Delhi District Court
State vs Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod on 6 January, 2018
IN THE COURT OF
Dr. SATINDER KUMAR GAUTAM : ASJ- 03 (EAST)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
SC No. 452/2017
State Versus Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod
S/o Sh. Brij Mohan
R/o X/2173, Chand Mohalla,
Mahila Colony, Near Ravidas Mandir,
Gali No. 1, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi
FIR No.: 115/2017
Under Section: 394/304 IPC
Police Station Geeta Colony
Chargesheet Filed On : 14.07.2017
Chargesheet received by this Court on : 20.07.2017
Undersigned presided over this Court : 06.11.2017
Judgment Reserved On : 28.11.2017
Judgment Announced On : 06.01.2018
Final Decision : Conviction
JUDGMENT
1. Succinctly, prosecution case is that DD No. 24 A dated 09.03.2017 was assigned to SI Pravesh Kumar on which he reached Dr. Hedgewar Arogya Sansthsan and obtained the MLC of one Vijay Jain, aged 66 years. On the said MLC, alleged history was physical assault stated by patient himself and on inquiry it came to notice that injured has been referred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (hereinafter referred as GTB Hospital). Sub Inspector (herein after SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 1 of 14 referred as SI) reached there and found the patient in Emergency Ward on Oxygen. No eye witness was there. On 11.03.2017 SI again visited GTB Hospital where Sachin Jain, son of the injured, met and got recorded his statement wherein inter alia he alleged that on 09.03.2017 at about 2 p.m. he along with his father was present near Governement School, Gandhi Nagar Road, one unknown person came near to his father and started snatching from him. At that his father was a little ahead to him. When his father resisted to the act of said person, he gave beatings to him, picked up a brick and gave its blow and then pushed him in a nallah present there. He (complainant) rushed towards him and meanwhile offender fled away from the spot. He with the help of public persons took out his father from the said nallah and on inquiry, name of the offender was revealed as Raman @ Ravan. He further alleged that since father was seriously injured, he rushed his father to hospital from where he was referred to GTB Hospital and that amount of Rs. 4,000/- kept in the pocket of his father is also found missing and his father has not regained consciousness till that time. On the basis of said statement, present FIR under Sec. 392/394/511 IPC was registered at Police Station Geeta Colony. Efforts were made to trace the accused but in vain.
2. During the investigation of this case, injured expired on 22.03.2017 while he was under treatment at GTB Hospital. Inquest proceedings were conducted. Post-mortrem on the body of deceased was got conducted. Section 304 IPC was added.
SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 2 of 14
3. On 15.04.2017 on the basis of tip off, accused was arrested and TIP proceedings were conducted. After completion of investigation, challan under Sec. 393/394/304 IPC was filed against the accused before the court of ld. Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.
4. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of ld. MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as offence under Sec. 304 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
5. Vide order dated 16.11.2017, charge under Section 394 IPC and 304 IPC was framed against the accused. To the said charges, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined six witnesses out of fifteen witnesses cited in the list of witnesses. Witnesses examined by the prosecution are as under:
PW-1 ASI Arun Kumar, Duty Officer proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A. PW-2 HC Hari Shankar joined the investigation of this case on 23.03.2017 and reached GTB Hospital with SI Pravesh. He is a witness to the identification of deadbody of Vijay Jain vide Ex,PW2/A & B.. He further deposed that after conducting the post-mortem on the body, same was handed over to its LRs vide Ex.PW2/C. PW-3 Sachin, complainant, deposed that on the date, time and place of incident, he noticed his father lying in a nallah and with the help of public SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 3 of 14 persons, he had taken out his father and made him sit on a chair. He further deposed that the boy who had pushed his father had left the spot and he had seen him from a distance of 7-8 steps and the two public persons present there disclosed him that said boy was trying to snatch cash from his father and on resistance, offender gave brick blow and then pushed him in the nallah and name of that boy was revealed as Raman @ Ravan. He rushed his father to Dr. Hedgewar Arogaya Sansthan and from there he was referred to GTB Hospital.
He proved his statement Ex.PW3/A and on 22.03.2017 his father expired during treatment. He further deposed that he identified the accused as culprit during TIP proceedings Ex.PW3/B. He also deposed that after about one month of the death of his father, parents of accused came to his shop and threatened him to withdraw the complaint, but he did not do so and then closed his shop.
PW-4 Sh. Babbal is alleged eye witness of the case. He deposed that on the date, time and place he had seen the accused scuffling with an old man and old man tried to run away and accused followed him and in that process old man fell into drain. He further deposed that on seeing it, accused ran away from the spot and he with the help of one Ravi, public person, present there, took out the said injured. He also deposed that old man was under the influence of liquor and later on said old man with police officials came there. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of State.
PW-5 Ravi Kumar is another alleged eye witness of the case. He complete gave a twist to the case deposing that one currency note of Rs. 500/- SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 4 of 14 was fallen from the pants of the accused and one old man took the same on which an altercation took place on the claim of said government currency note. He also deposed that when old man tried to leave the spot, he fell down as one stone came under his foot on account of which he fell down in the nallah and sustained injuries. He with the help of PW-4 Babbal took out the said man from said nallah. The said injured was under the influence of liquor at that time and left the place of his own. Later on, police came there and obtained his thumb impression. This witness was also declared hostile and was cross-examined on behalf of State.
PW-6 SI Pravesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer of the case. He reached at the spot and then to hospital. He got the case registered on the basis of statement of complainant. He conducted the proceedings on receipt of death of injured. He also arrested the accused and proved the memos with subsequent opinion of post-mortem as Ex.PW6/G.
7. During the course of prosecution evidence, the accused in statement recorded under Sec. 294 CrPC admitted the post-mortem report;DD No. 24-A; statement of Neeraj Jain and Surender Singh regarding identification of dead body; TIP proceedings conducted by ld. MM and also statement of Ct. Bhupender & Ct. Kapil; MLC No. 807/2017 in whole.
8. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances against him. He pleaded his innocence and further pleaded his false implication. Accused pleaded that while SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 5 of 14 he was to pay the amount for Biryani taken by him, a government currency note of Rs. 500/- fell from his pocket and said note was picked up by injured/deceased. Accused demanded the note on which said injured started running but fell down as one brick piece came under his foot on account of which he lost his control and fell in the drain. Accused also pleaded that at that time said injured was under the influence of liquor. Accused opted to lead evidence in his defence.
9. Accused examined Sh. Dharmender Kumar as DW-1 in his defence. This witness deposed that on 09.03.2017 at about 2 p.m. while he was present at pavement near his shop, he noticed one old man and accused were present there and there was an issue of claim of title on the said currency note. While said old man was to leave the place, his lost his balance and on account of stone lying there and fell down in the nallah there. He was taken out with the help of public persons present there and made to sit on the chair. This witness further stated that said old man was having smell of alcohol. Said old man remained there for about 20-25 minutes and then left the spot of his own.
10. Having heard the submissions of parties and perused the record.
11. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove the charges through the evidence led by the prosecution with other material on record including MLC and post-mortem report. The complainant, who is an unknown to the accused, clearly supported the prosecution case and also identified him as an accused during judicial test identification parade SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 6 of 14 proceedings. It is further argued that there is no reason for false implication of the accused at the hands of the complainant as nothing has come on record for his false implication of the accused for any reason. Ld. Addl. PP, therefore, prayed that the accused is liable to be convicted as per the charges framed against him.
12. Per contra, Sh. K.P. Singh, ld. counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. He argued that PW-3/Sachin Dev is merely planted witness and twisted the story as per prosecution case. He also argued that as independent public witnesses have been declared hostile, rather supported the incident as claimed by accused. Ld. defence counsel also argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of defence witness and story as claimed by accused. Ld. defence counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused under the circumstances.
13. The accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 394 and 304 IPC.
14. Admittedly, there is no denial to the fact that there is no evidence on record to the effect that there was any attempt or robbery committed on the deceased. Undoubtedly, complainant is not an eye witness to the commission of said offence and remaining alleged eye witnesses of said offence have not supported the prosecution case to that effect despite the cross-examination conducted on behalf of State as the death was caused by an act of the accused.
15. Now the Court has to deal with the charge for the offence SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 7 of 14 punishable under Sec. 304 IPC. There is no denial to the death of injured during his treatment for injuries which he sustained on the date of incident. At this juncture, the court has to see whether injured sustained at the hands of the accused or of his own, as claimed by the accused.
16. It is a settled proposition of law that the evidence of a prosecution witnesses cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat them as hostile and cross examine them. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. It is also settled law that testimony of a hostile witness cannot not completely wiped out from the record. That part which is found reliable can be acted upon. For holding these views, there is support with the judgments reported as Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of UP [(21.05.2012 - SC) Crl. Appeal No. 1340 of 2007] and Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434.
17. The defence of the accused is that deceased himself fell down on account of stone lying and sustained injuries. He also denied the presence of the complainant at the spot on the date of incident. Presence and scuffle (fight) of the accused is not denied at the spot on the day, time and place of incident. Sachin Dev, complainant/PW3 in clear terms stated that on the day, time and place of incident while he was away from his father at the distance of 7-8 steps and he had seen accused pushing his father. He stated only to this extent and not about SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 8 of 14 the attempt to robbery. This also shows this clear intention. He also deposed that later on from the public persons present there he came to know the name of the accused. MLC Ex.P8 clearly mentions the fact that injured was brought to hospital by his son i.e. complainant himself. MLC is also clear on the aspect that injured himself gave the history as of physical assault. MLC has been admitted by the accused. Admission time is also as 4.55 p.m. and it means that it would take such time to rush the injured to the hospital after the incident. Complainant identified the accused during judicial test identification parade proceedings. There is no explanation about such identification except the simple plea that he and his photographs were shown to the complainant. As per record and as per admission of the accused he was apprehended on 15.04.2017 itself. No police remand was taken for the accused. There was no occasion to show the accused to the complainant.
18. In view of judgment reported as State of Haryana Vs. Ram Singh 2002 (1) JCC 385 (Supreme Court of India), it is also well settled law that witnesses of the defence should be treated at par with prosecution witnesses.
19. Besides the above, if there are any minor contradictions, court is of the view that there is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 9 of 14 variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye-witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence. Hon'ble Apex Court in catina of judgments held various times that the discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may not be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to the lapse of memory may be given due allowance. I am taking support of case reported as Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat and reported as AIR 1988 SC 696. Besides the above, in another celebrated authority reported as Nallabothu Venkaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2002 VI AD (S.C.) 521 Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to observe as under:
"It must be borne in mind that criminal justice system must be alive to the expectation of the people. The principle that no innocent man should be punished is equally applicable that no guilty man should be allowed to go unpunished. Wrong acquittal of the accused will send a wrong signal to the society. Wrong acquittal has its chain reactions, the law breakers would continue to break the law with impunity people then would lose confidence in criminal justice system and would tend to settle their score on the street by exercising muscle power and if such situation is allowed to happen, woe would be the Rule of Law."
20. All the witnesses including prosecution witnesses, who turned hostile on the point of commission of offence and defence witnesses admitted the presence of the accused and deceased on the day, time and place of incident SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 10 of 14 and there was fight on the some issue. The only issue in question is whether deceased himself fell in the drain or was pushed by the accused. If a person, admittedly 66 years old, and witnesses also referred him as an old man fell on the ground on account of stone, it is impossible to fell in the drain and sustained such injuries as mentioned in the MLC. These injuries can be possible only when any person was being pushed during scuffle. The defence of the accused that said old man was under the influence of liquor also fails, as there was no mention of the said fact in the MLC. The photographs (Ex. P1 colly.) placed on record does not show/pin point any stone or piece of brick which came under the foot of the deceased or lying near the nallah.
21. Injured sustained injuries on 09.03.2017 and died at about 11.18 p.m. on 22.03.3017 in the hospital during his medical treatment as is clear vide DD No.4A Ex. PW6/C. Ex. PW6/G dated 14.07.2017 is clear to the aspect that -
"injury to rib cage in this case is sufficient to cause death and (2) as already mentioned in the p/m report "septicemic shock as a result of infection of multiple internal organs subsequent upon ante mortem injury to chest produced by blunt force impact."
22. All this is clear indicated that deceased died on account of injuries sustained by him on 09.03.2017 on account of fallen in the nallah. Hence, it is evident that accused is responsible for the injuries which result into death of deceased as per the oral and documentary evidence.
23. Now question arises under which part i.e. Part I or Part II of section SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 11 of 14 304 IPC accused is liable.
24. Linguistic distinction between the two Parts of Section 304 is evident from the very language of this Section. It is neither advisable nor possible to state any straight-jacket formula that would be universally applicable to all cases for such determination. Every case essentially must be decided on its merits. The Court has to perform the very delicate function of applying the provisions of the Code to the facts of the case with a clear demarcation as to under what category to cases, the case at hand falls under Sec. 304 Part II as the accused has no intention to commit culpable homicide and accordingly punish the accused. [Rampal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2012 Crl. L.J. 3764.] There are two apparent distinctions of Sec. 304 IPC. Part I is in relation to the act by which death is caused with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death. Part-II is related to an act which is done with the knowledge that is likely to cause death but without intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death. In the instant case, the assailant had no intention to cause the death of Vijay Jain deceased, however, there was a sudden fight on some minor issues resulted which the deceased was pushed and he fall in the nallah. The assailant/accused had come with the plea that deceased fell down of his own as the stone come under his feet but apparent from the photographs, MLC and the post-mortem report which do not corroborate to the story as put forward by the accused as there is no impact on his foot on hard surface as neither been reflected in the MLC nor opined in the SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 12 of 14 post-mortem report. Without intention to cause death, the act of the accused, is as such the injuries sustained by an old aged person who is already suffering from various ailments are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature Hence, thereby it came out that there is no mens rea or malafide intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily injuries as to likely to cause death but he has full knowledge that if a person is being pushed towards nallah there may be likely to cause grievous hurt or to cause such bodily injuries as to likely to cause death. The deceased Vijay Jain was of 66 years and at that age there are different old age ailments but so far as MLC, his blood pressure and pulse rate is normal; chest was also clear and also that patient was having tenderness on the left side of back and abrasion over left arm and forearm. Dr. Payal Jain opined regarding the cause of death whereas categorically proved the report as Ex.PW6/G which answers the query as the injuries to rib cage is sufficient to cause death. Hence, PW-3 also stated that he saw from the distance of 7-8 steps the boy who had pushed his father left the spot. The accused was being identified correctly in the test identification parade conducted in Central Jail by ld. MM which have been admitted in the statement under Sec. 294 CrPC. The accused had also admitted the post-mortem report, MLC etc. which are unrebutted and unchallenged.
25. It is neither advisable nor possible to state any straight-jacket formula that would be universally applicable to all cases for any determination. Every case essentially must be decided on its merits. The Court has to perform SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 13 of 14 the very delicate function of applying the provisions of the Code to the facts of the case with a clear demarcation as to under what category to cases to be fallen in which part of Section 304 IPC. [Rampal Singh Vs. State of U.P. 2012 Crl. L.J. 3764.]
26. With above observations, it can be safely held that in the case in hand, accused has done the act with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death and caused such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and as such, court is of the view that act committed by accused falls under part II of the Section 304 IPC.
27. With all above observations, it is clear that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused under Sec. 394 IPC and as such, accused is acquitted of the said offence. However, it is clear that prosecution has able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 (Part II) IPC and as such, he is held guilty for the said offence i.e. punishable under Sec. 304 (Part II) IPC. Announced in the open Court Dated : 06th day of January, 2018 (Dr. Satinder Kumar Gautam) Additional Sessions Judge-03 (East):
Karkardooma Courts: Delhi.
SC No. 452/17 State Vs. Raman @ Ravan @ Pramod page no. 14 of 14