Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Deva @ Devanand on 30 October, 2014
FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 70/1 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0249622013 State Vs. 1. Deva @ Devanand S/o Sh. Ram Vilas R/o Jhuggi No. B88, ITI Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. 2. Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Vilas R/o Jhuggi No. B88, ITI Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi. FIR No. : 103/13 Police Station : Jahangir Puri Under Sections : 308/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court: 16.09.2013 Date on which judgment was reserved: 30.10.2014 Date on which Judgment pronounced: 30.10.2014 JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet is that on 30.03.2013 at about 8.30 P.M when complainant namely Smt. Rachna (PW2) was present at her jhuggi alongwith her husband i.e. Paramjeet( PW6) and were lying after taking dinner, accused namely Amit Kumar and Sonu (not arrested) entered inside their jhuggi and started talking to Smt. Rachna. State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 1 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 The accused Amit Kumar was known to Smt. Rachna as he was residing in nearby jhuggi situated in K Block, Jahangirpuri. Initially, accused Amit Kumar and Sonu (not arrested) were having gossips with Smt. Rachna but subsequently, they asked Smt. Rachna to serve dinner to them but she refused on which both of them started abusing her. The husband of Smt. Rachna i.e Paramjeet( PW6) intervened and turned them out from the jhuggi.
Thereafter, when said Paramjeet (PW6) took lid of pressure cooker and went outside the jhuggi for getting the same repaired and reached at some distance from jhuggi in the gali, accused Amit and Sonu (not arrested) started quarreling with him. After hearing the noise of quarrel, Smt. Rachna came down from the roof of her jhuggi and reached at the place of quarrel and found that accused Amit, Sonu (not arrested) alongwith accused Devanand were quarreling with her husband i.e. Paramjeet Singh. Sonu (not arrested) caught hold of Paramjit; accused Amit Kumar gave leg and fists blows to him whereas accused Deva Nand snatched lid of pressure cooker from his hand and assaulted him with said lid and caused injury on his head. After causing injury to husband of Smt Rachna, accused Devanand and Amit Kumar as also Sonu (not arrested) ran away from the spot. Smt. Rachna removed her husband namely Sh. Paramjeet to BJRM Hospital, Jahangirpuri in injured condition and got him admitted there and he was medically examined there.
Smt. Rachna informed the PCR from her mobile phone about the incident and PCR officials reached at the hospital. At about 9.40 pm, intimation regarding quarrel at jhuggies of K Block near Mother Dairy, State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 2 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 Jahangirpuri, was received by Ct. Sombir (PW7) in PS Jahangirpuri and said information was recorded vide DD No. 105B (Ex.PW7/A) on receipt of DD no. 105B, ASI Lekh Raj (PW8) alongwith Ct. Jitender Kumar (PW4) went to the place of information i.e. in front of Jhuggi No. 866, ABlock, Behind ITI, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. Upon reaching at the place of occurrence, it was revealed to them that injured had already been shifted to BJRM Hospital and no eye witness met them at the spot. Thus, ASI Lekh Raj alongwith Ct. Jitender went to BJRM Hospital where ASI Lekh Raj collected MLC bearing no. 56884/13 of injured Paramjeet. The patient was opined unfit for statement. ASI Lekh Raj also met Smt. Rachna in the hospital. ASI Lekh Raj recorded statement (Ex.PW2/A) made by Smt. Rachna. On the basis of said statement and contents of MLC, ASI Lekh Raj prepared rukka (Ex.PW8/A) and handed over the same to Ct. Jitender.
Ct. Jitender went to the PS where rukka was produced before HC Gajender (PW1) who was working as Duty Officer in PS Jahangirpuri at that that time. HC Gajender got the FIR No. 103/13 registered and made his endorsement (Ex.PW1/B) on the rukka. He handed over copy of FIR and rukka to Ct. Jitender who came back to BJRM Hospital and handed over the same to ASI Lekh Raj. Thereafter, ASI Lekh Raj alongwith Ct. Jitender and Smt. Rachna went to the place of occurrence where ASI Lekh Raj prepared the site plan (Ex.PW2/C) at the instance of Smt Rachna. ASI Lekh Raj and Ct. Jitender returned back to BJRM Hospital, where it was revealed that injured Paramjeet has been shifted to LNJP Hospital. Thereafter, ASI Lekh Raj alongwith Ct. Jitender went to LNJP Hospital, where it was revealed that State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 3 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 after CT Scan, injured Paramjeet had left the hospital. ASI Lekh Raj contacted the concerned doctor and doctor made endorsement on the MLC in this regard. Accordingly, ASI Lekh Raj and Ct. Jitender returned back to the PS where it was informed to ASI Lekh Raj that injured Paramjeet has again been admitted to BJRM hospital. Accordingly, ASI Lekh Raj alongwith Ct. Jitender went to BJRM Hospital, where they found injured Paramjeet admitted there and they returned back to PS. On 31.03.2013 during the noon hours, ASI Lekh Raj alongwith Ct. Jitender again went to BJRM Hospital where ASI Lekh Raj met concerned doctor who declared injured Paramjeet fit for statement. ASI Lekh Raj recorded statement of injured Paramjeet Singh and obtained his signature on the said statement (Ex.PW8/B). Smt. Rachna also produced blood stained pant of her husband i.e Paramjeet before ASI Lekh Raj, which her husband was wearing at the time of incident. ASI Lekh Raj kept the said pant in a cloth pullanda and pullanda was sealed with the seal of LRS and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW2/B).
On 31.03.2013, ASI Lekh Raj and Ct. Jitender alongwith Smt. Rachna joined investigation and went to Jhuggi No. K88, Behind ITI, K Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi where at the instance of Smt. Rachna, ASI Lekh Raj arrested both the accused Deva @ Devanand and Amit Kumar. Both the accused also made disclosure statements. During investigation, accused Deva @ Devanand got recovered one cooker cap from under the bed of the room of his jhuggi. ASI Lekh Raj kept the said cooker cap in a cloth pullanda and sealed the same with the seal of LRS and seized the same vide seizure State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 4 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 memo (Ex.PW4/C). Accused Deva @ Devanand and the coaccused Amit Kumar also pointed out the place of offence vide memo (Ex.PW4/D).
On 07.04.2013, upon the request of ASI Lekh Raj, the concerned doctor took blood sample of injured Paramjeet and handed over the sealed pullanda containing blood sample alongwith sample seal of MS BJRM Hospital to him which he seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW8/C). Then, ASI Lekh Raj deposited the aforesaid sealed pullanda and sample seal of same specimen, in Malkhana with HC Sandeep( PW3).
On 18.04.2013 upon the instructions of ASI Lekh Raj, Ct. Vinayak (PW5) took the exhibits to FSL after collecting the same from HC Sandeep( PW3) MHC(M) vide R.C. 38/21/13(Ex.PW3/D). ASI Lekh Raj collected result on MLC (Ex.PW9/A) of injured Paramjeet and also collected FSL result (Ex.PX).
After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court was pleased to frame the charge u/s 308/34 IPC against both the accused persons vide order dated 25.09.13 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
In support of its case, prosecution examined nine witnesses namely PW1 HC Gajender, PW2 Smt. Rachna, PW3 HC Sandeep, PW4 Ct. Jitender, PW5 Ct. Vinayak, PW6 Sh. Paramjeet Singh, PW7 Ct. Sombir, PW8 State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 5 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 ASI Lekh Raj Singh and PW9 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary.
Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of both the accused persons namely Deva @ Devanand and Amit Kumar were recorded during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Their defence is of general denial. However, they did not opt to lead any evidence towards their defence.
I have heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and ld. Counsel Sh. Vijay Kumar, Adv. on behalf of both the accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record.
Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES PW2 Smt Rachna: She is the complainant on whose statement FIR in question came to be registered. She has deposed almost on the lines of prosecution story during chief examination. She categorically deposed that accused Amit alongwith his associate Sonu(not arrested) had come to their jhuggi on 30.03.13 at about 8.30 P.M and both of them asked her to serve dinner but when she refused, they got annoyed and started abusing her. Her husband Sh Paramjit(PW6) turned them out from the jhuggi. After sometime, State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 6 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 when her husband had gone outside jhuggi for getting lid of pressure cooker repaired, both the present accused persons started quarreling with her husband in gali. After hearing noise of quarreling, she had also reached the place of quarrel and saw that both the accused persons had assaulted her husband Paramjit.
She further deposed that Sonu(not arrested) had caught hold of her husband while accused Amit gave leg and fist blows to Paramjit and accused Deva @ Deva Nand assaulted Paramjit with the lid of pressure cooker after snatching the same from his hands and caused injuries on his head. Thereafter, both the accused persons alongwith their associate Sonu fled away from the spot. She had removed Paramjit to BJRM hospital in injured condition where he was got medically examined.
She further deposed that she had made PCR call at 100 number on which PCR Van reached the hospital. Local police officials of PS Jahangir Puri also reached there and recorded her statement Ex PW2/A. She had also handed over blood stained pant of her husband Paramjit before police which was sealed by the police and was taken into possession vide memo Ex PW2/B. She further deposed that she again joined investigation of the case on 31.3.13 with IO and accompanied him to the place occurrence where IO prepared site Ex PW2/C at her instance. On the same day, both the accused herein were also arrested from outside jhuggi no. B88, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi on her pointing out, vide arrest memos Ex PW2/D and Ex PW2/F and their personal search was taken vide memos Ex PW2/E and Ex PW2/G. State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 7 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 The lid of pressure cooker was also got recovered at the instance of accused.
This witness correctly identified both the accused as also lid of pressure cooker Ex P1, jeans pant Ex P2 as belonging to her husband, during trial.
This witness has been cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons.
PW6 Sh. Paramjeet Singh: This witness is husband of complainant namely Smt. Rachna(PW2). Although, this witness has supported the case of prosecution to the extent that quarrel had taken place on the given date, time and place but he has not supported the case of prosecution on the aspect of identity of accused herein to be the assailants involved in the commission of offence.
He deposed that he had heard noise of quarrel on which he went to the lane(street) where he was pushed by someone due to which he had fallen down and sustained injuries as he was under the influence of liquor at that time.
This witness was cross examined by Ld Additional PP as he was not supporting the case of prosecution but still, he did not support the prosecution story on material points. He denied to have made statement mark PW6/A before the police. He also denied that accused persons alongwith their associate Sonu(not arrested) had assaulted him or that they had any sort of quarrel with him at that time.
State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 8 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 However, this witness has admitted that his blue colour jeans pant was seized by the police vide memo Ex PW2/B which also bears his signature at point C. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
POLICE WITNESSES PW1 HC Gajender: This is the formal witness who had recorded FIR in question on 31.3.13 at about 12.30 A.M. He exhibited copy of FIR in question as Ex PW1/A and his endorsement Ex PW1/B on the rukka regarding registration of the FIR.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
PW3 HC Sandeep: This witness was working as MHC(M) in PS Jahangir Puri during the relevant period when investigation of the present case was being conducted. He deposed about the factum regarding deposit of two sealed pullandas sealed with the seal of LPS in Malkhana by IO ASI Lekh Raj on 31.3.13 vide entry at serial no. 3180 of register no. 19. He proved copy thereof as Ex PW3/A. He also deposed about deposit of another sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of MS BJRM hospital and sample seal of same specimen in the Malkhana by ASI Lekh Raj on 07.04.13 vide entry at serial no. 3244 of register no. 19. He proved copy thereof as Ex PW3/B. State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 9 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 He further deposed that on 18.04.13, all the above mentioned sealed parcels and sample seals were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Vinayak(PW5) vide RC no. 38/21/13. He proved copy of relevant endorsement made by him in register no. 19 in this regard as Ex PW3/C and copy of said RC no. 38/21/13 as Ex PW3/D. He further deposed that on 18.06.13, all the above mentioned three sealed parcels sealed with the seal of FSL, Rohini alongwith FSL results were deposited in Malkhana by Ct. Devender.
During cross examination, he denied the suggestion that no parcel was received by him in the Malkhana and all the relevant entries were ante dated or ante timed by him.
PW4 Ct. Jitender & PW8 ASI Lekh Raj Singh: Both these witnesses were part of the investigation carried out in this case. Both of them deposed on identical lines by testifying that after receipt of DD no. 105B, they had gone to place of information where it was revealed that injured had already been shifted to BJRM hospital on which they went to BJRM hospital where ASI Lekh Raj collected MLC of injured Paramjit who was declared unfit for statement. ASI Lekh Raj recorded statement Ex PW2/A of complainant Smt. Rachna on the basis of which he prepared rukka Ex PW8/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Jitender. Thereafter, both of them alongwith complainant Smt. Rachna went to the place of occurrence where site plan Ex PW2/C was prepared at her instance.
Both the witnesses also deposed about further investigation State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 10 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 carried out in this case including recording statement Ex PW8/B of injured Paramjit on 31.3.13 as also about arrest of both the accused persons and disclosure statements Ex PW4/A and Ex PW4/B made by them.
Both these witnesses further deposed that accused Deva @ Deva Nand got recovered one cooker lid from below the bed of room of his jhuggi. They also deposed that pullanda of said lid of pressure cooker was prepared which was sealed with the seal of LRS and was seized vide memo Ex PW4/C. Both the said accused had also pointed out the place of offence vide memo Ex PW4/D. PW8 further deposed that on 07.04.13, blood sample of injured Paramjit alongwith sample seal were handed over to him which were seized vide memo Ex PW8/C and relevant exhibits were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Vinayak for expert opinion. He had collected the FSL result Ex PX and prepared charge sheet in this case.
Both the witnesses have been cross examined at length on behalf of accused persons.
PW5 Ct. Vinayak: This is a formal witness who had deposited relevant exhibits of this case in the office of FSL, Rohini vide RC no. 28/21/13 and handed over copy of acknowledgment issued by FSL, Rohini alongwith copy of Road Certificate to concerned MHC(M) on 18.04.13. He has not been cross examined by the accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 11 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 PW7 Ct. Sombir: This witness is again a formal witness who had recorded information regarding quarrel at jhuggies of K Block near Mother Diary, Jahangir Puri, Delhi as received by him on 30.03.13 at about 9.40 P.M vide DD no. 105B. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex PW7/A. This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE PW9 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary: This witness had identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Akash and Dr. Vikram( the then S.R Surgery) on MLC no. 56884 of patient/injured Paramjit.
He deposed that as per said MLC Ex PW9/A, the injured Paramjit was found having following injuries:
1. Bruise and swelling present over the right eye lid and right forehead (4x4 cm.)
2. CLW over chin 3.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
3. CLW over left parietal region 5 x 0.5 cm.
4. CLW over occipital region 3x0.5 cm.
He further deposed that the nature of injuries sustained by patient/injured Paramjit was opined as simple vide noting appearing at portion Y to Y on MLC Ex PW9/A by Dr. Vikram.
This witness has not been cross examined by accused persons despite State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 12 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 grant of opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED While opening the arguments, Ld Additional PP submitted that prosecution has been able to establish the charge levelled against both the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. In support of said contention, he heavily relied upon testimony of PW2 Ms. Rachna as also the depositions of police witnesses examined during trial. He contended that accused could not impeach the testimony of PW2 Smt. Rachna during cross examination and therefore, both the accused should be convicted accordingly.
Per contra, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against accused persons beyond doubt. He pointed out that PW6 namely Paramjeet, who is noneelse but husband of complainant Smt. Rachna(PW2), has not supported the case of prosecution at all. He further argued that PW6 has deposed contrary to the case of prosecution and therefore, reasonable doubt is created in the prosecution story benefit of which must be given to the accused persons.
Before discussing the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to refer to the provision contained in Section 134 of Indian Evidence Act which expressly provides that no particular number of witness shall in any case be required for proving any fact. In the matter titled as "Sheelam Remesh & Anr. Vs. State of A.P." reported in JT 1999 (8) S.C. 537, it was observed by Hon'ble Apex Court as under: State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 13 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 "Courts are concerned with the quality and not quantity of evidence and in a criminal trial, conviction can be based on a sole evidence of a witness, if it inspire confidence".
In the matter titled as Darya Singh Vs. State of Punjab(1964) 3 SCR 397 and in subsequent judgment in the matter titled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr. reported at (2011) 10 SCC 158, it has been observed as under: "(i) While appreciating the evidence of witness considering him as the interested witness, the Court must bear in mind that the term 'interested' postulates that the witness must have some direct interest in having the accused somehow or the other convicted for some other reason.(Vide: Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar(1996) 1 SCC 614; and Rakesh and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh JT 2011(10) SC 525).
(ii) This Court has consistently held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. That is the logic of Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872. But if there are doubts about the testimony, the Court will insist on corroboration. In fact, it is not the number, the quantity, but the quality that is material. The timehonoured principle is that evidence has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the evidence has a ring of truth, is cogent, credible and trustworthy or otherwise. The legal system has laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 14 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a Competent Court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence".
No doubt, PW6 namely Paramjeet has not supported the prosecution story on material points. He has also not identified any of the accused herein to be the assailant(s) involved in the commission of offence but the relevant part of his testimony to the extent whereby he has supported the case of prosecution can always be taken into consideration by the Court.
Thus, the relevant portion of testimony of PW6 whereby he deposed that quarrel had taken place on the given date, time and place as also that his jeans pant was seized by the police vide memo Ex PW2/B, can be considered under the law. Since, this witness has not been cross examined at all on behalf of accused persons, the said portion of his testimony has gone unchallenged and unrebutted.
In any event, PW2 Smt. Rachna has completely supported the prosecution story on all material points. Both the accused could not impeach testimony of said witness through litmus test of cross examination. She has successfully withstood the test of cross examination. She remained consistent even during cross examination that it were both the accused herein who alongwith their third associate namely Sonu(not arrested) had assaulted her husband Paramjit and caused injuries to him.
It has come on record during the testimony of PW2 Smt. Rachna State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 15 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 that both the said accused were residing in nearby jhuggi no. B88, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi as she alongwith her husband Paramjit(PW6) were residing in jhuggi no. 866, K Block, Jahangir Puri, Delhi, and thus, both the accused persons were previously known to the said witness.
It is nowhere the defence raised by accused persons that PW2 Smt. Rachna had any kind of previous enmity or ill will against either of them so as to depose falsely against them or to get them falsely implicated in this case. In fact, no such suggestion is even put to the said witness from the side of accused persons during cross examination. Instead, the defence raised by accused persons during cross examination of this witness is that since she used to sell liquor from her jhuggi, bad elements used to come to her jhuggi due to which accused used to object and on the date of incident, quarrel had taken place between her husband and some person who had come to her jhuggi for purchasing liquor during which her husband was assaulted by said unknown person who caused injuries to him. However, the said defence raised by accused persons could not be substantiated either by way of cross examination of prosecution witnesses or otherwise. Both the accused persons opted not to examine any witness in their defence.
Moreover, the police witnesses examined during trial have also corroborated the case of prosecution on all material points. They have deposed about the entire investigation carried out in this case and accused could not elicit anything contrary to the case of prosecution by way of their cross examination. The medical evidence in the form of testimony of PW9 Dr. Neeraj Choudhary and the MLC Ex PW9/A also corroborate the ocular State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 16 of 17 FIR No. 103/13 U/s 308 IPC; P.S. Jahangir Puri D.O.D. 30.10.2014 evidence in the form of testimony of PW2 Smt. Rachna that Sh. Paramjit(PW6) had sustained injuries on his head and other parts of the body and such injuries were possible with blunt force object like lid of pressure cooker Ex P1 produced during trial.
In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing its case in respect of offence U/s 308/34 IPC against both the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt. Consequently, the accused persons namely Deva @ Deva Nand and Amit Kumar stand convicted for the said offence.
Announced in open Court today
dt. 30.10.2014 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04
North District, Rohini Courts
Delhi
State V/s Deva @ Devanand Etc. ("Convicted") Page 17 of 17