25. I have gone through these submissions. I don't think that these contradictions are so grave that they force me to throw the case of prosecution. The contradictions on which the counsel for accused persons tends to harp upon are minor in nature and for such contradictions Hon'ble Supreme Court has to say that the contradictions in statement of witnesses of minor nature have to be discarded. Instead of discarding the testimony of witnesses their testimony strengthens the case of the prosecution that the witness being truthful as they were not shown to have made parrot like statements (Allarakha K. Mansuri Vs. State of Gujarat 2002 (AIR) (SC) 1051)
27. Now delineating the salient features of the case of prosecution, the following is the unrebutted inference upon appreciation of evidence discussed above; PW 2 is the injured witness. His presence at the time and place of occurrence is proved. The injury received by him is proved by his oral and medical evidence. He has withstood the cross examination. There is nothing in his testimony to create a dent in the case of the prosecution.
28. After going through the overall evidences ocular as well as documentary, the time has come to consider what offence has been committed by the accused. The accused is charged with offence u/s 324/506 IPC.
29. Section 319 IPC, defines the term hurt. Under section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pan, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 324 provides for causing hurt by sharp edged weapons including causing hurt by other instruments. Surgical blade is a sharp edged weapon and therefore, it is proved that the accused has committed offence u/s 324 IPC. As far as offence u/s 506 IPC is State Vs. Kuldeep @ Ashu 10 FIR no. 899/06 concerned, there is no evidence on record that the accused intimidated the injured. The accused is acquitted of charge u/s 506 IPC.
32. Therefore, on the basis of overall discussions, accused is convicted for offence u/s 324 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Samar Vishal)
on 25 May, 2011
th
Metropolitan Magistrate05,
South East, New Delhi