Delhi District Court
State vs . Rajender Singh & Others on 31 August, 2017
SC/44431/15
State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44431/15
State Versus 1. Rajender Singh
S/o Nanwa Singh
R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda,
Delhi
2. Pradeep Kumar
S/o Prakash
R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda,
Delhi
3. Rakam Singh
S/o Bheem Singh
R/o V555/1, Arvind Mohalla,
Gamu Road, Gonda, Delhi
4. Prakash
S/o Nanwa
R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda,
Delhi
FIR No.197/2000
PS New Usmanpur
under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC
Date of institution of case : 16022012
Date of reserving the case for Judgement : 25082017
Date of passing of Judgment : 28082017
FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 1 /27
PS New Usmanpur
under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC
SC/44431/15
State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case filed on behalf of State whereby Prosecution is seeking conviction of accused persons namely (1) Rajender Singh S/o Nanwa Singh (2) Pradeep Kumar S/o Prakash (3) Rakam Singh S/o Bheem Singh and (4) Prakash S/o Nanwa, who had allegedly in prosecution of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous hurt to Ct. Devender and simple hurt to SI Manoj Bhatia and used criminal force against those public servants with intent to prevent or deter them from discharging their duties as public servants, for the offence punishable under Section 186/333/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter in short shall be referred as "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further prays that accused persons may be convicted for the offences charged against FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 2 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others them.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further pray for the acquittal of the accused persons.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 1008 2000 at around 9.30 pm at Kumra Mohalla, Ghonda within the jurisdiction of PS New Usmanpur, Delhi, accused persons namely Rajender Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Rakam Singh and Prakash in prosecution of common intention voluntarily obstructed police officers in discharging of their duty. The accused persons also assaulted and used criminal force against the public servants and caused hurt to SI Manoj Bhatia and grievous hurt to Ct. Devender.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 3 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the charge sheet was received by the Court on 16022012. Charge was framed against the accused persons on 14032012 for the offence punishable under Section 186/353/333/34 IPC. The accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offences charged against them.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses.
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded on 24072017.
11. In their defence, no witness has been examined by the accused persons.
ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCE LED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION TO PROVE ITS CASE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. Up front, it is pointed out that there are two star witnesses FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 4 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others of the prosecution in this case which are PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia and PW7 HC Devender.
13. PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia in his testimony before the Court has stated that on 10082000, he along with Ct. Bahadur, Ct. Devender and Driver Ct. Jitender left the police station in connection with investigation of case FIR No.143/2000 under Section 379 IPC. He along with Ct. Devender were in civil uniform and other police officials were in their uniform. Secret informer had informed that two persons would be coming on a stolen motorcycle and they can be apprehended if raid is conducted. He further stated that two young persons came on a motorcycle of red colour bearing no.DL7SG3668 make Hero Honda Splendor. They found that Saleem was driving the motorcycle and Javed was pillion rider. PW6 asked both of them to produce the ownership documents of the motorcycle but they did not produce the same and both of them told him that said motorcycle was a stolen one. Accordingly, PW6 apprehended them and when they started to move towards vehicle, accused Rakam Singh and Prakash FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 5 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others came there and started abusing them and told them that "in their presence how can they take the said persons from the village of gurjars". In the meanwhile, accused Rakam Singh and Prakash started shouting and called two other persons namely Pardeep and Rajender both of them were armed with lathies and danda. Thereafter, all of them started beating them with lathies and danda. Blood started oozing out from the body and he sustained injuries on his neck, head and left leg and they fell down on the ground. Ct. Devender also sustained injuries on his right hand and right shoulder. In the meantime, someone had called the police and PCR officials reached there and all accused persons left the spot and ran towards Village Gamri but accused Prakash and Rakam Singh were apprehended by the police after chasing them and accused Rajender and Pardeep ran away from the spot. He along with Ct. Devender were removed to GTB Hospital.
14. In the cross examination, questions have been asked with regard to joining of public witnesses in the investigation and with FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 6 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others regard to the apprehension of Saleem and Javed and with regard to verification of motorcycle bearing no.DL7SG3668 to which the witness has replied that no notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was given to the public persons to join the investigation and he does not remember if Saleem and Javed were apprehended or not. At the same time, he further stated that he has not verified regarding the registration number of the motorcycle but he stated that he was having the copy of FIR No.143/2000 at the time of incident.
15. The witness has denied the suggestion that entire story regarding FIR No.143/2000 and apprehension of Saleem and Javed is totally false and concocted. The witness has also denied the suggestion that police officials went to Village Gamri in order to lift a person and all the accused persons were not involved in the incident. He has also denied the suggestion that he was attacked by assailants from his back that is why he did not tell the name of assailants to the doctor at the time of medical examination.
16. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 7 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others demolish the witness.
17. PW7 HC Devender has also spoken on the same lines as that of PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia before the Court and stated that on 10 082000, he along with SI Manoj Bhatia, Ct. Bahadur and Ct. Jitender had left the police station on receipt of secret information that two boys would be arriving in Kumra Mohalla on a stolen bike make Splendor. Thereafter, they found that bike bearing no.DL7SG3668 was being driven by Saleem and Javed was sitting at the back had come there. They stopped the vehicle and ownership documents were asked from the boys but they could not produce the ownership documents and when they all started to proceed towards the police station, two persons namely Prakash and Rakam Singh claiming themselves as "gurjars" of that area told them that they will not allow any person to be taken away by the police from their area. He further stated that those two accused persons manhandled them. In the meanwhile, Saleem and Javed tried to ran away but were apprehended. He further stated that accused Rakam Singh and FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 8 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others Prakash raised hue and cry and two other persons namely Pradeep and Rajender came at the spot. He further stated that all four accused persons were having lathies and danda and they started assaulting the police party with their weapons and weapons were seized from the possession of accused Prakash and Rakam Singh.
18. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State in order to elicit the correct name of accused Pradeep has cross examined the witness as the witness has missed his correct name and instead of Pradeep told his name as Jitender.
19. In his cross examination by the defence counsel, the witness has stated that all the police officials were in civil clothes and not in uniform. He reiterated that he had bleeding from his injuries suffered in the incident and the clothes were given to the IO. But learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has admitted that no seizure memo of the clothes of this witness is on the judicial file.
20. The witness has denied the suggestion that since they all were in civil clothes and considering their activities as of robbers, the FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 9 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others villagers prevented them from snatching the motorbikes from the public and they sustained injuries from the public and not from the accused persons as accused persons were not the part of the public gathering.
21. Nothing material has been asked in the cross examination to discredit the witness.
22. PW1 HC Jitender, who was also an eye witness to the incident in sum and substance supported and corroborated the testimony of PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia and PW7 HC Devender. The witness has denied the suggestion that he is a planted witness and no such incident had taken place or the accused persons were falsely implicated at the instance of senior police officials and SI Manoj Bhatia.
23. PW9 HC Bahadur Singh, who was also an eye witness to the incident in totality has supported and corroborated the testimony of PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia and PW7 HC Devender. He has denied the suggestion that SI Manoj Bhatia and Ct. Devender on the pretext of FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 10 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others checking the vehicles were extorting money or they were beaten by the public not by the accused persons.
24. PW12 C.S. Rathi, Retired ACP has come in the witness box and has supported and corroborated the case of the prosecution to the extent that on 10082000, SI Manoj Bhatia, Ct. Devender, Ct. Bahadur and Ct. Jitender were posted in PS Bhajanpura and they were involved in the investigation of case FIR No.143/2000 under Section 379 IPC and during the course of investigation, they had gone to Khumra Mohalla, Ghonda where the incident had taken place. He further stated that he had given a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C. for prosecution of the accused persons for having committed offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC which is Ex.PW12/A.
25. PW13 Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh has also supported and corroborated the prosecution case in all its material particulars. He further stated that on 17082000, the other two accused persons namely Rajender and Pradeep surrendered before him in the police station and he arrested both the accused persons. He also FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 11 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others corroborated the fact that on 10082000, he seized the sticks and blood stained clothes which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 respectively. He also stated that he had obtained the result on the MLC and as per MLC, SI Manoj Bhatia had received simple injuries whereas Ct. Devender had sustained grievous injuries.
26. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to discredit and demolish the testimony of these witnesses.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
27. PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia and PW7 HC Devender, who are the main witnesses of the prosecution and have received injuries on their persons have clearly identified accused Rakam Singh and Prakash as the persons who prevented the police officials to carry out their official work. Accused Rakam Singh and Prakash called two other accused persons namely Pradeep and Rajender and they all gave beatings to SI Manoj Bhatia and Ct. Devender, who suffered injuries on their body.
28. PW1 HC Jitender, who was in the raiding party has also FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 12 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others identified all the four accused persons in the Court.
29. PW9 HC Bahadur Singh has also identified accused Rakam Singh and Prakash in the Court but could not pin point as to who is Rakam Singh and who is Prakash.
30. PW13 Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh, who is the IO of the case has clearly identified the other two accused persons namely Rajender and Pradeep who had surrendered before him in the PS on 17082000.
31. Therefore, as far as identity of accused persons are concerned, all material prosecution witnesses have unambiguously and unequivocally identified all four accused persons to be the same persons who have committed the crime and given beatings to SI Manoj Bhatia and Ct. Devender.
32. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination to discredit the testimony of material prosecution witnesses made in this regard.
FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 13 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others IDENTIFICATION OF WEAPONS OF OFFENCE AND CLOTHES OF THE INJURED PERSONS
33. PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia has clearly stated that accused Pradeep and Rajender were having lathies and danda in their hands and all accused persons namely Rakam Singh, Rajender, Prakash and Pradeep started beating them with lathis and danda. He has identified the dandas which are Ex.P1.
34. PW7 Ct. Devender has given a slightly different version by saying that weapons were in possession of accused Rakam Singh and Prakash which were seized and has also stated that all four accused persons were having lathies and danda, who have assaulted the police party. He has also identified the dandas which are Ex.P1.
35. PW2 HC Ompal has also identified two dandas which were used by accused Rajender and Pradeep which are Ex.P1 on the basis of cross examination carried out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
36. PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia had also identified the blood FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 14 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others stained clothes which were worn by him at the time of incident which are Ex.P2.
37. PW2 HC Ompal has also identified the clothes on the basis of cross examination carried out by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
38. PW13 Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh has also identified the sticks and clothes which are Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
NATURE OF INJURIES CAUSED ON THE PERSONS
39. PW10 Dr. P. Vijay Kumar has carried out the MLC of Ct. Devender which is already Ex.PW8/C.
40. PW8 Dr. Raj Pal, Medical Superintendent, GTB Hospital, Delhi has proved X Ray Report of Ct. Devender which shows that there was fracture of right clavicle and fracture of distal 1/3 shaft of ulna bone Ex.PW8/A.
41. PW8 did not find any fracture on the nose of SI Manoj Bhatia.
FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 15 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others
42. PW8 further stated that as per X Ray Report No.2920 dt.10082000 of Ct. Devender, Senior Resident (Ortho) had opined regarding nature of injuries to be grievous on 05102000 which is Ex.PW8/D.
43. PW8 has further stated that accused Prakash was medically examined by Dr. Kailash Rishi, JR and as per report, there were bruises on bilateral arms and tenderness on left ankle of accused Prakash and he has proved detailed report of Dr. Kailash Rishi as Ex.PW8/F.
44. PW10 Dr. P. Vijay Kumar also came in the witness box who has proved the grievous injury of Ct. Devender which is Ex.PW8/D.
45. PW11 Dr. Deepak Singhal has come in the witness box and proved the injuries of Ct. Devender on local examination which are as follows;
(i) bruises on right shoulder FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 16 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others (ii) swelling on right forearm (iii) swelling on left forearm
(iv) CLW on pinna of right ear of size 0.5 cm
46. PW11 Dr. Deepak Singhal has further stated that he has also carried out the MLC of accused Rakam Singh which shows bruise on and below left knee and has proved MLC of accused Rakam Singh which is Ex.PW8/G. The nature of injuries on the person of accused Rakam Singh were found to be simple.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
47. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove
1. PW3 HC Vinay Kumar He got registered FIR
2. PW4 Retd. SI Jabar Singh Recorded DD No.17B and proved FIR
Ex.PW4/A
3. PW5 Ct. Hukam Singh Accompanied injured persons to the hospital
for their MLCs
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED PERSONS
48. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 17 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others accused persons. Having said that, following suggestions in defence emerges from the testimony of the prosecution witnesses;
(i) The first defence came in the form of suggestion given to PW7 HC Devender that since all the police officials were in civil clothes and considering their activities as of robbers, the villagers prevented them from snatching the motorbike and during that they sustained injuries and none of the accused had caused any injuries to the police officials.
(ii) The second defence came in the form of suggestion given to PW9 HC Bahadur Singh that SI Manoj Bhatia and Ct. Devender on the pretext of checking vehicles were extorting money despite the fact that they were not on duty on the day of incident and they were not beaten by the accused persons.
(iii) The third defence came in the form of suggestion given to PW13 Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh that police officials who were in civil clothes went to village Ghonda and attempted to lift 34 boys without disclosing their identity but the local people resisted and FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 18 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others thereafter, the accused persons were falsely implicated.
(iv) The fourth defence came in the form of suggestion given to PW1 HC Jitender that accused persons are falsely implicated in this case at the instance of senior police officials and SI Manoj Bhatia.
(v) The fifth defence raised in the statement made under Section 313 Cr.PC. in which the accused persons have raised a defence that on 10082000 at about 8 pm, they were lifted from their respective houses and were illegally confined at the police station.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
49. The genesis of entire incident had arisen when police team comprising of SI Manoj Bhatia, Ct. Devender, Ct. Jitender and Ct. Bahadur had gone to Village Kumra Mohalla, Ghonda in respect of investigation of case FIR No.143/2000 under Section 379 IPC. Secret informer had informed the police that accused persons would come on a motorcycle and on pointing out of secret informer, the police had intercepted the motorcycle bearing no.DL7SG3668 which was being FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 19 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others driven by Saleem and Javed was sitting as pillion rider. When they had apprehended the accused persons and started to move towards the official vehicle to police station, accused Rakam Singh along with accused Prakash stopped them by saying that they cannot take any person from the village belongs to gurjars in their presence. Both Rakam Singh and Prakash raised hue and cry and called two other persons namely Rajender and Pradeep, who were armed with lathi and danda. All four persons in furtherance of their common intention started assaulting the police officials.
50. Their common intention is writ large when on calling of Rakam Singh and Prakash, the other two accused persons namely Pradeep and Rajender had joined hands in beating the police officials. As a result of the beatings given by the accused persons, SI Manoj Bhatia had received simple injuries and Ct. Devender had received grievous injuries. All the details of the injuries have already been stated above. In the scuffle, accused Rakam Singh and Prakash have also sustained minor injuries which itself shows that they had FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 20 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others quarreled with police officials.
51. The weapon of offence,i.e. dandas were duly identified by the prosecution witnesses which is Ex.P1. PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia had also identified his clothes having blood stains which is Ex.P2. However, the prosecution had not sent the clothes to FSL for test. All the four accused persons were duly identified by PW1, PW6, PW7 and PW9 to be the same who have committed the offence against the police officials.
52. On receipt of information, IO Inspector Ramesh Prasad Singh went to the spot along with HC Subedar Singh, Ct. Hukam Singh and Ct. Ompal. They have also supported the case of the prosecution in all its material particulars however they are not of much relevance as they have reached the spot when incident had already happened.
53. PW12 Shri C.S. Rathi, Retired ACP clearly supports and corroborates the case of the prosecution in as much as he has stated that on the day of incident, police party comprising of SI Manoj FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 21 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others Bhatia, Ct. Devender, Ct. Bahadur and Ct. Jitender had gone to the spot for investigation of case FIR No.143/2000 under Section 379 IPC and they were carrying out the investigation of the said case. Therefore, it is clearly evident that all the police officials had gone to the spot in discharge of their official duty.
54. Coming on to the defence of accused persons. Five different defences have been raised by the defence. All these defences are self contradictory in nature. The defences raised by the defence is of no help to the case of the accused persons for the simple reason that these defences solidifies the case of the prosecution which establishes the presence of accused persons at the spot and the assault on the police officials. The defences are totally inconsistent, incoherent and there is no uniformity which clearly show that accused persons have got no defence in their favour and have been made only with a view to create a sham defence.
55. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused persons has stressed that police officials were not in uniform FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 22 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others and hence, no offence has been caused.
56. There is absolutely no force in the submissions made by learned counsel for accused persons for the simple reason that even if some of the police officials were not in uniform, certainly some others were. Even otherwise at times, police officials have to perform their duties in plain clothes and this itself would not absolve the accused persons of the offence that they have committed.
57. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused persons has stressed that no departure entry for reaching at the spot has been shown, no log book of the vehicle on which the police team reached the spot has been produced, timing shown on the MLC of PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia and PW7 HC Devender are different and that motorcycle in question on which Saleem and Javed had come at the spot had not been seized.
58. The aforesaid discrepancies pointed out in the prosecution case are minor discrepancies and do not go at the root of the matter to make the prosecution case unbelievable. The core facts are that the FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 23 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others police officials had reached at the spot for the investigation of case FIR No.143/2000 when they were beaten and were prevented from discharging their official duties.
59. At this stage, it would be appropriate to have a look at Section 186, Section 333, Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
60. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 186 IPC are as follows (1) A public servant was in discharge of his official duty; (2) Voluntary obstruction was caused to such public servant; (3) Such obstruction was in the discharge of public function of such public servant.
61. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 333 IPC are as follows (1) Grievous hurt was caused to a public servant; (2) It was caused while such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such; or (3) It was caused to prevent or deter him from discharging of his duty as public servant; or (4) Such hurt was in consequence of its having done or attempted to be done anything in the lawfully discharge of FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 24 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others his duty as public servant.
62. The essential ingredients of offence under Section 353 IPC are as follows (1) Accused assaulted or used criminal force to a public servant;
(2) Such public servant was then acting in the discharge of his duty;
(3) Accused assaulted with the intention of preventing or deterring such public servant from discharging his duty, or (4) It was used in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the said public servant.
63. In the present case, Ct. Devender had received grievous injuries on his person whereas SI Manoj Bhatia had received simple injuries. All the accused persons have acted in furtherance of their common intention which is clearly gathered from the fact that firstly, accused Rakam Singh and Prakash prevented the police officials from taking the accused Saleem and Javed, who were wanted in a theft case and on the calling of accused Rakam Singh and Prakash, two other accused persons namely Rajender and Pradeep had joined hands with FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 25 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others the other two accused by voluntarily giving beatings to SI Manoj Bhatia and Ct. Devender which resulted into grievous injury upon Ct. Devender. Though there is slight discrepancy on the use of lathies by accused Rakam Singh and Prakash on the one hand and accused Rajender and Pradeep on the other or all four of them were having lathies but this would not be prejudicial to the case of the prosecution in any manner as PW6 SI Manoj Bhatia, who is the senior officer in the team has clearly stated that accused Rajender and Pradeep had brought lathies and all four accused persons then started beating them. Even Ex.P1 shows two lathies/ danda only.
64. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved its case within the ambit of provisions of Section 186/333/353/34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
CONCLUSION
65. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of injured persons which is duly FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 26 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards the accused persons Rajender Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Rakam Singh and Prakash.
66. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Rajender Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Rakam Singh and Prakash for the offence punishable under Section 186/333/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
67. The accused persons Rajender Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Rakam Singh and Prakash are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 186/333/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28th AUGUST, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 27 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA, DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC/44431/15 State Versus 1. Rajender Singh S/o Nanwa Singh R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi
2. Pradeep Kumar S/o Prakash R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi
3. Rakam Singh S/o Bheem Singh R/o V555/1, Arvind Mohalla, Gamu Road, Gonda, Delhi
4. Prakash S/o Nanwa R/o Kumrah Mohalla, Ghonda, Delhi FIR No.197/2000 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC Date of institution of case : 16022012 Reserved for order on sentence on : 31082017 Date of passing of order : 31082017 FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 28 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. I have heard learned counsel for the convicts and learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State on the point of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 186/333/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned counsel for the convicts has submitted that convicts are the only earning members in their family and further prayed for a lenient view while awarding sentence to the convicts.
3. On the other hand, learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that convicts may be dealt with stern hands.
4. It is trite to say that at the time of considering the sentence of a convict, the theory of retribution, reformation, rehabilitation and correction of the convict must be kept in mind, so that in his life, he can assimilate himself better in society and societal conditions. He has to shun the path of violence which he has once fallen into. Better condition and atmosphere must be provided to such a person, so that he shall have the opportunity of correcting himself and once again FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 29 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others rehabilitate himself in the society. No matter stricter laws are made but human being has shown his tendency to commit crime in one form or the other. Having said that, if there is no deterrence factor pressed into service by the Court of Law, the society will be hounded by criminals. They will develop the tendency of glorifying their ill deeds. Therefore, there is a solemn duty cast upon the Court to sufficiently punish a person commensurate with the crime, he had committed.
5. In the present case, the convicts have shown scant regards for the Rule of Law. Instead of taking side with the police and helping them in nabbing the accused persons, they have prevented the police officials from discharging their official duties. They had not only prevented the police officials but have the temerity to beat them up to such an extent that one of the police officials namely Ct. Devender had sustained grievous injuries. The law has to strictly deal with the persons, who have no regards for the law and order in the society. Probably, they were under the impression that they are even FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 30 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others above the law in their locality and they have acted in a manner unbecoming of an honest and lawful citizen of a country.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons and discussion, the convicts Rajender Singh, Pradeep Kumar, Rakam Singh and Prakash are sentenced;
(i) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 3 years each with fine of Rs.10,000/ each and in default thereof, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months each for the offence punishable under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year each for the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) All the sentences shall run concurrently. FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 31 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC SC/44431/15 State Vs. Rajender Singh & Others
7. Convicts shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., if applicable.
8. File be consigned to Record Room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31st AUGUST, 2017 (DEEPAK JAGOTRA) DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI FIR No.197/2000 Page No. 32 /27 PS New Usmanpur under Section 186/333/353/34 IPC