Delhi District Court
Fir No. 241/11; State vs . Raju & Anr. Page 1 Of 19 on 28 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. YASHWANT KUMAR : ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE03:NW:ROHINI:DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 15/13
FIR No. 241/11
P.S. Kanjhawala
U/S: 186/353/333/34 IPC
STATE
Versus
(1) RAJU
s/o Sh. Kalu Ram @ Kalu
r/o H318, JJ Colony,
Sawda, Delhi
(2) HARISH
s/o Sh. Prem Shankar
r/o H228, JJ Colony,
Sawda, Delhi
Date of Institution: 03082012
Date of arguments: 26112013
Date of judgement: 28112013
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the Prosecution, in brief, is that on 13102011 on receipt of DD no. 32A, SI Pramod along with Ct. Pramod Kumar reached at Water Tank, Karala, Delhi where injured FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 1 of 19 Ram Kumar disclosed that two boys namely Harish and Raju from JJ Colony had caused injuries to him. Ram Kumar was got medically examined from SGM Hospital vide MLC no. 16276. On 14102011, Ram Kumar came to PS and gave his statement to SI Pramod that he was working as Beldar in Delhi Jal Board and posted at Karala Water Tank. He was looking after the job of making entries of water tankers. At about 3 pm, two boys namely Harish and Raju, residents of Sawda JJ Colony, came to him and asked him as to why water tanker was not sent to Sawda JJ Colony H318. Complainant told those boys that water tanker was already sent but they both started abusing complainant and gave beatings to him. In the meanwhile, Harish hit helmet on the face of complainant and caused injury in his jaw. The other boy namely Raju gave beatings to complainant with leg and fist blows. On this statement, FIR u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was registered. Police along with complainant went in search of accused at JJ Colony Sawda and accused Harish Prem Shankar and Raju were arrested from near their houses at the instance of complainant. The helmet by which injury caused to Ram Kumar was also got recovered by accused Harish. During investigation, photocopy of attendance register and MLC result was obtained. The nature of injury was opined as FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 2 of 19 grievous and section 332 IPC was replaced with section 333 IPC. Permission u/s 195 Cr.P.C. was obtained. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed u/s 186/353/333/34 IPC.
2. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to Sessions Court. Charge u/s 186/353/333/34 IPC was framed against both accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, Prosecution examined eight witnesses. Statements of accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. therein they denied all the allegations made against them. Accused opted to lead defence evidence and examined Jagdish as DW1.
4. I have heard Ld. Defence counsel and Ld. APP for State and have perused the entire records.
5. Ld. Defence counsel for accused persons argued that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. The complaint has been given in a mechanical manner. There was a quarrel and grappling between the injured and the 1520 ladies regarding the complaint for nonsupply of water tanker and during that time of grappling, Ram Kumar received injuries. The accused persons never caused injuries to him. PW2 did not know the names and details of accused persons, then how these details have come FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 3 of 19 in the FIR. The said ladies were also of the same colony. There was no eyewitness from the Water Tank. There is no particular number of persons in DD no. 32A but it reveals that the public were damaging. There are contradictions in the testimonies of PWs. If there was a hit by the helmet, the injury or swelling should have been there but as per MLC of injured, there is no swelling or injury.
6. Ld. APP for State argued that the injured was performing and discharging his official functions and at that time, the accused persons not only obstructed the injured in discharge of his official duties but also assaulted upon him by hitting helmet on his face and also gave beatings to him with leg and fist blows. As per the MLC, the injury caused to the injured was grievous in nature. Three teeth of the injured were later removed. It is not necessary that if helmet is hit on someone's face, it may cause visible bleeding / injury. The accused persons cannot take benefit of minor contradictions, if any, in the testimonies of PWs or even due to faulty investigation as per the settled proposition of law. A single witness is sufficient for the purpose of conviction of the accused persons if the testimony of this sole witness is trustworthy and is corroborated with the other evidence. In this case, the injured is the star witness who has narrated the whole incident and his testimony is trustworthy. FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 4 of 19
7. In view of the above arguments of the Ld. Defence counsel and the Ld. APP for the State, let us examine the evidence led in this case as to whether the accused had committed the offence or whether they have been falsely implicated. PW1 Anand Pal, Executive Engineer, WestIII, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi stated in his examination in chief that on 13.10.11, he was posted as Executive Engineer West III, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. After receiving information regarding quarrel with Beldar Ram Kumar at Karala Filling Point of Delhi Jal Board, he verified the facts of the incident from Ram Kumar who told him that two persons namely Raju and one other person whose name he could not recall, gave beatings to him while he was on official duty. PW1 gave a complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW1/A to SHO, PS Kanjhawala to take action against the culprits / accused persons. During the course of investigation, PW1 also handed over photocopy of the attendance / duty record of Ram Kumar vide Ex. PW1/B.
8. PW2 Ram Kumar stated in his examinationinchief that he was working as Beldar in Delhi Jal Board, Delhi since 2005. On 13.10.11, he was on duty at Water Filling Station, Karala, Delhi and his duty was to make entry of the vehicles of Delhi Jal Board who filled water from there and supply the water in the area as per FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 5 of 19 demand. On that day, at about 03.00 pm, both the accused persons namely Harish and Raju (correctly identified) came to him and insisted to send a water tanker to point No. H318, Sawda, JJ Colony, Delhi while stating "aapne JJ Colony H318 me paani ki gari kyo nahin bheji". PW2 told the accused persons that he had already sent the water tanker to the said place and asked to go there but accused were insisting by saying "aapne gari nahi bheji hain" and thereafter, they started abusing PW2 and also started beating him. Accused Harish was carrying helmet in his hand and he attacked PW2 with the said helmet and caused injuries on his teeth and mouth. Accused Raju assaulted PW2 with leg and fist blows. After inflicting injuries to PW2, both the accused ran away from the spot on bike. PW2 informed the PCR at no. 100 and PCR removed him to SGM Hospital where he was medically examined. Three teeth of PW2 were removed later on the advice of the Doctor as the same were damaged due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. IO recorded statement of PW2 vide Ex. PW2/A. PW2 informed his senior officers including Jr. Engineer and Zonal Engineer about the incident on telephone. On 14.10.2011, after discharging from the hospital, PW2 pointed out the place of occurrence to the IO who prepared site plan of the place of occurrence at his instance. FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 6 of 19 Thereafter, accused were searched and when they reached in front of H. No. 228, JJ Colony, Sawda, Delhi, accused Harish was arrested by the IO at the instance of PW2 vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and his personal search was done vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, accused Raju was arrested in the corner of the gali of house No. H318 at the instance of PW2 vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and personal search was done vide memo Ex. PW2/E. IO recorded supplementary statement of PW2. Accused Harish got recovered one broken helmet from his house with which he caused injury to PW2. PW2 identified one broken helmet of black colour as Ex. P1 in the court with which accused Harish attacked him.
9. During crossexamination by Ld. defence counsel, PW1 denied the suggestion that he did not verify the fact from Ram Kumar or that he gave his complaint Ex. PW1/A in a mechanical manner. PW2 stated in his crossexamination that he was removed to Hospital by the police officials after about 1½ hours. PW2 stated that both the accused persons were not known to him prior to the incident. PW2 further denied the suggestion that 15/20 ladies were accompanying accused at the time of incident or that they were making complaint with regard to nonsupply of the water tanker. PW2 also denied that a grappling had taken place between him and FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 7 of 19 those ladies or that he received injuries during the said grappling. PW2 further stated that he was looking after the water shortage problem pertaining to the area of Kanjawala area at the time of incident. PW2 also denied the suggestion that he had sold the water tanker to some private contractor which was meant for H318 point or that due to this fact, the ladies who were residents of the said area were protesting against him or that due to this fact, they grappled with him or that he received injuries during the said scuffle. PW2 further denied the suggestion that both the accused persons had not caused injury to him. PW2 also denied that he was deposing falsely because both the accused persons are the local politicians and used to demand for more water tanker for the area prior to the incident also. PW2 further denied that he sold the official water tanker to private contractor which was meant for the public on behalf of Delhi Jal Board or that both the accused had already objected for the same and due to this fact both the accused were falsely implicated by him in this case.
10. PW6 Dr. Rajesh Dalal, CMO, SGM Hospital stated in his examinationinchief that on 13.10.2011, he was posted at SGM Hospital, Mangolpuri, Delhi as CMO and Jr. Resident Dr. Sh. M. P. Singh was also on duty with him at Casualty. Dr. M. P. Singh FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 8 of 19 examined injured Ram Kumar/ PW2 with alleged history of physical assault vide MLC No. 16276 Ex. PW6/A in his presence. PW6 identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. M.P. Singh on the MLC. During crossexamination, PW6 stated that there was no swelling on the face of injured Ram Kumar. PW6 stated that if one hit any person with a helmet on his face, he may or sometime may not receive any visible / bleeding injury on his face despite loosening of teeth depending on the force as well as on the angle. PW6 denied the suggestion that he did not examine injured Ram Kumar or he was deposing falsely. PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, Incharge, Mortuary, SGM Hospital stated in his examination in chief that injured Ram Kumar was examined vide MLC No. 16276 dt. 13.10.2011 and injury mentioned by Dental Doctor was gradeII mobility. After going through the MLC, PW7 gave his opinion regarding nature of injury as grievous bearing his signature at point C on MLC Ex. PW6/A.
11. PW2 is not only the victim but the natural witness and he has correctly identified the accused persons who caused injuries to his teeth and mouth with the helmet. In Gulshan Vs. State through Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2010 (1) JCC 562, it was held that identification in a court is a substantive piece of evidence. PW2 FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 9 of 19 categorically stated that the accused Harish was carrying helmet in his hand and attacked PW2 with the said helmet and coaccused Raju assaulted PW2 with leg and fist blows. PW2 also proved his statement as Ex. PW2/A and also identified the broken helmet of black colour Ex. P1 with which the accused Harish attacked him. In this regard, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Kishan Pal, 2008 (8) JT 650: 2008 (11) SCALE 233, it was held that it is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of evidence which is required to be judged by the court to place credence on the statement. In Raja Vs. State (1997) 2 Crimes 175 (Del.), it was held that it is wellknown principle of law that reliance can be based on the solitary statement of a witness if the court comes to a conclusion that the said statement is the true and correct version of the case of the Prosecution. In the case of Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar 1996 (1) RCR (Crl.) 308, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness provided his credibility is not shaken and court finds him a truthful witness. It has been further held that Section 134 categorically lays down that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove a fact. The evidence has to be weighed and not counted. In the present case, FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 10 of 19 the testimony of PW2 has not only inspired the confidence but he is also trustworthy. The clear and consistent stand of PW2 about the presence of the accused persons at the time of incident and their identification by PW2 creates no doubt in the testimony of PW2. Whereas, the accused persons have not led any evidence to prove on record that on the day of incident, about 1520 ladies were accompanying the accused and they were making complaint with regard to nonsupply of water tanker and a grappling had taken place between PW2 and those ladies due to which PW2 received injuries.
12. PW3 HC Kaptan Singh stated in his examinationin chief that on 14102011, he was working as DO at PS Kanjhawala and he recorded the FIR u/s 186/353/332/34 IPC and proved the same vide Ex. PW3/A and endorsement as Ex. PW3/B. PW3 also identified the handwriting of HC Sanjeet Singh. PW4 Ct. Pramod Kumar stated in his examinationinchief that on 14.10.2011, after receiving the original rukka and copy of the FIR from the DO and reached at the spot i.e. Water Tank of Delhi Jal Board, Village Karala and handed over the same to SI Pramod Kumar who was present with the complainant. Thereafter, PW4 along with IO and complainant searched for the accused persons and reached Sawda FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 11 of 19 JJ Colony and accused Harish (correctly identified) was arrested at the instance of complainant Ram Kumar from outside H. No. 228. Accused Harish was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and his personal search was done vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, accused Harish got recovered one broken helmet from his house which was taken into possession by IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Accused Raju (correctly identify) was also arrested from the corner of the gali, near H. No. H318 JJ Colony, Sawda, Delhi at the instance of the complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/E. In crossexamination, PW4 denied the suggestion that he had not joined investigation in this case or that both the accused were not arrested in his presence. PW4 further denied the suggestion that accused Harish had not got recovered any helmet in his presence or that same was planted upon him by the IO or that his signatures were obtained on the paper at PS itself.
13. PW5 ASI Rawat Singh stated in his examinationinchief that on 19052012, the present case file was marked to him for further investigation. On 22.06.2012, PW5 received one complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. from Executive Engineer Sh. Anand Pal, Delhi Jal Board, Nagloi, Delhi by post and on 03.08.2012, he filed the charge FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 12 of 19 sheet in the court. PW8 SI Pramod Kumar stated in his examinationinchief that on 13.10.11, on receipt of DD no. 32A regarding demolition by the public at Paani ki tanki of Jal Board, Karala, PW8 along with Ct. Pramod Kumar reached at the spot at Paani ki Tanki, Karala, Delhi where injured Ram Kumar met them and he took injured Ram Kumar to SGM Hospital and got conducted the medical examination of injured Ram Kumar. The injured was not in a position to make his statement. PW8 further stated that on 14.10.2011, complainant Ram Kumar came to PS and he recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A and same was handed over to DO for registration of case. PW8 along with the complainant came at the spot and inspected the spot where Ct. Pramod came also reached after registration of FIR. PW8 further stated that they proceeded towards JJ Colony, Savda where at the instance of complainant, accused Harish (correctly identified) was overpowered from outside house No. H228, J.J. Colony, Savda. Accused Harish was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/C. Thereafter, they proceeded towards H318 where at the instance of complainant, accused Raju (correctly identified) was overpowered and arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was done vide memo Ex. FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 13 of 19 PW2/E. Accused Harish led them to his house and got recovered Helmet from his house which was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A and thereafter they took both the accused to SGM Hospital. PW8 identified in the court one broken helmet of black colour as Ex. P1 with which the accused Harish attacked and got recovered from his house.
14. During crossexamination, PW8 stated that the complainant Ram Kumar came to PS on 14.10.2011 at about 03.00 pm. PW8 stated that on 14.11.2010, they reached at the spot at about 05.15 pm and Ct. Pramod handed over the copy of FIR at about 06.00 pm. PW8 stated that they remained at the spot for about 10 15 minutes and left the spot at about 06.00 pm. PW8 further stated that after leaving the spot, accused Harish was overpowered within half an hour from his house. PW8 stated that distance between the house of Harish and Raju was a walking distance of 57 minutes. Accused Raju was arrested at about 07.30 pm. PW8 further stated that after the arrest of accused Harish, they directly reached at the house of accused Raju. PW8 denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely or that main culprits were not apprehended by him or that accused were falsely implicated in this case or that they did not go to arrest the accused persons or FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 14 of 19 that they were called to PS for making inquiry in this case or that they came to PS or that they were arrested in this case falsely or that he was deposing falsely being the IO of the case or that he did not conduct the proper and fair investigation or that accused were falsely implicated in this case. PW8 denied the suggestion that complainant was beaten by 3040 ladies of the locality due to non supply of the water in the locality. PW8 further denied that complainant was beaten by 3040 ladies or that he made an oral complaint against those ladies but no case was registered against them or that on 14.10.2011, a false case was registered against the accused persons.
15. So far as the contradictions in the testimony of PWs as argued by Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons are concerned, the same are only minor contradictions and are not going to affect the merits of the case. Thus, the Prosecution case cannot be disbelieved on account of the minor contradictions or inconsistencies in the testimony of PWs. In State of UP Vs. Krishna Master & ors. 2010 Cri. L. J. 3889, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that minor discrepancies, not touching core of case, cannot be ground for rejection of evidence in entirety.
16. The Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons argued FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 15 of 19 that the police has not conducted the investigation fairly and the investigation is defective. Whereas, Ld. APP for State argued that if there is a defective investigation, the accused cannot get the benefit of it. It is pertinent to mention here that even if the investigation is defective or faulty, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on account of defective or faulty investigation. In this context, I would place a reliance upon the judgement reported as Karnel Singh Vs. State of MP, AIR 1995 SC 2472=AIR 2004 SC 1920 it was held that in the case of defective investigation, the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused persons solely on account of the defect and to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective.
17. DW1 Jagdish stated in his examinationinchief that he was driver on Grameen Seva vehicle and on 13.10.2011, he was standing with his vehicle on Savda Chowk, J.J. Colony. 30-35 ladies came there and asked DW1 to go to water tank, Karala. DW1 told them that one vehicle cannot accommodated 30-35 persons and as such, two such vehicles will be required and they will charge Rs. 300/ per vehicle for to and fro journey. DW1 further stated that they departed from there at 02.00 pm and reached Karala at about FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 16 of 19 02.20 pm. At Karala, said ladies asked both the drivers to take them to Kanjhawala to which DW1 refused and told them that he will charge extra money for dropping them to Kanjhawala. Thereafter, they took them to Kanjhawala and at Kanjhawala they again asked to take them back to Karala but they refused and then they offered to pay Rs. 500/ to each driver to take them back to Karala and from Karala to Savda Colony. At Karala, said ladies deboarded both the vehicles and vehicles were parked on the side of the road. Said ladies moved ahead the road and DW1 also followed them. One person was sitting near the table and said ladies told that person that first they had come here and thereafter went to Kanjhawala and again they had come here but their work was not done. The said person replied to make a complaint. Initially, an altercation then a scuffle took place between said ladies and said person. One lady also sustained injuries. DW1 further stated that at about 03.15 pm, they left that place along with said ladies in both the vehicles. DW1 in his crossexamination stated that he came to depose before the Court on the request of accused Harish. DW1 further stated that he was not having documentary proof regarding his employment as a driver on Grameen Seva vehicle. Even, DW1 was not having any counterfoil of ticket or receipt issued for providing service to the said FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 17 of 19 ladies.
18. It has emerged from the evidence of PWs discussed above that the accused Harish carrying helmet in his hand attacked PW2 with the said helmet and caused injuries on his teeth and mouth. The coaccused Raju also assaulted PW2 with leg and fist blows. The injured was got medically examined and he was not in a position to make his statement. PW6 Dr. Rajesh Dalal categorically stated in his crossexamination that if one hit any person with a helmet on his face, he may or sometimes may not receive any visible/ bleeding injury on his face despite loosening of teeth depending on the force as well as on the angle. PW7 Dr. Manoj Dhingra also gave his opinion regarding nature of injury as grievous injury on the MLC Ex. PW6/A of the injured/ PW2. Three teeth of PW2 were also removed later on the advice of doctor seeing the same were damaged due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. The attendance/ duty record of the injured Ram Kumar has also been proved on record vide Ex. PW1/B by PW1 Anand Pal, Executive Engineer, WestIII, Delhi Jal Board, Delhi. The accused Harish also got recovered the broken helmet from his house vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/A. Whereas, DW1 had not been able to produce documentary proof regarding his employment as driver on FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 18 of 19 Grameen Seva vehicle. Even otherwise, DW1 did not produce any record to provide service to the said ladies.
19. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. I, therefore, hold both accused namely Raju and Harish guilty and convict them u/s 186/353/333/34 IPC.
(YASHWANT KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE:NW03:ROHINI:DELHI.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT on 28112013 FIR No. 241/11; State Vs. Raju & Anr. Page 19 of 19