Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh Kumar on 23 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05,
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Ramesh Kumar
FIR NO: 494/04
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 325/341 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 511/2(15.10.2010)
Date of its institution : 21.10.2005
Name of the complainant : Sh. Anil Kumar
S/o late Sh. Rajendra Singh
Date of Commission of offence : 23.09.2004
Name of the accused : Ramesh Kumar
Offence complained of : Section 341/325 IPC
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Case reserved for orders : 13.02.2012
Date of judgment : 23.02.2012
Final Order : Convicted.
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the trial of the accused person namely Ramesh Kumar upon a State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 charge sheet filed by police station Dr Ambedkar Nagar pursuant to its investigation for offences in FIR No 494/04.
2. The prosecution's case is that on 23092004 at around 9 pm the complainant Anil Kumar was coming to his home where he was restrained and battered by the accused . In this scuffle complainant Anil Kumar received grievous injuries.
3. After investigation, the chargesheet was filed by Police Station Dr. Ambedkar Nagar against the accused persons for offences under section 323/325 IPC.
4. Trial started after framing of the charge against the accused . The charge was framed against the accused Ramesh Kumar u/s 325/341 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined four witnesses.
6. PW 1 is head Constable Vijay Kumar who proved the registration of FIR in this case as PW1/A. He deposed that constable Devendra Singh came to police station with a "rukka" for the registration of FIR.
7. PW2 is the complainant himself who deposed that on 11.11.2002 how he was beaten up by the accused and he suffered injuries in consequence to that. He has also identified the accused as the perpetrator of the offence. He has also proved his State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 initial complainant given to the police as PW2/A. He deposed that there was some dispute regarding electricity with the accused and on 23.09.2004 when he disconnected the electric connection which he has give to the accused, he was beaten by the accused.
8. PW 3 is ASI Ganga Prakash who was the investigating officer of the case and deposed that on 23.09.2004 he received DD no 41 on which he reached the spot where he found that the injured was shifted to hospital. Thereafter he went to the hospital recorded the statement of the complainant and his further investigation till the filling of the chargesheet . He deposed that he prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, obtained the result of medical examination of the accused.
9. PW4 is Dr. Avinash Kumar who proved the MLC of the injured as PW4/A. Otherwise also the medical reports of the injured are admitted by the accused.
10. PW 5 is constable Devendra Singh who proved his involvement in the investigation along with the investigation officer and further proved the documents prepared by him during the investigation.
11. After recording the evidence of this witness, the prosecution evidence was closed. The accused was examined under the provision of section 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence were put to him which he denied and answered that he has State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 been falsely implicated and had also led the defence evidence.
12. DW 1 and DW2 examined on behalf of the accused, but there testimony is of no help of the accused because they deposed about their ignorance of the in cident which is the subject matter of this case
13. I have heard the Ld. APP for State and counsel for accused persons and perused the records of the case.
14. It is argued by the Ld. APP for State that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved by the injured persons as well as police witnesses. The injured has duly corroborated the prosecution's story. The prosecution's case has been proved by oral and medical evidence and the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn from the prosecution's evidence is the conviction of the accused.
15. On the other hand, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that accused has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused had not beaten the injured person. . There are material contradiction in the contents of FIR and the testimonies of the witnesses and no public witnesses are examined to corroborate the version of the injured persons.
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 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 accused persons are guilty of the offence with which they are charged or not.
17. The prosecution's case is that on 23.09.2004 at around 9 pm the complainant was thrashed by the accused. Injured Anil Kumar received grievous injuries. The complainant is the injured witness in this case. He has identified the accused as his assailant on the date of incident. He has been thoroughly cross examined by counsel for accused where nothing has been brought out to shake the intrinsic value attached to his examination in chief. The witness has thoroughly mentioned his version given by him in his examination in chief. The FIR has been promptly registered in this case after the incident and there is no delay which might give the complainant an opportunity to embellish or concoct any false story against the accused. His evidence regarding the occurrence of the offence, the involvement of the accused and to his identity is categorical and intact.
18. As far as the evidentiary value of the injured witness 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 be doubted.
State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 (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.
19. Now in the light of the above judgment, it is clear that the testimony of the injured witness of the offence stands on a very higher footing unless and until State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 impeached by some clinching evidence. I have perused the evidences of the witnesses and I find that the same are quite consistent, truthful and creditworthy. The injured withstood the cross examination and there is nothing in it which can impeach his credit or discard his testimony or to doubt his veracity. The complainant has deposed about the manner in which the incident occurred. PW 2 is the injured in the present case and is the best witness to describe the manner in which the offence is committed by the accused. Being the injured he would be most keen to ensure that the real culprit does not go scot free and there is no reason that they would frame any innocent person sparing their real assailant unless prompted by a strong motive for that.
20. Not only this, the oral testimony of the injured is further corroborated by the medical evidence i.e the MLC of the injured. The MLC PW 4/A and the XRay which was admitted by the accused during the trial goes on to show the nature of injuries received by the injured. As per the MLC of Anil Kumar Ex.PW4/A there is a lacerated wound of about 3 cm over his frontal region besides other injuries. The MLC shows that the injured received grievous injuries with blunt object. This corroborates the oral testimony of the injured that accused assaulted him with some object on his head and hand. His oral evidence shows that he received injuries on his head and forearm. Therefore, the oral testimonies of the witnesses are duly corroborated by the medical State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 evidence.
21. The other witness are formal witness. The investigating officer has proved the investigation in this case, the arrest memos, search memos etc.
22. Now I come to the defences raised by counsel for accused persons one by one.
23. As far as the first defence raised by counsel for accused persons that no independent public witness has been examined by the prosecution despite that the incident occurred in a residential area, and the witness admitting in cross examination that various persons came to save him and some even accompanied him to hospital, 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 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: State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 "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. As discussed above, the testimony of the injured persons stands on higher footing and therefore, the non joining of any independent witnesses from the locality is also not a ground to throw away the case of the prosecution.
25. 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 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 State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04 the case of the prosecution and therefore on the overall basis, there is sufficient material on record to convict the accused for the offence with which he are charged.
26. 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 persons. The accused persons are charged with offence u/s341/325 IPC.
27. 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. Any hurt falling under any of the clauses under section 320 IPC is grievous hurt. A person therefore, cannot be said that he has caused grievous hurt unless the hurt caused is one of the kinds of hurt specified u/s 320 IPC.
28. In the present case the injured Sushil has suffered grievous injuries as defined in section 320 IPC. The grievous injury is the fracture of his hand which is punishable u/s 325 IPC.
29. The charge u/s 341 IPC for wrongfully restraining the injured party is also made out. The injured proved that he was returning to his home and when he reached the house of the accused , who was standing at his gate, he was assaulted by him , it means that in the assault there was a restraint to the injured also.
30. Therefore, on the basis of overall discussions, accused Ramesh Kumar is convicted for offence u/s 341/325 IPC Announced in the open Court (Samar Vishal) on 23 February, 2012 h Metropolitan Magistrate05, South East, New Delhi State Vs. Ramesh Kumar FIR no. 494/04