Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Abhijeet Singh on 30 April, 2011
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja
Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 21/2010
State versus 1) Abhijeet Singh
S/o Sh. Devender Singh
R/o M8D Arjun Apartments
Vikas Puri, Delhi
2) Vinay
S/o Sh. K. P. Singh
R/o D104, Navjyoti Apartments
SectorIV, Dwarka
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 432/2007
Police Station : Vikaspuri
Under Section : 279/341/354/308/427/506/34 IPC
Judgment reserved on : 18.4.2011
Judgment pronounced on : 28.4.2011
JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the Prosecution that on 11.11.07, it was the festival of BhaiDuj and Complainant Dr. Akansha Mehta R/o C271, IInd Floor, Vikaspuri, Delhi along with her brother Akshay Mehta were going to the house of her grand father at Janakpuri. She was driving her Maruti Esteem car bearing No. DL4CG 2804. When she reached near Ashutosh Medical Store near Krishna Park at about 1212.15 PM, one WagonR car bearing No. DL2C FW 0060, which was driven by Accused Abhijeet Singh, who was accompanied by Accused Vinay, came from the front side.
2. It was alleged that Accused Abhijeet Singh was driving the said Wagon R car in a rash and negligent manner and at fast speed. He blocked the way of the car of the Complainant Dr. Akansha Mehta and kept his car standing in front of her car for about 1520 minutes. When the Complainant requested him to move his car, he used objectionable words and also abused her. When the brother of the Complainant Akshay Mehta tried to stop them, Accused Abhijeet took out base ball bat and hit Akshay Mehta with the same. He also hit the front windscreen of the car of the Complainant and the window glass of her car with the help of said base ball bat.
3. The Complainant further alleged that he continued to go around her car while striking her car with the said base ball bat. The brother of the Complainant Akshay Mehta had sustained severe injuries. She also alleged that Accused Abhijeet Singh tried to drag her out of her car while saying, "kahan ja rahi hai, hamari gadi mei baeth ja nahi to tujhe or tere bhai to jaan se maar denge". The Complainant quickly took her car towards U. K. Nursing Home, MBlock, Vikaspuri but as she was on her way to the said Nursing Home, Accused Abhijeet over took his car and blocked her way by applying sudden brake of his Wagon R car, due to which the Maruti Esteem car of the Complainant struck against said Wagon R car from behind. She alleged that the driver of the Wagon R car again attacked upon her brother Akshay Mehta with the help of base ball bat and threatened to kill him. The Complainant with great difficulty managed to take her brother to U. K. Nursing Home and got him admitted there.
4. The chargesheet further discloses that on receipt of the said information, IO along with Constable Sunil Kumar reached at U. K. Nursing Home where both the aforesaid cars were found standing. The windscreen driving seat wind glasses of Maruti Esteem car was found broken. Rear window of the Wagon R car was also found to be damaged. Accused Abhijeet Singh was also met at the spot who left from the spot in his Wagon R car. The injured Akshay Mehta was found admitted in U. K. Nursing Home and had been declared unfit for statement as per MLC obtained by the IO. IO also recorded statement of the Complainant Dr. Akansha Mehta and got the case registered on the basis thereof.
5. Further investigation was transferred to SI Hari Kishan, who during the course of investigation prepared site plan at the instance of Complainant and seized the two vehicles i.e. Maruti Esteem Car of the Complainant and Wagon R car of the Accused. Both the vehicles were got mechanically inspected and their photographs were taken. During the course of investigation on 02.1.08 keys of the said Wagon R car were handed over to the IO who in presence of two public witnesses got the vehicle again mechanically inspected. From he said Wagon R car on base ball bat was also seized and after completion of further investigation, chargesheet was submitted before the court.
6. After the committal of the case, both the Accused persons were charged for offences punishable under Section 341/427/308/354/506/34 IPC vide order dated 21.4.09 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In addition to the aforesaid, Accused Abhijeet Singh was also charged for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC to which also he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. I have heard the detailed arguments advanced by Learned Defence Counsels and Learned APP for the State and have gone through the evidence on record in its entirety.
8. The Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the Accused persons examined as many as 17 witnesses. The statements of Accused persons were recorded under Section 313 CrPC wherein they denied the allegations against them and pleaded false implication at the instance of the Complainant and her father. It was stated by Accused Abhijeet Singh that infact accident had been caused by the Complainant and the instant case was registered in order to save her from the case. He examined his mother Savitri Singh as DW1 and Constable Om Prakash as DW2 in his defence. Accused Vinay also pleaded false implication and stated that he was not present on the date, time and place of the incident and at that time he was infact in his shop and has been falsely implicated in this case being friend of Accused Abhijeet Singh. Accused Vinay also examined one witness i.e DW3 Pammi in his defence.
9. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused persons, Prosecution relied upon the statement of PW14 Dr. Akansha Mehta and PW5 Akshay Mehta.
10. PW14 deposed that on 11/11/07, it was Bhai Dhoj and between 1212.30 PM, she along with her brother Akshay Mehta was going to the house of her grand father at Janakpuri in Maruti Esteem ar bearing No. DL4CG 2804 which was being driven by her. When she reached near Ashutosh Medical Storen, one white colour Wagon R car bearing No. DL2CFW 006 suddenly blocked her way and kept standing for about 10 minutes. He requested the persons sitting in the car (later identified as Accused persons) to remove their car upon which Accused Abhijeet took out one baseball bat from the dicky of the car. Complainant also deposed that Accused persons started using abusive language. When her brother requested Accused persons to behave properly, both the Accused persons broke the wind screen, the bonnet the dicky and other glasses on the windows of the car by baseball bat. When her brother again requested not to do so, Accused Abhijeet tried to drag Complainant out of the car. PW14 further deposed that when her brother tried to intervene, both the Accused persons stated beating him by means of bat and fist blows. She also deposed that both the Accused persons told her to sit in their car and threatened to kill her and her brother, if she failed to do so. PW14 further deposed that she with great difficulty, rescued herself and managed to turn her car in order to take her injured brother, who was bleeding profusely to U. K. Nursing Home. It is stated that when she was driving the car towards U. K. Nursing Home, Accused persons overtook her car and applied sudden brake against her car due to which her car struck against the car of the Accused persons. She again came out of the car and Accused persons again started beating her brother with baseball bat. She also alleged that Accused persons were using abusive language. She thereafter made a call to her father and narrated the incident. Police also came to the hospital and recorded her statement Ex. PW14/A. Her car was seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW4/B.
11. PW15 also deposed that on the date of the incident i.e. 11.11.07 when she was going with her sister PW14 Dr. Akansha Mehta in their Maruti Esteem car bearing No. DL4C G2804, one while colour Wagon R car bearing No. DL2C FW 0060 came and stopped in front of their car. He deposed that her sister blow horn for a side despite which Accused persons got the way blocked for about 1020 minutes despite that her sister requested them to remove their car from the way. At this, the occupants of said car started hurling abuses upon her.
12. PW15 further deposed that Accused Abhijeet took out baseball bat from dicky of the car and started hitting the bat on the bonnet and front screen of the car. When he requested not to do so, Accused Abhijeet hit him with the baseball bat on his head due to which he started bleeding profusely. He deposed that Accused Vinay tried to drag his sister out of the car.
13. When her sister again tried to turn the car to take him to U. K. Nursing Home, he felt impact of a car hitting their car on the side and thereafter from the front. He further deposed that he heard Accused Abhijeet was threatening his sister to sit in their car, otherwise, they will kill him.
14. Besides the aforesaid witnesses, Prosecution also placed reliance on the deposition of PW11 Dr. Vijay Kakkar who had examined PW15 at U. K. Nursing Home, Vikaspuri, Delhi and had deposed that patient Akshay Mehta had come with a history of assault by someone with multiple injuries on face and skin loss of eye lid and forehead and that he operated upon him to repair wounds. During the course of his deposition, it was revealed that MLC have not been prepared by him and in order to prove the MLC reliance was placed upon testimony of PW16 Dr. Rakesh Kumar, who was working as Medical Officer at U. K. Nursing Home on the date of the incident i.e. 11.11.07. He had examined Akshay Mehta vide MLC No. 46/2000 which is Ex. PW16/A and on examination, he found multiple CLW and abrasion over face and right side pinna (ear). He also deposed that Dr. Vijay Kakkar opined the nature of injuries sustained by the patient as grevious. PW16 further deposed that he had examined PW14 Dr. Akansha Mehta and prepared MLC Ex. PW16/B and opined the nature of injuries sustained by her as simple.
15. Besides the said medical evidence, reliance was also placed by the Prosecution on the testimony of Mechanical Inspector PW1, who conducted the inspection of both the vehicles in question. PW1 proved the report of mechanical inspection of Maruti Esteem car bearing No. DL4CG 2804 as Ex. PW1/A and that of the Wagon R car of the Accused persons bearing No. DL2FCW 0060 Ex. PW1/B. He also deposed that he had inspected the Wagon R car personally on 11.11.07 and on 02.1.08 requested by the IO/SI Hari Kishan and has prepared his report Ex. PW1/C. He further clarified that since the key of the car was not available earlier, he had again inspected the Wagon R car on 02.1.08.
16. It was submitted that the nature of damage on the vehicles in question as per the mechanical inspection report, clearly corroborates deposition of PW14 and PW15. Learned APP pointed out that it is apparent that the Maruti Esteem car of the Complainant which was greatly damaged from the front side which was due to the sudden impact as the Complainant had to apply sudden brake to her car when the Accused persons blocked her car and stopped the their car in front of her car. Learned APP also placed reliance on the photographs of the vehicles which were proved by PW2 and submitted that bare perusal of the photographs of the vehicle in question would reveal that it is the Accused persons who had broken the front wind screen of the car of the Complainant by means of baseball bat, as deposed by PW14 and PW15.
17. Per contra, Learned Defence Counsel stated that photographs Ex. PW2/A1 to PW2/A10 clearly have not been proved on record by the Prosecution and objection as regards mode of proof was raised at the time of examination of PW2 itself. It was established that as per the crossexamination of PW2, the photographs were not taken by him and were infact taken by one Mahender, who has not been examined by the Prosecution. Also, admittedly photographs were taken from digital camera and have not been duly proved on record.
18. I have considered the said submissions in the light of deposition of PW2. It would be noticed on going through his cross examination that person who had infact taken the photographs was very much available and PW2 has deposed that he knows about his whereabouts despite which Prosecution failed to examine the photographer and to duly prove the photographs of the vehicles in question on record.
19. Be that as it may, it has been vehemently argued by Learned APP that case of the Prosecution stands duly proved by way of testimony of PW14, PW15, PW1, PW11 and PW16.
20. Learned APP further submitted that recovery of the baseball bat from the Wagon R car of the Accused was also proved by the IO PW12 SI Hari Kishan and by an independent witness who was present at the time of recovery of baseball bat namely PW7 Manoj Kumar. He also established that baseball bat used by Accused persons in commission of alleged offence has also been duly identified by PW14, PW15 and PW7 Manoj Kumar.
21. On the contrary, Learned Defence Counsel drew my attention to the deposition of PW9 Karamjeet Singh who apparently failed to support the case of the Prosecution and deposed that no recovery of the baseball bat was effected in his presence. He further deposed that key of the car was infact with the police itself and was not handed over to the police by any public person. Relying on the statement of PW9, it was submitted by Learned Defence Counsel that Prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the baseball bat from the Wagon R car of the Accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and infact bat was planted by the Investigating Agency in the said Wagon R car after it was seized on 11.11.07.
22. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of the record of the case. It would be noticed that both IO/SI Hari Kishan and PW7 Manoj Kumar deposed that key of the car was produced by the owner of the vehicle pursuant to which Wagon R car was opened on 02.1.08 and the baseball bat, which PW7 correctly identified was taken out from the vehicle.
23. It would be relevant to note that Accused Abhijeet had filed an application for anticipatory bail before Hon'ble High Court being Bail Application No. 2895/07 and vide order dated 28.12.07 the Hon'ble High Court had granted interim relief to Accused Abhijeet subject to certain conditions, including that key of the accidental car shall be produced by him within 03 days at the concerned Police Station. Learned APP submitted that it is only on the said direction of Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 28.12.07, that the key of the car was infact produced in the concerned Police Station on 02.1.08 after which car was opened.
24. In view of the aforesaid, it is apparent that till 28.12.07 key of the car was very much in possession of the Accused Abhijeet and it is only pursuant to the conditional bail order dated 28.12.07 passed by Hon'ble High Court that he produced the key before the IO on 02.1.08. This fact has also been supported by the deposition of IO/SI Hari Kishan and an independent witness Manoj Kumar.
25. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no force in the submissions of Learned Defence Counsel that key was already in possession of the IO on 11.11.07 and in the light of the testimony of PW9, case of the Prosecution as regards the opening of the car on 02.1.08 by the key produced by the owner is prejudiced in any manner whatsoever.
26. In so far as the contention that baseball was planted is concerned, I find that there is sufficient evidence on record to the effect that baseball bat was found in the Wagon R car of the Accused persons on 02.1.08 when it was opened with the help of key produced by the Accused Abhijeet. This fact is supported by deposition of PW7 who has also identified the baseball bat as well as IO/SI Hari Kishan. Baseball bat was also correctly identified by both PW14 and PW15 when the same was produced in the court.
27. In the light of the evidence on record, it has further been argued by Prosecution that its case stand proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP submitted that nature of injuries sustained by PW15 have been duly proved on record. It has been established that it is the Accused persons who had blocked the way of the car of the Complainant on 11.11.07 and thereafter restrained them from proceeding further. He also submitted that the allegations of hitting Akshay Mehta, PW15 by means of baseball bat by the Accused persons also stand duly proved by way of testimonies of PW14 and PW15 and that both the witnesses have also deposed that their car was damaged by the Accused persons, thus establishing the case of the Prosecution for offence punishable under Section 308 and Section 427 IPC. He further submitted that there is also testimonies of PW14 and PW15 regarding threats to kill them and the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC is also clearly made out.
28. Learned Defence Counsels on the other hand submitted that it is infact Complainant PW14 Dr. Akansha Mehta who had caused an accident by hitting her car against the Wagon R car of Accused persons and in order to avoid being involved in involvement in accident case, she has falsely implicated the Accused persons in the present case. In support of their arguments, Learned Defence Counsels drew my attention to the medical evidence on record filed by the Prosecution itself. It was submitted that nature of injuries allegedly sustained by Akshay Mehta as per MLC Ex. PW16/A would clearly show that he had received multiple CLW and abrasion over face and right side pinna (ear). Further, as per photocopy of MLC No. 46/07 the nature of multiple injuries on the face of Akshay Mehta is stated to be due to glass cuts. Learned Defence Counsels submitted that PW11 Dr. Vijay Kakkar in his crossexamination clearly deposed that nature of injuries sustained by the patient Akshay Mehta are also possible due to falling of glass. Similarly, in his crossexamination recorded on 08.11.10, PW11 Dr. Vijay Kakkar clearly deposed that multiple injuries on the face of Akshay Mehta were due to glass cuts.
29. Learned Defence Counsels thus strongly argued that the brother of the Complainant namely Akshay Mehta did not sustain any injuries by means of baseball bat and the Accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that as per the Prosecution's own documents and the deposition of Prosecution witnesses, the injuries sustained by PW15 were infact due to glass cuts and not due to the fact that Accused persons had hit him by means of baseball bat, as alleged.
30. While countering this arguments, Learned APP placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as State of UP Vs Hari Chand 2009 Cr.LJ 3039 wherein it has been laid down that where eyewitnesses' account found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Relying on the said judgment, he thus argued that testimonies of PW14 and PW15 is consistent to the effect that the injuries were caused upon the person of PW15 by the Accused persons hitting by means of baseball bat and in view thereof the variance in the medical evidence cannot be awarded much importance.
31. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of evidence on record. However, I find myself unable to agree with the submissions of Learned APP. It would be noticed on going through the crossexamination of PW11 and also upon the Prosecution's own documents i.e. photocopy of MLC No. 46/07 which is now being Ex. C1 for the purpose of identification, and operation record of Akshay Mehta Mark 'A', that the multiple injuries on the face of Akshay Mehta were due to glass cuts which resulted in skin loss. It is settled law that the documents filed by party, though not proved on record can be read against the said party. Thus, the Prosecution's own document Ex. C1 coupled with document Mark 'A' clearly belies its own case that the injuries sustained by PW15 on his face resulting in skin loss were due to the impact of baseball bat or were caused by Accused persons. Rather, it is reflected from the record that said injuries resulted in skin loss were on account of glass cuts. It is not the case of the Prosecution that glass pieces had fallen upon the face of the PW15 due to the fact that baseball bat hit wind screen of the Maruti Esteem car. Thus, this allegation cannot be imported into the facts of the case, as submitted by Learned APP. Rather, I find from the deposition of PW11 as well as medical evidence on record that the injuries were sustained due to glass custs and not due to the fact that PW15 was hit by the Accused persons by a baseball bat, as alleged.
32. I am supported in my view by judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Kapildeo Mandal and Ors. Vs State of Bihar 2008 Crl. L J 730 (1) wherein it has been laid down that in case there is total inconsistency between ocular evidence, medical evidence assumes importance. In this case, Hon'ble Apex Court placed reliance on the judgment titled as Thaman Kumar Vs State of Union Territory of Chandigarh AIR 2003 SC 3975 wherein it has been held: "the conflict between oral testimony and medical evidence can be of varied dimensions and shapes. There may be a case where there is total absence of injuries which are normally caused by a particular weapon. There is another category where though the injuries found on the victim are of the type which are possible by the weapon of assault, but the size and dimension of the injuries do not exactly tally with the size and dimension of the weapon. The third category can be where the injuries found on the victim are such which are normally caused by the weapon of assault but they are not found on that portion of the body where they are deposed to have been caused by the eyewitnesses. The same kind of inference cannot be drawn in the three categories of apparent conflict in oral and medical evidence enumerated above. In the first category it may legitimately be inferred that the oral evidence regarding assault having been made from a particular weapon is not truthful. However, in the second and third category no such inference can straightway be drawn. The manner and method of assault, the position of the victim, the resistance offered by him, the opportunity available to the witnesses to see the occurrence like their distance, presence of light and many other similar factors will have to be taken into consideration in judging the reliability of ocular testimony".
33. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that it is the Accused persons who had hit PW15 Akshay Mehta by means of baseball bat or that with such intention and under the circumstances that if by that act they had caused the death of PW15, they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC. In other words, in view of the aforesaid discussion and the evidence on record, I see no ground to convict Accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC with which they were charged. Both the Accused persons are hence acquitted for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC.
34. Now, coming to the other allegations, I find that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the charge for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC against Accused Abhijeet. Rather during the course of arguments, Learned APP vehemently argued that Accused had deliberately blocked the way of the car of the Complainant when they were near Ashutosh Medical Store and it also blocked the way of the car when she was trying to go towards U. K. Nursing Home. In these circumstances, I find no ground for holding that Accused Abhijeet has committed offence punishable under Section 279 IPC. He is hereby acquitted for the said offence.
35. I also find from the deposition of PW14 and PW15 that the allegations under Section 354 IPC also do not stand established on record. A bare perusal of Section 354 IPC reveal that in order to constitute an offence under said section, the Prosecution must establish that the Accused assaulted or used criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. In the present case, Complainant has made not such allegations in her deposition against Accused persons. There is nothing in her statement or in the statement of PW15 that Accused persons committed any act which was intended to outrage her modesty within the meaning of Section 354 IPC. Further, there are contradictions in the statement of both PW14 and PW15. It would be noticed on going through the statement of PW15 that Accused Vinay tried to drag his sister out of the car whereas PW14 Dr. Akansha Mehta deposed that Accused Abhijeet had caught hold her hand and tried to drag her out of the car.
36. Learned APP in this regard relied upon judgment titled as Ramswaroop Vs State of Rajasthan 2008 Cr. LJ 2259 wherein it has been held that certain minor variations in the testimonies of the witnesses would not corrode credibility of Prosecution version.
37. However, on going through the statement of PW14 and PW15, I find the the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. Variance in the deposition of PW14 and PW15 can certainly be not termed as minor. The alleged act on part of the Accused persons does not in any manner fulfill the ingredients necessary for constituting offence punishable under Section 354 IPC. Accordingly, on the basis of material on record, both the Accused persons are hereby acquitted for offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
38. I, however, find on going through the statement of PW14 and PW15 coupled with the mechanical inspection report of both the vehicles Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B that the Prosecution has been able to prove the allegations against Accused persons for offence punishable under Section 341/427/34 IPC. It is borne out from the statement of PW14 and PW15 that Accused persons who were sitting in the Wagon R car blocked the way of the Maruti Esteem car of the Complainant for about 10 minutes and did not allow her to move the car when they were near Ashutosh Medical Store. Again when Complainant PW14 tried to go towards U. K. Nursing Home, Accused persons blocked the way of her car by coming in front of her car and applied sudden brake due to which her car struck against car of the Accused persons. PW15 also corroborated the testimony of PW14 in support of the aforesaid allegations. However, both the witnesses namely PW14 and PW15 have deposed that Accused persons broke wind screen, bonnet and dicky and caused damage to the Maruti Esteem car of the Complainant by hitting it with the baseball bat. The question of recovery of the baseball bat from the Wagon R car of the Accused persons has already been held to be proved, as discussed herein above.
39. The mechanical inspection report Ex. PW1/A and PW1/B also shows that extensive damage not only on the front side of the vehicle, but also shows that the wind screen of the car was damaged in addition to damage on other parts of the vehicle, and thereby corroborates the testimonies of PW14 and PW15 that the Accused persons had caused damage to the car of the Complainant by hitting it with the baseball bat. It would be noticed that PW1 in his report Ex. PW1/A clearly stated that damage as mentioned at serial No. 7 to 13 on the Maruti Esteem Car has been caused by 'lathi like object'. He reiterated the same in his cross examination and denied the suggestion that glass of the Esteem Car had broken on account of any accident. On the basis of evidence on record, I also find myself unable to subscribe to the arguments of Learned Defence Counsel for Accused Vinay that he was not present at the time of the incident. PW14 and PW15 have clearly deposed about presence and role of the Accused Vinay. In my view, DW3 failed to establish the plea of alibi. DW3 also failed to establish the plea raised by Accused Vinay. It would be noticed on going through his testimony that he clearly deposed that he had come to depose in this case at the asking of Accused Vinay. He also stated that he was earlier working in the shop of Accused Vinay and thus it cannot be ruled out that he has deposed as per asking of the said Accused. Further, no documentary proof was furnished by the Accused Vinay to substantiate his presence at his shop on the date of the incident. Against this, testimonies of PW14 and PW15 as regards presence of Accused Vinay along with Accused Abhijeet in the Wagon R car has duly been established on record.
Thus, I find no ground to hold that Accused Vinay is liable to be acquitted in this case or that he was not present at the time of the accident in question.
40. Further, the evidence led by Accused Abhijeet in his defence does not establish his plea that infact accident had been caused by the Complainant or that present case was registered in order to save her from the accident case. In order to establish his said plea, Accused Abhijeet examined his mother Smt. Savitri Singh as DW1. However, on going through her deposition, she has only proved two calls made by her to PCR. However, as per Ex. DW1/A which is dated 11.12.07 and this cannot be said to have any bearing on the facts of the case since admittedly the incident is of 11.11.07.
In so far as DW1/C is concerned, the same also not in any manner establish the defence raised by Accused Abhijeet that it is Complainant who had caused the accident.
The Accused has also failed to prove that he had made any call to the police at the time of the accident in question. Nor any evidence has been led to establish that any injury was caused to him on account of accident. In view of the aforesaid, I find that defence sought to be raised by Accused Abhijeet has not been proved on record.
41. In the light of the evidence on record both the Accused persons are hereby convicted for offence punishable under Section 341/427/34 IPC.
42. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the evidence on record, both the Accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 341/427/506/34 IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 308/354 IPC. Accused Abhijeet is also acquitted for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
43. Let both the Accused persons be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open Court on April 28, 2011 (Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Abhijeet & Ors.
FIR No. 432/2007PS : Vikaspuri SC No. : 21/10 28.4.11 Present : Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Learned APP for State.
Both accused on bail.
Sh. Dev RajLd. Counsel for accused Abhijeet Singh. Sh. Rajiv KhoslaLd. Counsel for accused Vinay.
Vide judgment announced of even date on separate sheets, both the Accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 341/427/506/34 IPC and acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 308/354 IPC. Accused Abhijeet is also acquitted for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC.
Let both the Accused persons be heard on the point of sentence. Put up on 30.4.11.
(Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
In the Court of Ms. Kaveri Baweja Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
Sessions Case No. : 21/2010
State versus 1) Abhijeet Singh
S/o Sh. Devender Singh
R/o M8D Arjun Apartments
Vikas Puri, Delhi
2) Vinay
S/o Sh. K. P. Singh
R/o D104, Navjyoti Apartments
SectorIV, Dwarka
Case arising out of:
FIR No. : 432/2007
Police Station : Vikaspuri
Under Section : 279/341/354/308/427/506/34 IPC
Judgment pronounced on : 28.4.2011
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 341/427/506 IPC vide judgment dated 28.4.11.
2. I have considered the arguments advanced by Learned Counsel representing convicts and by Learned APP on the point of sentence.
3. Learned Counsel representing convict Abhijeet submits that Abhijeet is aged about 25 years and currently student of MBA. He submits that he is repenting for his acts. He further submits convicts has been regularly appearing in this case and has been facing trial since 2009. He also submits that there is no history of any previous involvement and prayer for taking lenient view and releasing the accused persons on probation is made.
4. Similarly, Learned Counsel representing convict Vinay has also prayed for lenient view and for releasing him on probation submitting that convict is aged about 35 years having no previous involvement or any case whatsoever. It is further submitted that convict has recently got married and has a minor child. It is further submitted that he has lessor role to play than coaccused Abhijeet and only happen to accompany him on the date of the incident in question. Reliance has been placed on the following judgments:
i) Dilbag Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1979 SC 680
ii) Mussarat Begum Vs State of Delhi & Ors. Cr. M.A No. 1087/2002
iii) Sanjay Vs State 2004 (3) JCC 1536
iv) Anil Kumar & Anr Vs The State Cr. Appeal No. 384/1999
(v) Ashok & Ors. Vs State Cr. Appeal No. 84/2010
5. On the other hand, Learned APP submits that this is not a case where lenient view should be taken against the accused persons having regard to the nature of offence committed by them. He submits that complainant and her brother were put to great harassment by the acts of the convicts and the interest of justice demand that severe punishment to the maximum as prescribed under law should be awarded having regard to the facts of the case.
6. I have considered the submissions made in the light of the facts of the case and gone through the relevant case law cited before me.
7. The offenders in the present case are young and it is apparent on going through the record that this is case which arose out of sudden rift and not on account of any premeditated act whatsoever. The law is well settled that an opportunity for reformation must be given to the first time offenders and in my view this is not a case where any fruitful purpose would be served by sending the convicts behind bars.
8. Thus, having regard to the entire aggravating and mitigating circumstances, both the convicts are hereby ordered to be released on Probation upon furnishing Personal Bonds to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of two years with directions to both the convicts to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period and in the event of breach of peace or their involvement in any criminal case during this period, they shall be liable to face the sentences as may be awarded to them in accordance with law. In addition thereto, both the convicts shall pay compensation of Rs. 5000/ each to the complainant Dr. Akansha Mehta. Let the amount be deposited in the court.
9. Notice be issued to complainant to appear on next date fixed i.e. 10.5.11. The SHO concerned to receive amount of compensation deposited by the convicts. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to accused persons.
(Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.
State Vs. Abhijeet & Ors.
FIR No. 432/2007PS : Vikaspuri SC No. : 21/10 30.4.11 Present : Sh. Rakesh Mehta, Learned APP for State.
Both accused on bail.
Sh. Dev RajLd. Counsel for accused Abhijeet Singh. Sh. Rajiv KhoslaLd. Counsel for accused Vinay.
Vide separate order announced in open court today both the convicts are hereby ordered to be released on Probation upon furnishing Personal Bonds to the tune of Rs. 15,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for the period of two years with directions to both the convicts to keep peace and be of good behaviour during this period and in the event of breach of peace or their involvement in any criminal case during this period, they shall be liable to face the sentences as may be awarded to them in accordance with law. In addition thereto, both the convicts shall pay compensation of Rs. 5000/ each to the complainant Dr. Akansha Mehta. Let the amount be deposited in the court.
Notice be issued to complainant to appear on next date fixed i.e. 10.5.11. The SHO concerned to receive amount of compensation deposited by the convicts. Ordered accordingly. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be given to accused persons.
(Kaveri Baweja) Additional Sessions JudgeFTC (Central) Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi.