Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Suraj @ Satish on 21 March, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE02:SOUTH EAST
SAKET COURT: NEW DELHI
IN RE: ID No.DLSE010002302013
SC No.1511/2016
FIR No.79/13
PS Sarita Vihar
State Versus 1. Suraj @ Satish
S/o Shri Santu Bhagat
R/o A11, Shashtri Mohalla,
Patparganj,
New Delhi
2. Prem Singh
S/o Shri Ram Sahay,
R/o Jhuggi No.61,
Rajasthani Camp,
Sarita Vihar,
New Delhi
___________________________________________________________
Date of Institution : 04.07.2013
Date of transfer of the case
to this court : 04.09.2014
Date of arguments : 22.02.2017
Date of judgment : 21.03.2017
SC No.1511/2016 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. As per case of prosecution, on 02.03.13 at 1:05 hours, information was received at Police Station Sarita Vihar, New Delhi from wireless set number J15 regarding admission of Satish Kumar son of Bhagwan Singh, aged about 35 years, resident of US8/183, Balmiki Camp, Begampur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital vide MLC No.4445/13 with alleged history of stab injury. The said information was recorded vide DD No.7A Ex. PW4/A and was marked to SI Yogender for necessary action.
2. SI Yogender (PW12), on receipt of aforesaid information, went to the hospital alongwith Ct. Bhajan Lal (PW3), where Satish Kumar was found being treated in the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured. SI Yogender recorded statement of Satish Kumar vide Ex. PW2/A, wherein he alleged that he was beaten by three boys in Aali Village, his money of Rs.5,000/ and mobile phone was snatched. He also alleged that one of those boys stabbed him by a knife. Thereafter, they all run away from the spot. SI Yogender prepared rukka Ex. PW 12/A and gave the same to Ct. Bhajan Lal for registration of FIR. He seized a sealed pullanda given to him by the doctor in the hospital vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/A. He prepared the site plan of the spot Ex. PW12/B at the instance of complainant.
SC No.1511/2016 2 of 12
3. Matter was investigated as per law. Both the accused were found involved in the commission of offence in the case. Therefore, on conclusion of investigation, they were chargesheeted to face trial.
4. The accused persons, on their appearance before the court of learned MM, were supplied copy of charge sheet and complete set of documents and thus, compliance of section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short "Cr.P.C.") was made.
5. As the offence under section 397 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, therefore, the matter was committed to the Court of Session for trial in accordance with law.
6. Prima facie, sufficient material was found to frame charge against both the accused for offences punishable under section 392/397/34 IPC. Additionally, sufficient material was also found to frame charge against accused Prem for offence punishable under section 174A IPC. Therefore, charge for the said offences was framed against accused persons on 03.02.2014 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. In order to bring home the guilt against accused persons, prosecution has examined fifteen witnesses. PW1 Ct. Dilshad, PW4 HC Jogender Singh, PW7 HC Praveen, PW8 Ms. Pragya Sharma, PW10 Dr. Shephali Bhaseen, PW11 Shri Dheeraj Mittal, learned SC No.1511/2016 3 of 12 MM, PW14 Ct. Shiv Kumar and PW15 Shri Gaurav Rao, learned Judge are formal witnesses of the prosecution. PW2 Satish Kumar is complainant / injured and main witness of the prosecution. PW12 SI Yogendra and PW6 SI Brahm Prakash are the Investigating Officers of the case. PW3 Ct. Bhajan Singh is the witness, who accompanied SI Yogender Kumar to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital. He is the witness through whom IO got the FIR registered in the case. PW5 Ct. Mukesh is the witness, who joined the investigation in the case on 25.03.13 alongwith SI Yogender. In the presence of this witness, accused Suraj @ Satish was apprehended vide arrest memo Ex. PW 5/A. His disclosure statement Ex. PW5/C was also recorded in his presence. PW9 Dilip Kumar is the witness, who on receipt of call from Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, went to hospital to meet his friend Satish Kumar. He turned hospital during his deposition and has not supported the prosecution case. PW13 ASI Narender Kumar is the witness, who apprehended accused Prem Singh in Kalanara under section 41.1 (c) Cr.P.C. Ex. PW13/D vide arrest memo Ex. PW13/A. He gave information regarding arrest of accused to the IO of this case namely SI Brahm Prakash, who after seeking permission of the court, interrogated and thereafter, arrested accused Prem Singh in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/E. He filed supplementary charge sheet Ex. PW6/B qua accused Prem Singh in this case.
SC No.1511/2016 4 of 12
9. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of both the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein all incriminating material/circumstances appearing against them was put to them, to which they claimed innocence and alleged false implication.
10. Accused Suraj @ Satish denied to lead any evidence in his defence. Accused Prem Singh examined Smt. Mira as DW1 in support of his defence. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
11. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri M. Zafar Khan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for State and Ms. Ritu Shahi, learned Amicus Curiae for both the accused and carefully perused record of the case.
12. Out of total fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, PW2 Satish Kumar, the complainant / injured, is the star witness of the prosecution, on the basis of whose statement Ex. PW2/A, FIR was registered in the case. He deposed that on 01.03.13, after closing of his office at about 6 PM, he was going to Village Aali. He reached at the bus stop and when he deboarded from the bus, he started going to the Aali Village on foot. He deposed that at about 7:45 PM, when he reached at Village Aali, he went to the nearby park for urination, where three persons apprehended him and one of them was Prem Singh. He further deposed that out of those three assailants, one SC No.1511/2016 5 of 12 caught hold him from his backside, while the other assailants started giving fist blows to him. As per the witness, Prem Singh demanded money from him and he forcibly took out Rs.5,000/ and his mobile phone of make Nokia. He further deposed that Prem Singh also gave three knife blows on his thigh and also gave one knife blow on his back. He further deposed that Prem Singh also gave a belt blow on his head and all the three assailants gave fist blows upon him on his face. He deposed that the assailants after causing injuries to him and robbing him of his money and the mobile phone went away from there.
13. PW2 Satish Kumar further deposed that he came nearby road, where one auto was stopped by him. He made request to the said autowala, who took him to the hospital. As per complainant, when he seated in the TSR, he became unconscious. He came to his senses in the Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, where he called Dalip by making calls to him from the hospital staff. He further deposed that police met him in the hospital on the next morning. He told all the facts to the police, who recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A. He stated that he was discharged from the hospital on 08.04.13. He correctly identified accused Prem Singh as the assailant who had given stab injury to him. He also identified accused Suraj @ Satish as the person who caught hold of him from the backside, participated in the SC No.1511/2016 6 of 12 incident and also gave beatings to him.
14. PW2 Satish Kumar, in his cross examination, admitted that he knew accused Prem Singh before the incident since two years. He stated that he knew him through his brother in law (Jeeja), who was his friend.
15. The alleged incident took place in Village Aali within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarita Vihar. Complainant / injured Satish Kumar, got himself admitted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital which is situated in Janakpuri area. Mata Chanan Devi Hospital is situated at a distance of more than 25 kms. from the place of incident. There are a number of private as well as government hospitals near the place, where the alleged incident took place. Two main hospitals of Delhi namely AIIMS as well as Safdarjung Hospital are also on the way. No reasonable explanation has been furnished by complainant/ injured as to why he did not avail the treatment in the nearest hospital. Rather he chose to get treatment in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
16. The police was not immediately informed after the incident. The complainant himself stated that he came to nearby road, where he stopped one autowala, who took him to the hospital. The complainant has furnished no reason as to why he did not ask the autowala to inform the police regarding the incident. The police got SC No.1511/2016 7 of 12 information regarding admission of injured from duty constable posted in Mata Chanan Devi Hospital.
17. The MLC of injured Satish Kumar has not been proved in accordance with law. The doctor, who prepared the MLC, did not appear in the court to prove the MLC. The contents of MLC of injured Ex. PW10/A shows that he got admitted in the hospital with alleged history of assault at Sarita Vihar. He did not tell the doctor that he sustained injuries in the incident of robbery. The opinion on the MLC was given by some other doctor, whose name is not mentioned in the MLC. The doctor, who prepared the MLC has not given the measurement of the injury suffered by injured. Thus, the contents of MLC Ex. PW10/A pertaining to injured is highly doubtful.
18. Admittedly, complainant and accused Prem Singh were known to each other at least two years prior to the date of incident. The weapon of offence allegedly used in the commission of offence in the case has not been recovered by the police at the instance of any of the accused persons. The robbed articles i.e. mobile phone of complainant and cash of Rs.5,000/ allegedly looted from complainant was also not recovered. Had the complainant been robbed of his mobile phone or his cash, he ought to have given information of the same firstly to the police. The complainant also SC No.1511/2016 8 of 12 did not tell the doctor, who treated him that he sustained injuries in the incident of robbery and his mobile phone and cash was robbed from him at the point of knife. The complainant himself informed the doctor that he was assaulted at Sarita Vihar at 7:45 PM.
19. Accused Prem Singh in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that complainant Satish Kumar had illicit relationship with his wife and for that reason, he has falsely implicated him in this case. In order to prove his defence, accused examined his sister Smt. Mira as DW1. Smt. Mira deposed that Satish used to live in their gali in Uttam Nagar, who used to come to meet her sister in law Kavita. She further deposed that Satish had developed intimacy with Kavita. Her family members had objected to Kavita for meeting Satish. However, Kavita did not mend her ways. She deposed that due to the said problem, they sold their house in Uttam Nagar and shifted to Badarpur, Delhi, where Satish continued to meet Kavita in Badarpur also. She stated that complainant Satish was caught two times with Kavita in their house at Badarpur. As per the witness, her husband Suraj and her brother Prem Singh objected and protested to Satish for not meeting Kavita and not to come to their house. On this, Satish became angry and threatened her husband and her brother that he would see them. She stated that thereafter, Satish had implicated her husband and her brother in the present case by lodging a false SC No.1511/2016 9 of 12 complaint against them.
20. Thus from the testimony of DW1 Smt. Mira, it is clear that the complainant was having illicit relationship with the wife of accused Prem Singh. Admittedly, the complainant is resident of Balmiki Camp, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. He was working in Katwaria Sarai. He has not given any reason as to for what reason, he was coming to the area of Aali Village.
21. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the motive for giving beatings to complainant / injured does not appear to be robbery. The motive may be to teach a lesson to complainant so that he should not meet the wife of Prem Singh. The possibility of committing robbery with complainant by accused is not probable in the given factual matrix of the case. The probability for false implication of accused persons for the offences under section 394/397/34 IPC cannot be ruled out.
22. Admittedly, the complainant suffered grievous injuries in the case. He has duly identified both the accused as the persons, who are involved in the commission of offence in the case. He identified accused Prem Singh as the person, who assaulted him with knife and also gave fist blows and belt blows to him. He also identified accused Suraj @ Satish as the person, who caught hold of him from behind and also given beatings to him. Therefore, in my view, prosecution SC No.1511/2016 10 of 12 has succeeded to prove the offence punishable under section 324/34 IPC against both the accused. Accordingly, accused Prem Singh and Satish @ Suraj are hereby held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 324/34 IPC.
23. Accused Prem Singh has also been charged for offence under section 174A IPC. PW12 SI Yogender deposed that on 09.05.13, he got issued NBW against accused Prem Singh. He moved an application Ex. PW15/A before the court of learned MM. Accused could neither be found at his address i.e. Jhuggi No.61, Rajasthani Camp, Sarita Vihar nor in the area. He could not be apprehended despite best efforts. He further deposed that he moved an application for declaring accused Prem Singh as proclaimed offender. His application is Ex. PW12/D. As per the witness, on the basis of report furnished by the process server and perusal of record, Shri Gaurav Rao, the then learned MM was pleased to declare the accused Prem Singh as P.O. vide order dated 30.07.13. He proved his statement recorded by learned MM which is Ex. PW15/C.
24. PW15 Shri Gaurav Rao, the then learned MM, proved his order dated 30.07.13 Ex. PW15/D, whereby he declared accused Prem Singh as P.O. on the basis of statement of SI Yogender Ex. PW15/C and perusal of report on process under section 82 Cr.P.C.
25. As accused Prem Singh failed to appear in the court of learned SC No.1511/2016 11 of 12 MM on 30.07.13 despite declaration being made against him under sub section 4 of section 82 Cr.P.C. Therefore, he committed the offence punishable under section 174A IPC.
26. In view of above, prosecution has succeeded to prove the offence punishable under section 174A IPC against accused Prem Singh. Accordingly, accused Prem Singh is also hereby held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 174A IPC.
27. Let accused persons be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
court today i.e. 21.03.2017 Addl. Sessions Judge02
SouthEast, Saket Courts, New Delhi
SC No.1511/2016 12 of 12