Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors. on 12 November, 2021
1 / 11
IN THE COURT OF SHRI JAGMOHAN SINGH
ACMM: NORTH: ROHINI COURTS:NEW DELHI
FIR No. 356/13
PS: Mukherjee Nagar
U/s. 325/34 IPC.
State vs. Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
Date of Institution of case: 23.06.2014.
Date of Judgment reserved: 12.11.2021.
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 12.11.2021
JUDGMENT
Unique ID no. of the case : 5281687/16
Date of commission of offence : 28.08.2013
Name of complainant : Harvinder Singh S/o Late Sh. Beant Singh
Bhasin, R/o H. No. 31/3, A-1 Block, Sant
Nagar, Burari, Delhi.
Name and address of accused : 1. Vijay Pal Singh Yadav S/o Rajender Singh, R/o H.No. 227, Munshi Ram Colony, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
2. Shishpal S/o Sh. Chandan Pal, R/o H. No. 16/5, Indra Vikas Colony, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
3. Hawai S/o Ram Prakash, R/o N-14/436, Munshi Ram Dairy, Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained of : 325/34 IPC. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty Date of order : 12.11.2021 Final order : Convicted BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION Brief Facts
1. The present FIR was registered on the complaint of one Sh. Harvinder Singh to the effect that on 28.08.2013 at about 5.30 pm, near Sarvodya School, FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
2 / 11Nirankari Colony, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Mukherjee Nagar, all the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous injuries on the person of complainant by blunt object.
2. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. Copies of charge sheet were supplied to him in compliance of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as Cr.P.C.) and charge U/s. 325/34 IPC was framed vide order dated 04.03.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution was thereafter given opportunity to prove the accusations against the accused. In support of its case, prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Thereafter, statement of all the three accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. read with Section 281 Cr. P.C., during which they stated that they were falsely implicated. Thereafter, the accused led evidence in their defence through DW1 Sh. Ram. Madan Appreciation of evidence in the light of settled legal propositions
4. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld. Counsel for accused. I have also perused the record carefully.
5. PW1 Harvinder Singh is the complainant. He deposed that on 26.08.2013, he was driving RTV, bearing registration no. DL1VA0013 and was parking said RTV near the Nirankari Sr. Seondary School. One champion vehicle bearing registration No. DL1LY6616 was behind him and was continuously honking and abusing. After parking the said RTV he got down from the RTV. Thereafter, said Champion vehicle came near him and there were three persons inside the said champion. Witness correctly identified all the three accused persons before the Court. The witness further deposed that he asked the accused person whether they abused their father (also) like that, on which one person FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
3 / 11punched him on his mouth and other two persons started beating the complainant with fist and blow. One Rakesh, neighbouring shop owner and other public persons rescued him. All the accused persons fled from the spot alongwith the Champion vehicle. Thereafter, police official arrived at the spot and took him to the hospital, where his two teeth were taken out. One Ranjeet was with him. Thereafter, he alongwith Ranjeet went to the police station and he narrated the facts to the IO. His statement was recorded by the IO. PW1 further deposed that after 2022 days of lodging the FIR, he went to the police station and identified the accused persons and they were arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW1/B, PW 1/C and PW1/D and their personal search memo were prepared vide memo Ex PW1/E, PW1/F and PW1/G. The disclosure statements of all the three accused persons were also recorded vide Ex PW1/H, PW1/I and PW1/J. IO seized the above said champion vehicle vide memo Ex PW1/K. All memos bore his signature at pointA.
6. PW2 Retired ASI Naresh Kumar is the duty officer, who registered the FIR No. 356/13 on 11.09.2013. The computerized opy of the same is Ex PW2/A and the endoresement on the rukka is Ex PW2/B, both bearing his signature at pointA. Thereafter, he handed over the coy of FIR alongwith the rukka to ASI Lala Ram.
7. PW3 Sh. Nanak is registered owner of champion vehicle bearing no. DL 1LJ6616. He deposed that he was asked by some police officials to bring the above said vehicle to the police station as a quarrel had taken place. He further deposed that he was not aware as to who was driving his vehicle at the time of incident. PW3 was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State with the permission FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
4 / 11of the Court on the ground that he was resiling from his earlier statement. During the same PW3 admitted that on the date of the incident, accused Shish Pal was his driver and the above champion vehicle was in his possession on the said date.
8. PW4 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar had examined the complainant Sh. Harvinder Singh on 26.08.2013 vide MLC No. 169755 Ex PW4/A and after preliminary examination referred him to Dental and ENT Department. The kind of weapon opined by him was 'blunt'. The nature of injury was not given by him.
9. PW5 Ct. Narpal is DD Writer, who on 26.08.2013 at about 6.10 PM received a call regarding an accident at Nirankari Colony, near Sarvodya School, Delhi from the control room and he recorded DD entry 90B and marked the same to ASI Lala Ram. The true attested copy of DD No. 90B is Ex PW5/A. On the same day, he also received another call at around 7.20 PM regarding a quarrel at Sant Nirankari Colony, near Sarvodya School, Delhi from control room and he recorded DD Entry No. 93B and also marked the same to ASI Lala Ram. The true attested copy of DD No. 90B is Ex PW5/B.
10. PW6 Dr. Vibhu was Radiologist at LNJP Hospital, who on 26.08.2013, on the basis of Xray film 8297 of patient Harvinder Singh vide MLC No. 169577 opined that there was no obvious bony injury seen in the "mandible" i.e. jaw area. The Xray film is Ex PW6/A and the opinion given by him is Ex PW6/B, both bearing his signature at pointA.
11. PW7 Sh. Anil Kumar is record clerk of Sushruta Trauma Center, Delhi, who brought the summoned record i.e. the original containing carbon copy of MLC bearing no. 169755 of Sh. Harvinder Singh Ex PW4/A and deposed that Dr. Kirti, SR Ent had opined the nature of injury as grievous. He also brought the FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
5 / 11copy of casualty card Ex PW7/A, containing brief history and internal notes prepared by Dr. Kirti, bearing her signature at pointA.
12. PW8 SI Lala Ram is the IO of the case. He has deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He also deposed that he recorded the statement of PW Sh. Nanak (already Mark X1), as per the version given by him. The said statement was exhibited as Ex PW8/D, bearing his signature at pointY.
13. DW1 Sh. Ram Madan deposed that the present incident happened 56 years ago on Monday in front of his house, where he was running a tea shop also. There was jam due to illegal parking of vehicle i.e. RTV of complainant Harvinder Singh in front of/near Nirankari school. Upon this, scuffle took place between complainant and accused persons. Thereafter, the complainant Harvinder Singh left his vehicle on the road and fled away from the spot. Then neighbours of the locality made a complaint to the principal of Nirankari School regarding the negligent act of the complainant. Police did not inquire from him about the incident. There was no fault of the accused persons in the said incident. No beating was given by the accused persons to the complainant and no teeth was broken at that time. He tried to intervene between the accused and the complainant.
14. The above evidence may now be considered. PW1 Sh. Harvinder Singh has deposed cogently about all material particulars of the case. He clearly stated that on the day of the incident i.e. on 26.08.2013, he was driving an RTV vehicle while a champion vehicle driven by the accused was behind his vehicle. He also stated that there were three persons inside the champion vehicle. He has further FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
6 / 11stated that accused persons started abusing him as he was not able to give way/side to the champion vehicle. He also categorically deposed that one of the accused persons punched him on the mouth while the other two accused beat him with fist and blows. He also deposed that he was taken to Maulana Azad Medical College, where during his treatment, two of his teeth were taken out. PW1 also identified all the three accused in Court as well as the Champion vehicle driven by them. The above PW1 was crossexamined on behalf of Ld. Counsel for the accused persons but nothing material emerged therefrom to be of any avail to the accused.
15. PW4 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar deposed that on the MLC of the victim Ex PW 4/A, the kind of weapon used was opined as "blunt." He also stated during his crossexamination that there was loosening of two lower incisor teeth from the jaw.
16. PW7 Anil Kumar, Record Clerk, Sushruta Trauma Centre, Delhi, deposed on behalf of the treating doctor, namely, Dr. Kirti, SR ENT and stated that on the MLC Ex PW4/A, the nature of injury was opined to be grievous by Dr. Kirti.
17. From the combined reading of the testimonies of the above PW1, PW4 and PW7, it clearly emerges that on the day of the incident, one of the accused persons punched PW1 on the mouth due to which there was loosening of two lower incisor teeth from the jaw. As per PW4 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar, the nature of weapon used in the assault was "blunt" and as per Dr. Kriti, SR ENT, victim/PW 1 suffered grievous injury.
18. It is pertinent at this stage to mention that as per Section 320 IPC, seventhly, fracture or dislocation of any tooth would amount to grievous hurt.
FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
7 / 1119. PW1 has categorically deposed that due to the assault by the accused persons, two of his teeth were taken out/removed during treatment. Thus, the ingredients of the offence U/s 325 IPC are clearly made out in the present case. It is also clear from the testimony of PW1 that the accused persons were acting with common intention to cause grievous injuries to the victim/PW1. Thus, all the accused are liable to be held guilty for the offence U/s 325 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
20. Ld. Counsel for accused argued that, -
i. During his chief examination dated 18.09.2017, PW1 stated that neighbouring shop keepers Rajesh and other public persons came to rescue him but they have not been examined as PWs. Similarly, as per PW1, one Ranjeet accompanied him during his medical examination but the said Ranjeet has also not been examined as PW;
ii. During his crossexamination PW1 stated that the Champion vehicle was driven by accused Vijay Pal while as per reply Ex PW3/A given by PW3 Sh. Nanak, being registered owner of the Champion vehicle, the same was being driven by accused Shishpal;
iii. The two broken teeth were not handed over to the IO nor produced in the Court;
iv. PW3 Sh. Nanak is completely hostile regarding the identity of the accused persons;
v. IO/PW8 SI Lala Ram stated that statement of the complainant was recorded at the Trauma Centre while PW1/victim deposed that the same was recorded on the spot.
FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
8 / 1121. The above arguments may now be considered. No doubt neither Rajesh nor Ranjeet have been examined as PWs. However, it is settled law as per Section 135 Evidence Act that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove any fact. Secondly, the testimony of PW1 Harvinder Singh is cogent and trustworthy. Accordingly, in the considered opinion of this Court, non examination of Rajesh and Ranjeet is not fatal to the prosecution case.
22. It was infact deposed by PW1 during his crossexamination that the Champion vehicle was driven by accused Vijay Pal while in the reply Ex PW3/A given by PW3 Sh. Nanak it was stated that accused Shishpal was driving the above vehicle. However, it has to be remembered that it is not a case of road accident. Hence, it is not material as to which of the three accused was driving the champion vehicle. What is material is that all the three accused persons were present on the spot at the time of the incident. Their presence on the spot is categorically established not only from the testimony of PW1/victim Sh. Harvinder Singh but also from the deposition of DW1 Ram Madan itself, who clearly deposed that on the day of the incident, a scuffle took place between PW1 and the accused persons (meaning thereby all the three accused). DW1 also admitted during his crossexamination that all the three accused persons were inside the Champion vehicle. In view of the same, the present argument is of little avail to the defence.
23. It is indeed a matter of fact that the two broken teeth of PW1 were neither seized by the IO nor produced in the Court. However, if it is clear from the bare perusal of the Section 325 IPC, seventhly, referred to above, that even dislocation FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
9 / 11of a tooth would amount to grievous hurt. The said fact of dislocation of tooth stands proved from the testimony of PW1 as well as MLC Ex PW4/A that there was loosening of two lower incisor teeth of PW1 due to the assault. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, nonseizure/non production of the broken teeth during the trial is also not fatal to the prosecution case.
24. The next argument advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel is regarding PW3 Sh. Nanak (who was the registered owner of the Champion vehicle) being hostile about the identity of the accused persons. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the above witness was crossexamined by the Ld. APP during which he admitted that accused Sheeshpal was his driver and the said vehicle was in his possession on the date of incident. As the above PW was not an eyewitness of the incident, his testimony regarding identity of the other two accused is not relevant and, therefore, of no consequence. Thus, the present argument is also of no avail to the defence.
25. The last argument of the Ld. Defence Counsel is regarding inconsistency between the testimonies of PW1 Sh. Harvinder Singh and PW8 SI Lala Ram regarding the place where the statement of the victim was recorded. As per PW 1, after receiving treatment at Maulana Azad Hospital, he went to the police station and narrated the fact to the IO. On the other hand, as per PW8/IO SI Lala Ram, he recorded the above statement at the Trauma Centre. No doubt to this extent there is inconsistency in the testimonies of the above PWs. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the same is minor in nature and does not effect the case of the prosectuion adversely. It also has to be remembered that the FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
10 / 11incident took place in the year 2013 and both the above PWs were deposing after lapse of more than five years. In such circumstances, minor discrepancies are bound to occur in the testimonies of various PWs.
26. I have also gone through the testimony of DW1 Ram Madan. However, in the considered opinion of the Court, the same lacks credence and cannot be relied upon. While during his chief examination, DW1 stated that scuffle took place between the victim Sh. Harvinder Singh and the accused persons about illegal parking of the RTV belonging to the complainant, during his crossexamination, he admitted that both the vehicle driven by the complainant and the accused were in running condition. Not only that, he also admitted during his cross examination that all the three accused persons were inside the Champion vehicle at the time of the incident. His testimony to the effect that no beating was given by the accused persons to the complainant and no teeth was broken at that time is also contrary to the cogent testimony of PW1. It is also contrary to the testimony of PW4 Dr. Dheeraj Kumar that there was loosening of two incisor teeth from the jaw of PW1 due to the assault. Thus, in the considered opinion of this Court, the testimony of the above DW is not reliable and, therefore, of no avail to the defence.
Decision
27. In view of the above reasoning, I hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against all the three accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the three accused, namely, Vijay Pal Singh Yadav, Shispal and Hawai are, therefore, convicted of the offence punishable U/s 325 read with Section 34 IPC. A copy of the judgment be given to all the convicts dasti and free of cost. Order on sentence FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.
11 / 11shall be passed after hearing the convicts, the victim as well as the State.
28. Bail bonds in terms of Section 437A Cr.PC have already been obtained from the convicts in compliance of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in State Vs Virender Yadav & Anr. 2014 I A.D (Del.) 389.
Digitally signed by JAGMOHAN JAGMOHAN SINGH
SINGH Date: 2021.11.20
16:07:42 +0700
Announced in open Court on (JAGMOHAN SINGH)
12.11.2021 (11 pages) ACMM (North)/Rohini Courts
Delhi
FIR No. 356/13 PS Mukherjee Nagar State VS Vijay Pal Singh Yadav & Ors.