Delhi District Court
State vs Vikas & Others on 26 November, 2009
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 120/2009
FIR No. 841/02.
PS : TILAK NAGAR.
U/s. 307/324/323 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
1. VIKAS KUMAR S/O. LALIT KUMAR
R/O. 143/A-4, GALI NO.8,
NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
2. LALIT KUMAR S/O. MOHAN LAL
R/O. 143/A-4, GALI NO.8,
NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
3. VISHWAS KUMAR @ HAPPY
S/O. LALIT KUMAR
R/O. 143-A4, GALI NO.8,
NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
4. PARAG ARORA S/O. LATE DAULAT RAM
R/O. H.NO. WZ-139/E2, GALI NO.9,
NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR,
DELHI.
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS
841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC
:2:
Date of Institution : 04.05.2004.
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 31.07.2009.
Arguments heard On : 16.11.2009.
Order Announced On : 23.11.2009.
SHRI APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI J.S. LAMBA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED
PERSONS VIKAS, LALIT KUMAR, VISHWAS KUMAR @
HAPPY.
SHRI RAJENDER PRATAP SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR ACCUSED PARAG ARORA.
JUDGMENT
1. In brief facts as mentioned in the chargesheet are that; on 19.11.2002 an information received at the PS-Tilak Nagar vide Report No.11A PCR stating that at WZ-143/A, New Mahavir Nagar, Gali No.8, near Shiv Mandir, one person stabbed with sword. On this information ASI Bal Prakash alongwith Ct. Mahipal one went to the spot but no injured was there. They came to know that three persons received injuries out of which two persons were taken in PCR vehicle to the hospital. Further information received through DD STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :3: No.12A that injured have been taken to DDU Hospital then ASI Bal Prakash went to DDU Hospital. At DDU Hospital he came to know that injured Narender Singh and Jaswinder Singh admitted. ASI Bal Prakash obtained MLC from doctor mentioning the nature of injury simple, sharp and blunt injury. Patient Narender Singh was conscious and oriented. ASI Bal Prakash recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and prepared rukka Ex.PW17/A and sent for registration of FIR.
2. After registration of FIR investigation SI Kehar Singh and SI Kashmere Lal. The injured's blood stained cloth seized by the police officers and deposited in the Malkhana. Site plan of spot of the crime was prepared at the instance of injured Jaswinder Singh. On 22.1.2003 SI Satish Kumar joined the investigation and tried to trace out accused persons. Accused Vishwas Kumar @ Happy arrested by SI Kehar Singh on 09.02.2003. On 06.05.2003 accused Lalit Kumar was released on anticipatory bail. Accused Parag Arora also released on anticipatory bail of arrest. On 10.09.2003 accused Vikash surrendered in the court and arrested. Police STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :4: custody/remand was taken of accused Vikash. His disclosure statement was recorded, but weapon of offence was not recovered. After recording of statement of witnesses and completion of investigation chargesheet filed for trial of offences punishable under Section 307/324/323 IPC.
3. Learned MM after compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Sessions.
4. My learned predecessor vide order dated 16.07.2004 framed the charge against all the four accused persons for trial of offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC and 324 read with 34 IPC. All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined PW1 Jaswinder Singh, Injured, PW2 Narender Singh Injured, PW3 Harbhajan Singh public witness and PW4 Balraj public witness.
6. PW5 HC Manjeet Singh deposed that on 09.02.2003 he alongwith SI Satish Kumar reached at the House No.28, Ber Sarai, near Munirka, where one boy opened the door who was accused Vishwash Kumar. On his STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :5: identification IO arrested him vide Arrest memo Ex.PW5/A and conducted personal search vide memo Ex.PW5/B. He further proved the disclosure statement of accused Vishwash Kumar Ex.PW5/C. PW7, Ct. Mukesh Kumar deposed that on 11.9.2003, he joined the investigation with Vikash Ex.PW7/A. PW9 SI Satish Kumar, deposed that on 24.11.2002, he joined the investigation and obtained MLC of Parag Arora from Amar Leela Hospital and recorded statement of doctor. He further deposed that he took NBWs of all the accused persons but same were not executed.
7. PW10 HC Jagdish Prasad, deposed that on 19.11.2002 he was working as Duty Officer. On receiving the rukka from ASI Bal Prakash he recorded FIR Ex.PW10/A. PW11 SI Kehar Singh, deposed that on 05.02.2003 investigation handed over to him and on 09.02.2003 received the information of accused Vishwash Kumar @ Happy available at House No.28, Ber Sarai. He went with HC Manjeet Singh and arrested him and he proved disclosure statement Ex.PW5/C. PW12 SI Attar Singh proved the DD No.11A as Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/B. STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :6:
8. PW13 Punit Jain proved X-Ray Report Ex.PW13/A of Narender dated 19.11.2002. PW14 J.C. Vashisht , Record Clerk, DDU Hospital appeared and identified handwriting of Dr. Dev Vrat Dutta, Senior Resident Surgery, who has left the services of hospital. He proved handwriting on the MLC Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B. He also proved handwriting and signatures of Dr. Santosh on MLC Ex.PW14/C. PW15, Abdul Zabbar, Record Clerk, Amar Leela Hospital proved the MLC Ex.PW15/A written by Dr. Nitin Khanna. PW16, SI Kashmere Lal deposed that on 08.05.03 he had received investigation and on 11.09.2003 he arrested accused Vikash. He proved the arrest memo Ex.PW16/A. He further deposed that no recovery effected as per the disclosure statement of accused Vikash. PW6 Ct. Mahipal deposed that on 19.11.2006 he was on Emergency Duty from 8 am to 8 pm and on that day ASI Bal Prakash received DD No.11A and he alongwith ASI Bal Prakash reached at WZ-143A, Gali No.8, New Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Delhi, there came to know PCR Vehicle removed the injured three persons to the hospital then they went to DDU Hospital. Ct. Satish another STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :7: injured was admitted to Amar Leela Hospital, Jahangirpuri and with this information received by them they went there, but came to know injured has already been discharged. However, MLC was obtained from there and IO recorded his statement.
9. PW17, SI Bal Prakash deposed that on 19.11.2002 on receiving DD No.11A, he went to House No.148, Gali No.8, New Mahavir Market, Tilak Nagar, Delhi alongwith Ct., Mahipal and came to know that injured already removed to the hospital. He deposed that he received DD No.12A and came to know injured persons are in DDU Hospital and then he went to the DDU Hospital. He further deposed that he obtained MLC of accused Narender and doctor's opinion that injured fit for statement then he recorded statement of Narender Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement Ex.PW17/A and prepared rukka. He deposed that doctor also handed over one pullanda sealed with the seal of CMO DDU Hospital and one sample seal which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW6/A. He also taken STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :8: the MLC of Jaswinder. He further deposed that he handed over rukka to Ct. Mahipal and went to the PS and when come back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and rukka. He further proved site plan Ex.PW17/B prepared at the instance of Jaswinder Singh. He deposed that later on he came to know injured Parag Arora admitted to Amar Leela Hospital when he went there but could not be traced eve at his house. Further investigation was handed over to SI Satish on 22.11.2002.
10. In the cross examination he deposed that he did not meet any other relative of the injured Narender in the hospital and not recorded statement of any of the relatives. He stated in his cross examination that injured Jaswinder injured was not admitted in the hospital as he was discharged after first aid from the hospital. He has also stated that accused was not arrested by me and has admitted that he had not shown any place in the site plan showing the blood stains and had also not shown any source of light in the site plan. Witness has also admitted that he STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :9: had not seized the clothes of Injured Jaswinder. He had also not collected the documentary proof regarding the tenancy and had not obtained any documents pertaining to shop of Narender. Witness has also stated that the place is inhabited by public persons and is surrounded by shops and houses on both sides of the spot but in spite of this no public person had joined the investigation. Witness has also stated that he had not tried to locate the person who had informed the PCR. He had been also shown the site plan as he had stated that there is a temple at a distance of 8-10 steps from the spot, but after seeing the site plan he had stated that the distance between the spot and temple was about 100 steps from the spot. He further stated that he left the DDU Hospital at about 5 pm and there was no darkness at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared a wrong site plan and recorded the statement of Narinder Singh four times.
11. In the cross examination he further stated that he had not aware of quarrel between the Injured and Lal or that they were having some dispute over money or that there was STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :10: no dispute with regard to vacation of any shop. He denied the suggestion that because of that dispute Lala and his companions gave beatings to Narender and Jasvinder. He denied the suggestion that accused Parag Arora was trying to separate them or that Nareinder Singh gave a sword blow to Parag Arora and accused Lalit was also trying to separate them. He further denied the suggestion that the abovesaid quarrel had taken place in gali No.8 and that Injured Narinder Singh and Jasvinder Singh had filed a case against accused persons in connivance with him and Lalit and his wife in which they are convicted. He further denied that he had falsely named Parag and weapon of offence could not be recovered as no weapon was used.
12. In the cross examination by learned counsel for accused Parag Arora he deposed that he came to know that accused Parag Arora was admitted in the hospital and after 10-15 minutes reached at the Amar Leela Hospital. He further deposed that he had obtained the MLC of the accused on 19.11.2002 and accused Parag Arora never met with me STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :11: till the investigation remained with him. He denied the suggestion that learned MM had directed him to file the complaint of the accused. He further deposed that he had not done any proceedings on the MLC of the accused as he had not met me and he had not obtained the statement of any doctor. He denied the suggestion that accused was discharged for the first time on 20.11.2002 and accused was admitted second time on 21.11.2002 and investigation remained with me till 22.01.2003. He further denied the suggestion that he was hand in glove with the complainant so he has falsely implicated the accused and that he has deposed falsely or that he had not conducted the investigation fairly.
13. PW1 Jasvinder Singh, Injured, deposed that on 19.11.2002 he was at his house and "Kirtan" was going on. He had received an information from younger brother Narender Singh that accused Lalit engaged in getting the shops vacated forcibly and came to their shop and taking forcible possession at about 1.30 pm. He immediately STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :12: reached at the spot and found that accused Lalit alongwith three accused persons Vikas, Parag Arora and Vishwas Kumar were present. The accused persons were talking and threatening to vacate the shop otherwise they will put their lock forcibly. He deposed that he had talked with accused Lalit then he started pushing him and accused Happy put down his shutter. At that time his brother Narender Singh stood at the place of shutter but he was also pushed by the accused persons. He further deposed at that time accused Happy and Parag Arora caught hold of him and Bunty the youngest son of Lalit, who is not the accused, one Lala friend of Bunty took out their belts from the their pant and gave blows. Thereafter accused Lalit caught hold his brother Narender Singh and accused Vikash had given sword blow n the stomach, back side of shoulder and hand. He deposed that he also received sharp edged injury at his thumb of his right feet by the sword of Vikas. He further deposed that Lala gave holder (Shikanja) blow at the head of his brother and condition of his brother became serious. Thereafter accused ran away from the shop. Somebody informed the police STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :13: which came and and took them to the hospital. He further deposed that accused persons gave him injuries with the intentions to kill him. In the cross examination police did not meet him either in the hospital or at the residence. While asking from the court the questions he answered that he understand the meaning of giving statement to the police. He admits that accused instituted upon him for assaulting Shushila wife of accused Lalit. He was convicted for a period of one year and also fine of Rs.1000/- imposed. He admits that he filed a complaint case against accused Lalit after 3-4 months of conviction. He deposed that his statement recorded by the police on 19.01.2002 Ex.PW1/DA. He further deposed that he does not recollect if he had stated to the police that all accused persons pushed his brother but he resisted the closure of shutter. In examination court question also put regarding Bunty and Lala. He answered that he had told the police about Bunty and Lala were also involved. He denied the suggestion that Bunty and Lala never involved in this case. He admits that he did not tell the police that Lala gave Sikhanja blow to his brother's hand. He did not see STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :14: accused Parag Arora in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that Injured Narender was discharged from the hospital on the next date. He admits that he remained in the hospital for about 2-3 hours. He admits that blood was spread outside the shop. The sword used by accused Vikash was about 2.5 feet and was straight. He further deposed that none of them were having small swords(Kirpan). He further deposed that the previous owner of the shop was Pritam Singh and they did not pay any rent to him for the last about ten years. He denied the knowledge of the case pending before Ms. Sarita Birbal, learned MM, Tis Hazari Courts, wherein accused Lalit was declared as owner of the shop. He denied the suggestion that accused Parag Arora received injuries in the incident and they were aggressor in the incident.
14. The cross examination on behalf of accused Parag Arora conducted wherein witness deposed that he had received information of the incident/quarrel on the mobile phone of Airtel but did not remember the number. Accused STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :15: Parag Arora and Vikash were at the spot when he reached there. He denied the suggestion that accused Parag Arora did not hold him but he was only tried to resolve the quarrel. He denied that accused Parag Arora had already left the spot before they were taken by the PCR Vehicle. He denied the suggestion that accused Parag Arora is falsely implicated in this case.
15. PW2, Narender Singh, deposed that on 19.11.2002 he was present at his shop at WZ-139-C, Gali No.8, New Mahavir Nagar and his brother Jaswinder was also present there. The shop was taken on rent from one Pritam Singh for the last 15 years. On that day accused Lalit came to the shop and threatened to vacate. Accused also said that no rent paid as he is owner of the shop and shop has to be vacated. Thereafter accused gave leg blow to the chair and started assaulted. He deposed that then he gave a telephone call to his brother Jasvinder Singh at his house and told the position then he came. He further deposed that the other accused persons Vikash @ Happy and Parag Arora were also STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :16: present there, then brother Jasvinder asked them why they pressing them to vacate the shop. Accused Vikash had a sword in his hand and then they started altercation and quarrel. He deposed that accused Happy and Parag Arora caught hold of his brother and Vikas attacked with his sword, when accused Lalit had already caught hold of him. He deposed that he put his hand in front of the sword as a result of which received injury to his left hand near wrist. Thereafter accused Vikas again gave a sword blow at his body, which hit right side of his stomach. He further deposed that his brother was also given beating and a sword blow hit him at the leg. His brother also beaten with belt and also thrown away the turban and clothes. He deposed that somebody informed the police which came there and removed them to the hospital. He proved his statement Ex.PW2/A recorded by police.
16. In the cross examination, he deposed that they were not paying rent of the property for the last 9-10 years. He denied the knowledge of any civil suit. He further deposed that accused Lalit became owner of the property about 3-4 STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :17: years back and there was usually quarrel due to non payment of rent. He admits that learned MM court point him in a case of assault against Shushila Wife of accused Lalit. He further deposed that he had not seen accused Parag Arora in DDU Hospital. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by the police one may two or three times. He does not remember the name of the police officials who came and obtained signatures on blank papers. He further deposed that he was read over first statement and told the police that he is not in a position to talk them. He denied the suggestion that he did not mention six accused persons in his statement. He does not know whether parents mentioned the name of Lala and Bunty in Ex.PW2/A. He denied that he was discharged on the next day from the hospital. He further deposed that he had also received blow of Shikanja. He deposed that he received injuries on the head. He admits that he is a carpenter by profession having tools like Hammer, Saw, Planner. He denied the suggestion that he was the aggressor and caused injuries to accused Parag Arora. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :18: suppressed the injuries on the person of accused Parag Arora.
17. The cross examination conducted by learned counsel for accused Parag Arora then witness deposed that quarrel continued for about 1 ½ hours. First of all hot words had words were exchanged with the father of accused Vikash. Thereafter Vikas and Parag were called on telephone. He deposed that altercation started with accused persons Vikash and Parag Arora were present. He knew the Parag for the last about 20 years has studied in the same school. He denied that Parag also received injuries and taken to the hospital. He further deposed that accused Parag and Vikas came at two wheeler scooter. His brother Jaswinder there after ten minutes of reaching of accused Parag Arora and Vikas. He made a call to his brother from the adjoining shop. He denied the suggestion that accused Parag Arora is falsely implicated in this case.
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :19:
18. PW3 Harbhajan Singh deposed that on 11.2.2002 he had gone to the house of Jasvinder, where received a telephone about the quarrel at the shop. He deposed that he saw accused Lalit and Vikas at the shop. Accused Vikas had a sword and they were scuffling with Narender. He further deposed that Jaswinder asked why they are doing so then they started scuffling with him also. He further deposed that he went back to the house to call father of Narender and Jaswinder and then came back and then came to know that they have been removed to the DDU Hospital.
19. PW4 Bal Raj deposed that on 19.11.2002 at about 2 pm he gone to the shop of Narender Singh and saw 2-3 boys were quarreling with him. He deposed that accused Parag and Vikas were present there. He further deposed that in quarrel Narender Singh caused a sword blow to accused Parag Arora, as a result of which, he received injury and in the meantime the sister and husband accused Parag also came there. He turned out to be hostile witness and cross STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :20: examined by the learned APP for the State. He denied the suggestion that when he went to shop of Narender Singh but Lalit Kumar and his son Vikas had a dispute of shop and came there and started quarreling. He denied the suggestion that he has been won over by the accused persons.
20. I have heard Shri Atul Gupta, learned CPP for the State deputed for today, Shri J.S. Lamba, learned counsel for accused persons Vikas Kumar, Lalit Kumar and Vishwas Kumar @ Happy. However, Shri Rajender Pratap Singh learned counsel for the accused Parag Arora has filed written arguments and have gone through with the said written arguments.
21. The star witness of the prosecution is injured person PW2 Narender Singh and PW1 Jaswinder Singh. The testimony discussed in detail herein above establishes that Injured Narender Singh was the tenant on the shop which is place of occurrence of crime. He was tenant of Pritam Singh for the last more than fifteen years. The testimonies of STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :21: witnesses further reflects that accused Lalit Kumar became the owner of the shop. He wanted the vacation of the shop by the injured persons. The incident occurred on dated 19.11.2002 in the afternoon. PW1 Jaswinder Singh stated that he received the information around 1.30 pm. PW2 Narender Singh deposed that at about 2 pm, Lalit came to the shop and threatened him to vacate the shop. According to MLC, he reached at hospital around 3.10 pm. The DD Entry is 22A recorded at around 2.30 pm. The learned counsels for the accused persons pointed out that there is doubt in the time of occurrence. I have gone through the record. As per record there is minor variation of the time as witness is examined after about two years of the incident, the human memory is not a computer, which will reproduce the exactly the same time. However, it is established on the basis of testimony of PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh that incident took place in the afternoon in between 1.30 pm to 2.30 pm. I do not find any infirmity in respect of time of the incident. Now coming to the presence of accused persons PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh both named STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :22: all the four accused persons and also identified them. However, during testimony of PW1 Jaswinder Singh names of two other persons also appear i.e. Bunty and Lala. However, as per investigation PW1 Jaswinder Singh never named and no allegations were made against them, in his statement Ex.PW2/A. During investigation none of these persons found involved in the incident, however, all the four accused persons who faced the trial are named and identified both the injured persons. I do not find any infirmity on this aspect after analysing the testimony of PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh.
22. PW2 Narender Singh explained how accused first gave him leg blow and also threatened to vacate the shop. The accused Lalit initiated the quarrel and then Injured PW2 Narender Singh telephoned his brother and also arrived at the spot. He assigned the role to each accused persons. Accused Vikas was having a sword and gave injuries at the stomach and head. Accused Vikas @ Happy and Parag Arora caught hold of his brother Jaswinder Singh and Vikas STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :23: attacked him with a sword. Accused Lalit Kumar was caught hold of him. The injuries received during this incident further proved by MLC Ex.PW8/A and the observations given by doctor Ex.PW14/A. Injured PW2 Narender Singh received six injuries on his body and remained admitted at the hospital for about six days. PW1 Jaswinder Singh also received injuries at his thumb on his right feet from the sword of accused Vikas Kumar @ Happy. The testimony of PW1 Jaswinder Sngh and PW2 Narender Singh corroborates each others testimony. Both witnesses successfully came out from the cross examination. They reiterated that how incident happened with them. The improvement which are highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused persons when they were confronted with statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/DA. The improvements are not material but they explained the facts which are in the memory at the time of quarrel of the witnesses. Learned counsel also pointed out that PW4 Balraj, who turned out to be hostile, his testimony would not affect the prosecution as two star witnesses i.e. PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :24: proved the incident in entirety on the basis of their testimony. It was also pointed out that PW3 Harbhajan Singh was recalled vide application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. and thereafter he never appeared. His testimony is also not going to affect the prosecution case in any manner. The recovery of weapon of offence is not effected. It is obvious that accused persons ran away from the spot and were arrested after lapse of time. Accused Lalit arrested on 06.05.2003 after about six months of the incident as he was released by the court on Anticipatory bail. Accused Vikas Kumar @ Happy was surrendered in the Court on 10.09.2003 when thereafter he was arrested after about ten months of the incident. The accused persons were remained free from the clutches of police so they got every chance to destroy the weapon of offence. However, it does not affect the prosecution case in any manner.
23. PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh are the star witness of the prosecution case, who proved the prosecution case that on 19.11.2002 all the accused persons STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :25: have shared their common intention and attacked both the injured. The motive behind the incident was the disputes regarding the rented shop. Accused Lalit Kumar wanted that both the injured persons shall vacate the shop as he became the owner of the said shop. The testimony of both the injured persons further corroborates by police investigation and medial record proved on record.
24. Now coming to the aspect of legal preposition of Section 307 IPC. Let us discuss the legal principle of law Section 307 IPC reads as :-
"Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, be would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinabove mentioned."
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :26:
25. The law is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Sarju Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, 1965 SC 843 (1), State of Maharashtra Vs. Balram Bama Patil & others, AIR 1983 SC 305 (1). In the judgment of State of Maharashtra (Supra) it is held as under:-
"To justify a conviction under this section it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature if injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention may also be deduced from the other circumstances, and way even, in some cases be ascertained without any reference at all to actual wounds. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result, if any. Such an act may be not be attended by any result so far as the person assaulted is concerned, but still there may be cases in which the culprit would be liable under this section. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in this section. An attempt in order to be criminal need not be the penultimate act. It is sufficient in law, if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof."
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :27:
26. The Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Saleem @ Chamaru & Another AIR 2005 SC 3996 reiterated the principle laid down in the judgment of Sarju Prasad (supra) and State of Maharashtra (supra). In this case it is held that :-
"It is sufficient to justify a conviction under section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overt act in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. The section makes a distinction between the act of the accused and its result, if any. The Court has to see whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section. Therefore, an accused charged under section 307, IPC cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries inflicted on the victim were in the nature of a simple hurt."
27. Now applying the principles of law discussed herein above and in the present facts and circumstances of the present case. The presence of all four accused persons at the time of incident and each role assigned to accused by the Injureds established that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intentions inflicted injuries to STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :28: PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh. Although, both the injuries are simple in nature as per medical record proved on record. The injuries were caused by sword by accused Vikash Kumar @ Happy. However, the testimony of PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh failed to establish that accused persons had intentions or knowledge that the injuries caused to injured persons is sufficient to cause death of Injured PW1 Jaswinder Singh or PW2 Narender Singh. The prosecution has failed to establish that intentions of the accused persons and knowledge of accused persons to caused death either of PW1 Jawinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh.
28. The above discussions and analysis of testimony of prosecution witnesses established that charge for offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is not proved by the prosecution against all the four accused persons. However, it is established beyond reasonable doubts that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention inflicted simple injuries with sharp edged weapon i.e. sword on the STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :29: persons i.e. PW1 Jaswinder Singh and PW2 Narender Singh. Hence, prosecution bring home guilt against all the accused persons for offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC. Hence all the four accused persons are convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Ordered accordingly.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01(NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 23.11.2009 STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :30: THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I, DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI SC No. 120/2009 FIR No. 841/02.
PS : TILAK NAGAR.
U/s. 307/324/323 IPC STATE VERSUS
1. VIKAS KUMAR S/O. LALIT KUMAR R/O. 143/A-4, GALI NO.8, NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR, DELHI.
2. LALIT KUMAR S/O. MOHAN LAL R/O. 143/A-4, GALI NO.8, NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR, DELHI.
3. VISHWAS KUMAR @ HAPPY S/O. LALIT KUMAR R/O. 143-A4, GALI NO.8, NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR, DELHI.
4. PARAG ARORA S/O. LATE DAULAT RAM R/O. H.NO. WZ-139/E2, GALI NO.9, NEW MAHAVIR NAGAR, DELHI.
Date of Institution : 04.05.2004.
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 31.07.2009.
Arguments heard On : 16.11.2009.
Order Announced On : 23.11.2009.
Order on sentence on : 26.11.2009
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS
841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :31: MS. PURNIMA GUPTA, SUBSITUTE APP FOR THE STATE. SHRI J.S. LAMBA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PERSONS VIKAS, LALIT KUMAR, VISHWAS KUMAR @ HAPPY.
SHRI RAJENDER PRATAP SINGH, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED PARAG ARORA.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Learned Counsel for the accused Lalit submits that convict Lalit has faced the trial for seven years and he is aged about 60 years and is suffering from diabetes. He has never been involved in any other case.
2. Convict Vishwas Kumar @ Happy is aged about 27 years, married is also not involved in any other criminal case. Convict Vikas is aged about 34 years, married having two children and wife. He is also not involved in any other criminal case.
3. Learned counsel for the convict Parag Arora filed an application for Probation, submitting that he may be released on probation as he is only the earning member of his family consisting of his wife and two children aged about 3 and 1 year respectively. He is also not involved in any other criminal case.
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :32:
4. I have heard and perused the record. All convicts are not involved in any other criminal case. All faced trial for about seven years. Convict Lalit is aged about 60 years and suffering from diabetes. He has no past record of involvement in any criminal case. Hence, keeping in view of these facts he is released on probation of six months on furnishing bond of good behaviour and conduct with one surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.
Accused Vishwas @ Happy and Parag Arora have played active role in the criminal transaction as all the accused persons wanted forcible dispossession of injured/tenants i.e. Narender Singh and Jaswinder Singh. Hence I award sentence for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Both Vishwas @ Happy and Parag Arora shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one (1) year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine , Simple Imprisonment for three months.
Convict Vikas Kumar is the person who played the major role in the criminal transaction and caused injuries to the person of Narender Singh and Jaswinder Singh with STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :33: sword. He shared common intention of dispossession of Injured from the tenanted shop. He also absconded for about six (6) months after the incident. Hence, I award sentence for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC to convict Vikas shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 ½ year and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine 6 months Simple Imprisonment. Ordered accordingly.
6. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the Convicts/Accused persons if any. Copy of Judgment and copy of sentence be given to the accused persons, free of cost, today itself. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-01(NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 26.11.2009 STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :34: STATE VS VIKAS KUMAR & OTHERS.
SC No. 120/2009
FIR No. 841/02.
PS : TILAK NAGAR.
U/s. 307/324/323 IPC.
26.11.2009.
Present: Mrs. Purnima Gupta, Substitute APP for the State.
Convicts Vishwas, Lalit and Vikas on bail with Shri J.S. Lamba, Advocate.
Convict Parag Arora on bail with Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate.
Vide separate order Convict Lalit is released on probation of six months on furnishing bond of good behaviour and conduct with one surety in the sum of Rs.10,000/-.
Accused Vishwas @ Happy and Parag Arora are sentenced for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. Both Vishwas @ Happy and Parag Arora shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of one (1) year and fine of Rs.10,000/- each. In default of payment of fine , Simple Imprisonment for three months.
Convict Vikas Kumar sentenced for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC to convict Vikas shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 ½ year and fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine 6 months Simple STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :35: Imprisonment. Ordered accordingly. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to the Convicts/Accused persons if any. Copy of Judgment and copy of sentence be given to the accused persons, free of cost, today itself. Sessions file be consigned to record room.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ASJ-01(NW):ROHINI:DELHI.
26.11.2009.
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC :36: STATE VS VIKAS KUMAR & OTHERS.
FIR No. 841/02.
PS : TILAK NAGAR.
U/s. 307/324/323 IPC.
26.11.2009.
Present: Mrs. Purnima Gupta, Substitute APP for the State.
Convicts Vishwas and Vikas on bail with Shri J.S. Lamba, Advocate.
Convict Parag Arora on bail with Shri R.P. Singh, Advocate.
Convicts Vikas Kumar, Vishwash @ Happy and Parag filed an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail for the purpose of filing of appeal..
Heard.
Convicts/accused persons remained through bail and hence sentence suspended and all abovesaid three convicts admitted to bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount for the period of 30 days from today, till the filing of appeal or till the date of filing, whichever is earlier. Application is accordingly disposed of.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ASJ-01(NW):ROHINI:DELHI.
26.11.2009.
STATE VS VIKAS & OTHERS 841/02/PSTILAK NAGAR/U/S. 307/324/323 IPC