Delhi District Court
State vs . Manish Kumar & Ors. on 20 March, 2015
State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Manish Kumar & Ors.
FIR No.: 56/2013
U/s : 323/341/34 IPC
PS : Mehrauli
1 Serial No. of the case : 1876/1/13
2 Date of commission : 26.01.2013
3 Date of institution of the case : 07.06.2013
4 Name of complainant : Manoj Verma
5 Name of accused : i. Manish Kumar
son of Mr. Suresh Kumar
r/o B78, Ambedkar
Colony, Chattarpur, New
Delhi.
ii. Ved Prakash @ Fauji
son of Mr. Suresh Kumar
r/o H. No. B78,
Ambedkar Colony,
Chattarpur, New Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : 323/341/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 03.03.2015
9 Final order : Convicted
10 Date of judgment : 20.03.2015
JUDGMENT
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 1 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
Brief facts and reasons for the decision of the case
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that on 26.01.2013, between 04.00 pm to 04.30 pm, near Kabristan, Ambedkar Colony, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the complainant Manoj Verma and prevented him from proceeding in any direction in which he had a right to proceed, gave beatings to the complainant, as a result of which the complainant sustained simple hurt on his person. Hence, the accused Manish Kumar and Ved Prakash @ Fauji facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. An FIR was lodged at the behest of the injured Mr. Manoj Verma. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 07.06.2013. Cognizance was taken and provision of Section 207 Cr.PC was complied with after appearance of the accused persons. After hearing arguments, a notice under Section 251 Cr.PC for the offences under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was served on 04.10.2013 against the accused FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 2 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter the matter was put up for prosecution evidence. The prosecution has examined three witnesses namely PW1 Manoj Verma Kumar who was the injured/complainant, PW2 Ct. Subhash who aided the IO in the investigation of the present case and PW3 SI Shri Ram who is the IO. The evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses is relevant and is analyzed and discussed later at appropriate places. On 19.05.2014, the statement of accused under Section 294 Cr.PC was recorded whereby the accused did not dispute the genuineness of FIR NO. 56/2013 Ex.P1, DD entry number 26A dated 26.01.2013 Ex.P2, DD number 27A dated 26.01.2013 Ex.P3, MLC bearing number 350117 dated 26.01.2013 of injured Manoj Verma Ex.P4. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 29.01.2015. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC on 02.03.2015 and all the incriminating evidence was put to them in which the accused persons pleaded false implication. The accused persons did not lead any defence evidence.
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 3 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
4. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the matter was reserved for judgment.
5. To bring home the charge as framed against the accused, the prosecution must prove that the accused has committed the offence under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, which reads as under:
"Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
6. Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. The expression "voluntarily causing hurt" has been defined under Section 321 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under :
"Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever does any act with FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 4 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
7. 'Hurt' has been defined under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as under:
"Hurt. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
8. Hence, in light of the above mentioned provisions, in order to prove the commission of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the accused, it must be proved that (a) the accused caused either bodily pain or disease or infirmity to the injured; (b) such bodily pain or disease or infirmity was caused by the accused (i) intentionally, or (ii) with the knowledge that his act shall cause such hurt.
9. The accused has also been charged for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which provides punishment for wrongful restraint, which reads as under FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 5 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
"Punishment for wrongful restraint. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
10.Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 define wrongful restraint which reads as under "Wrongful restraint. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person."
11. To prove the case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that PW1 Manoj Verma stated on oath that on the day of incident, he was present near the street situated near his house and he was making conversation with the mother of accused Manish. In the meantime, suddenly accused Fauji @ Ved Praksh came from back side and gave a blow of his bangle on his nose. In the meantime, accused Manish also came near to him and accompanied the accused Fauji @ Ved Prakash and FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 6 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
started beating him with his belt. PW1 categorically deposed that he rescued himself and fled away from the spot and went to his house, where both the accused came to his house with gadasa and started abusing him and his mother. The accused persons also threw stones on his mother. His MLC has been proved as Ex.P4 which shows that he received simple hurt. Thus, Ld. APP has argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that complainant is a victim of crime and his testimony cannot be doubted merely because of some minor variations. He has argued that the medical evidence corroborates the version of complainant and there is no rule of evidence that sole testimony of witness cannot form the basis of conviction.
12.Counsel for the accused on the other hand has argued that the testimony of the complainant contains contradiction as to the place of occurrence and the way of beating.
13. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma, the injured/complainant in the present matter. The germane FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 7 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
extract of her deposition is as under:
"I am residing at the above said address alongwith my family and I am a student. On 26.01.2013, at about 03.30 - 04.00 pm, I was present near the street situated near my house and I was making conversation with the mother of accused Manish (present in the court today and correctly identified). In the meantime, suddenly accused Fauji @ Ved Prakash (present in the court today and correctly identified) came from back side and given a blow of his bangle (Kada) on my nose. In the meantime, accused Manish also came near to me and accompanied the accused Fauji @ Ved Prakash and started beating me with the belt. I rescued myself and fled away from the spot and went to my house, both the accused came at my house with gadasa and started abusing with me and my mother. The accused persons also thrown stone on my mother. I called at 100 number and police reached at the spot and I was got admitted the AIIMS Trauma Centre where my statement was recorded which is Ex.PW1/A bears my signature at point A"
14.The witness PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma has given vivid and specific description of the manner in which assault and FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 8 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
injury was inflicted upon him by the accused persons. In the crossexamination, nothing came on record which could controvert his testimony. No such suggestion was put to him that on the given day the accused was not present at the place of occurrence. The testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma appears to be reliable and consistent with the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. The accused did not dispute the MLC bearing number 350117 dated 26.01.2013 of injured Manoj Kumar exhibited as Ex.P4. Testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma is clear and specific with regard to the hurt inflicted upon her by the accused. Further, PW2 Ct. Subhash and PW3 SI Shri Ram deposed about the aspect of investigation in the present case and the consequent arrest of the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C. Their testimony also corroborates with the deposition of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma on material particulars.
15. The contention of the defence counsel that the testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Kumar contains contradiction as to the place of occurrence is of no effect. The place of occurrence is stated to be near Kabristan, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi and PW1 Mr. Manoj FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 9 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
Verma in his testimony stated that the incident occurred near his house which is at B76, Ambedkar Colony, Chattarpur, New Delhi. The site plan Ex.PW3/A shows that the Kabristan is situated opposite to the Ambedkar Colony. Further, the contention that there is contradiction in the testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma as to the way of beating does not make the case of the prosecution fatal. The testimony of PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma is clear and specific with regard to the hurt inflicted upon him by the accused persons. I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt. It has been established that both the accused persons joined together and participated towards commission of offence. In order to attract the provision of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not called upon the prosecution to specify the role of each of the accused. It is sufficient to establish that each of the accused participated towards the commission of the offence. In case, participation is proved then the principle of joint liability is attracted. It is proved on record that accused Fauji @ Ved Prakash and accused Manish participated towards the commission of FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 10 of 11 State Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
offence. Complainant/PW1 Mr. Manoj Verma categorically stated that both the accused persons joined together and gave beatings to him. The manner in which the accused persons conducted themselves leaves no scope for doubt that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention. I have no hesitation in holding both the accused persons guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Manish Kumar and accused Ved Prakash @ Fauji stand convicted for committing the aforesaid offences.
16.Be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA MEHTA) court on 20.03.2015 MM5 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Certified this judgment contains eleven pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHREYA ARORA MEHTA)
MM5 (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi/20.03.2015
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 11 of 11