Delhi District Court
State vs . on 28 July, 2014
:1: FIR No. 444/06
IN THE COURT OF SH.PULASTYA PRAMACHALA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. : 444/06
Under Section : 308/323/324/34 IPC
Police Station : Khajuri Khas
Sessions Case No : 11/14
Unique I.D. No. : 02402R0647572006
In the matter of :
STATE
Vs.
1. Lal Chand
S/o Sh. Hukum Singh
R/o Village : Sabhapur, Delhi.
2. Satpal
S/o Sh. Hukum Singh
R/o Village : Sabhapur, Delhi.
3. Bhagmal
S/o Sh. Hukum Singh
R/o Village : Sabhapur, Delhi.
4. Vijay Pal
S/o Sh. Bhule
R/o Village : Sabhapur, Delhi.
5. Bhule Ram
S/o Sh. Hukum Singh
R/o Village : Sabhapur, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 15.11.2006
Date of Committal : 06.12.2006
Date of receiving in this Court : 16.01.2014
Date of reserving judgment : 22.07.2014
Date of pronouncement : 25.07.2014
Decision : All convicted u/s 308/323/325/34 IPC.
Page no. 1 of 34
(Pulastya Pramachala)
Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara)
Karkardooma Courts / Delhi
:2: FIR No. 444/06
JUDGMENT
Case set up by the prosecution :-
1. The case set up by prosecution is that on 15.10.2006, vide DD No. 3-A, an information regarding quarrel was received at Police Station-
Khajoori Khas. On receipt of the same, ASI Tilomani along with Ct. Maharaj Singh reached at Yamuna Khadar, Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, opposite Annapurna Temple, where they found few people present in the farms and on inquiry, it was revealed that few injured persons were removed to Trauma Centre by PCR officials. No eye witness was found present there and thereafter, IO went to Trauma Centre and obtained the MLCs of Maharaj Singh, Gajaraj Singh and Ranbir Singh. Doctor declared them fit for statement. IO recorded the statement of Maharaj Singh, which is to the effect that on that day at about 6.30 AM, he along with his brothers Shyam Singh, Gajraj Singh and Ranbir Singh was present at their field at Yamuna Khadar Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, Opposite Annapurna temple. His cousin brothers (son of Tau) namely Lal Chand, Bhagmal and Satpal came to their field and they were armed with hockey and wooden stick (danda) in their hands. They gave 'lathi' and hockey blow on the head and hand of Shyam Singh. In the meanwhile, Bhule Ram and his son Vijay Pal also came there carrying 'danda' in their hands and they gave beatings to Maharaj Singh and his brother Gajraj Singh, when they objected and forbade them to give beatings. Sumit S/o Bhagmal, Lalit S/o Lal Chand and Kalu S/o Satpal also reached there, carrying 'danda' and iron rod (saria) in their hands, who exhorted to eliminate them (aj inka kam tamam kar dete hain) and Page no. 2 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :3: FIR No. 444/06 Sumit, Lalit and Kalu caught hold of Ranbir and gave him 'saria' and 'lathi' blow. Vijay Pal had bitten hand and waist of Ranbir Singh. Both the parties were having property dispute amongst themselves. On the basis of this statement, IO prepared rukka and got the FIR registered against the accused persons. IO had prepared the site plan. Accused persons were arrested by the IO. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet U/s 308/323/324/34 IPC was filed against the accused persons.
2. Charges were framed against accused Lal Chand, Satpal, Bhagmal, Vijay Pal and Bhule for offences U/s 308/34 IPC, 323/34 IPC and 325/34 IPC on 07.02.2007, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined 13 witnesses in support of its case. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of all the accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons also lead evidence and produced one witness in defence.
Prosecution Evidence :-
4. PW-1 Sh. Maharaj Singh was one of the injured. As per his testimony, on 15.10.2006 at about 6.30-7.00 AM he, along with his brothers Sh. Shyam Singh (PW-12), Sh. Gajraj Singh (PW-4) and Sh. Ranbir Singh (PW-11) was present at their filed in Yamuna Khadar, Pushta Road, Sonia Vihar, Delhi. Accused Lal Chand, Bhagmal and Satpal were cousin, who came on their filed being armed with hockey, wooden stick (danda) and iron rod in their hands. These three accused persons attacked on Shyam Singh with hockey and 'lathi'. When this witness Page no. 3 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :4: FIR No. 444/06 tried to save his brother, then at that time accused Bule and his son accused Vijay Pal also came having wooden sticks in their hands. They attacked on Gajraj Singh. This witness and his brother Gajraj Singh were trying to save their brother Shyam Singh. PW-1 made a call at 100 number from his mobile phone and that mobile phone was snatched from him by accused Vijay Pal. In the meantime, Lalit, Sumit and Kallu also came there being equipped with wooden sticks and iron rod. They also attacked on Ranbir Singh with iron rod and wooden stick. Accused Vijay Pal bite Ranbir Singh. All the accused persons gave beatings to them, as a result of which he and his brothers received injuries. The injured persons had a civil litigation with accused persons, due to which out of an enmity, accused persons had caused injuries to them. PCR van reached there after some time and on seeing the police van, accused persons ran away from the spot. PCR removed them to Trauma Centre, where they were medically examined. Local police also reached there and recorded his statement, which was proved as Ex.PW1/A. From the hospital, PW-1 along with police officials came back at the spot of incident. IO prepared site plan at his instance and seized four wooden sticks and broken hockey stick from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, they went to village and on the identification of PW-1, accused Lal Chand, Satpal, Bhagmal, Vijay Pal, Sumit and Lalit were arrested by the police. Four accused persons were correctly identified by PW-1 in the Court. He further deposed that he could identify accused Sumit and Lalit but these persons were facing trial in juvenile court. He also identified Page no. 4 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :5: FIR No. 444/06 Bhule. He further deposed that blood stained clothes belonging to him and Shyam Singh were sealed in the hospital. He identified the wooden sticks recovered by police and the hockey stick as the same, which was used by the accused persons. He also identified blood stained white shirt to be the same, which was worn by him at the time of incident and which was seized by the doctor. He identified one vest and one check shirt of red and light yellow colour with blood stains, to be the same which was worn by his brother Shyam Singh at the time of incident.
5. PW-2 Dr. Ranga Nath had given opinion regarding nature of injury on the MLCs of all the four injured persons. MLC of Sh. Gajraj Singh was proved as Ex.PW2/A and according to his opinion, he had received grievous injury. MLC of Sh. Maharaj Singh was proved as Ex.PW2/B, who, as per his opinion, had sustained simple injuries. MLC of Sh. Shyam Singh was proved as Ex.PW2/C, who as per his opinion had sustained grievous injuries and MLC of Sh. Ranbir Singh was proved as PW2/D, who as per his opinion had sustained simple injuries.
6. PW-3 Dr. Amit Sidana had prepared X-ray report pertaining to injured Sh. Gajraj Singh, which was proved as Ex.PW2/DA1. According to this report, there was no bone injury. He had also prepared X-ray report of Sh. Maharaj Singh and he found a fracture of Nasal bone, which was proved as Ex.PW3/A. He had also prepared X-ray report of injured Sh. Shyam Singh, which is Ex.PW3/B and according to this report, there was a fracture of distal shaft of tibia and distal shaft of ulna. He had also prepared X-ray report of injured Sh. Ranbir Singh, which is Page no. 5 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :6: FIR No. 444/06 Ex.PW3/C. He had also given X-ray report of injured Gajraj Singh, which is Ex.PW3/D. Another opinion given in respect of X-ray of Sh. Maharaj Singh is Ex.PW3/E. Similar opinion in respect of X-ray of Sh. Ranbir Singh is Ex.PW3/F and in respect of another X-ray of Sh. Ranbir Singh is Ex.PW3/G.
7. PW-4 Sh. Gajraj Singh, PW-11 Sh. Ranbir Singh and PW-12 Sh.
Shyam Singh were another injured persons in this case. They also narrated the incident, as deposed by PW-1. Relevant scrutiny of their evidence would be mentioned by me in the later part of this judgment.
8. PW-5 Dr. J.K. Basu was posted as CMO at Sushrut Trauma Centre, Metcalf Road, Delhi on 15.10.2006. He had examined injured Shyam Singh, who was admitted under Ortho and Emergency and was referred to General Surgery and Neuro Surgery Department. He had also examined other inured persons and had prepared MLCs of all injured persons, which were already exhibited by PW-2. He also seized clothes of injured Shyam Singh and Maharaj Singh. He referred to the nature of injuries as found by him during examination of these injured persons, in his testimony as well as in MLCs.
9. PW-6 S.I. Yashpal Singh had recorded the FIR, on the basis of rukka sent by ASI Tilomani Bhatt on 15.10.2006. Copy of FIR was proved as Ex.PW6/A.
10.PW-7 Ct. Maharaj Singh had accompanied IO (PW-13) on 15.10.2006 after receiving DD No. 3-A. He along with IO had visited spot of incident at Yamuna Khadar, Pushta Road, where they came to know that injured persons were already taken to Trauma Centre by the PCR Page no. 6 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :7: FIR No. 444/06 Van. They did not find any eye-witness and thereafter, they reached Trauma Centre, where IO collected MLCs of injured persons. Duty Ct. Manoj Kumar had produced two sealed parcels to this witness and this witness handed over the same to the IO, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW7/A. IO gave rukka to this witness for registration of the FIR and after registration of the FIR, he came to spot to hand over the copy of FIR and rukka to the IO. He also accompanied IO to Sabhapur Village and was member of police team, which apprehended the accused persons namely Lal Chand, Vijay Pal, Bhagmal and Satpal along with other two juveniles. He also identified the accused persons in the Court.
11. PW-8 ASI Dharam Pal had recorded an information regarding quarrel on 15.10.2006 vide DD No. 3-A, which was assigned to ASI Tilomani for necessary action.
12.Dr. J.K. Basu was again examined as PW-9 as he was deputed by Medical Superintendent, Sushrut Trauma Centre to identify the handwriting of Dr. Shailesh Jain and Dr. Ashish Gautma. These two members had left the services of that hospital and he identified their handwriting and opinion given on Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/D.
13. PW-10 Dr. G.S. Pradhan was also deputed by Medical Superintendent, LNJP Hospital to identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Amit Sidhana, who had left the services of the hospital. He identified the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Amit Sidhana on the X-ray reports, which are Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E and Ex.PW3/G at point X and A respectively.
Page no. 7 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :8: FIR No. 444/06
14. PW-13 ASI Tilomani Bhatt was IO of this case. He also deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW-7. Detailed discussion of his testimony as per requirement would be done by me in the later part of the judgment.
Defence Evidence :-
15. On behalf of accused persons, DW-1 Sh. Mahesh Pal was examined as witness. He deposed that accused persons were his relatives and the complainant/injured persons were close relatives of accused persons. A property dispute was pending between both the parties before a civil court. His field was adjacent to the fields of accused persons and complainant party. On 15.10.2006, he was working at his field from 5.30 AM to 12.00 Noon and till the time he remained at the spot, no incident of assault had taken place and no one caused injury to anybody. Later on, he came to know that complainant had falsely implicated the accused persons in this false case due to property dispute. According to him, accused persons were innocent and they did not cause injuries to anybody.
Arguments on behalf of complainant :-
16. It was argued by ld. Chief Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant that the accused persons attacked upon the injured persons, due to their old rivalry and dispute related to property. It was further argued that the prosecution evidence is consistent to show the role played by accused persons and therefore, their remains no doubt about their guilt for offences under Section 308/325/323 IPC.
17.The prosecution and the complainant have relied upon the following Page no. 8 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :9: FIR No. 444/06 case laws :-
(i) State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki, (1981) 2 SCC 752;
(ii) State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48;
(iii) State v. Saravanan, AIR 2009 SC 152.
All these case laws have been referred to submit that minor discrepancies in the testimony of a witness are not fatal, until and unless they go into the roots of the case of prosecution. Arguments on behalf of defence :-
18. The plea and arguments taken by defence are as follows :-
(a) The information received vide DD No. 3-A and the contents of the FIR are not consistent.
(b) The time of alleged incident as mentioned by the complainant/PWs and as recorded in the PCR record are altogether different.
(c) The PWs could not even tell the names of owners of the adjoining land, which is not a probable situation because in village the persons are well aware of owners of the land adjoining their own land. PWs even could not tell the area of their land convincingly.
This shows that they were not sure about the location of alleged incident.
(d) Prosecution did not produce the best evidence to establish the identity of place of occurrence i.e. Hulka Patwari, nor any photograph of the spot was proved on the record.
(e) There is complete contradiction in the statements of PWs and the IO regarding the material facts. PWs claimed that blood had dropped at the spot of incident, though, IO deposed that no blood Page no. 9 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :10: FIR No. 444/06 was found at the spot. IO did not take photographs of the spot nor earth sample was taken with blood stains, which goes to falsify the case of prosecution.
(f) There was no motive on the part of accused persons to involve in the alleged incident because already civil litigation was pending between the parties. PWs have deposed that accused persons remained at the spot even after the incident, which is unlikely to happen in such cases. Furthermore, after committing alleged acts, it was unnatural for the accused persons to go back to their house and to remain at their house. Such situation indicates the falsity of case of prosecution.
(g) None of the public witnesses were joined and produced by the IO as witness in this case, which again raises doubt over the case of prosecution.
(h) Prosecution did not prove the x-ray report and the doctor concerned could not comment whether the injury could be caused due to accidental fall. When the doctor could not say anything convincingly about x-ray report, then any opinion given on MLC based on such x- ray report cannot be relied upon.
(i) Prosecution did not produce the PCR officials as witnesses, who had taken the injured to hospital and who could have given first hand account of the scene witnessed by them.
Findings :-
Description of injuries received by the injured persons :-
19. I shall start with description of injuries allegedly received by PW-1, Page no. 10 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :11: FIR No. 444/06 PW-4, PW-11 and PW-12 and as described by PW-5 Dr. J.K. Basu and as mentioned in their respective MLCs.
20.As per the MLC Ex.PW2/B pertaining to injured Maharaj Singh (PW-1), he had sustained following injuries :-
(a) CLW size 2 cm over left side of forehead and CLW size 1cm over nose.
(b) Bruise over left hypochondrium.
(c) Tenderness over left hand.
(d) Deformity and swelling of nasal spine.
21.As per the MLC Ex.PW2/A pertaining to injured Gajraj Singh (PW-4), he had sustained following injuries :-
(a) Swelling and tenderness of left forearm.
(b) Tenderness of right forearm with wrist joint.
22.As per the MLC Ex.PW2/D pertaining to injured Ranbir Singh (PW-11), he had sustained following injuries :-
Abrasional bruises over right arm, left thigh, left forearm and at the back of the left chest. Abrasional bruises over right arm and left lower chest back side were oval in shape.
23.As per the MLC Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/C pertaining to injured Shyam Singh (PW-12), he had sustained following injuries :-
(a) CLW size 4 cm over right temporal-occipital region.
(b) CLW size 4 cm over left cheek and CLW 2 cm over right forearm.
(c) CLW size 5 cm over base of right hand thumb.
(d) 2 CLW size 3 cm each over exterior surface of left forearm.
(e) Two bruises over right hypochondric region.
Page no. 11 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :12: FIR No. 444/06
(f) Deformity of left wrist joint.
(g) Tenderness over mandible.
24. PW-2 had given his opinion regarding nature of injuries as received by all four injured persons, in their respective MLCs. According to him, injured Maharaj Singh (PW-1) had sustained simple injuries. Sh. Gajraj Singh (PW-4) had sustained grievous injuries because this witness had received hair line fracture in shaft of ulna. This injured was recalled for his repeat X-ray test because of some doubts and in his repeat X-ray test report i.e. Ex.PW2/DA2, it was reported that there was a fracture in ulna. Sh. Ranbir Singh (PW-11) was reported to have sustained simple injuries and Sh. Shyam Singh (PW-12) was reported to have sustained grievous injuries. In respect of opinion given by PW-2 and the method adopted by him, he was cross-examined at length by the defence. The defence suggested to him that he had manipulated the opinion in respect of injuries sustained by PW-4, which was denied by this witness. He was also suggested that the report given by him was fabricated one and it was so given at the instance of the complainant, which was also denied by this witness. In response to the question put to him, this witness deposed that in the X-ray report, the number of MLC and X-ray plate is mentioned, so as to connect it with a particular patient. He further deposed that reports were given by him after perusing the X-ray plates, X-ray reports and MLCs. He further gave his explanation for seeking repeat X-ray of PW-4, stating that the hair line fracture becomes more prominent after one or two weeks because of the necrosis of the fractured bone ends. He said that it was a doubtful Page no. 12 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :13: FIR No. 444/06 fracture at first instance, therefore, repeat X-ray was conducted. From his lengthy cross-examination, I am unable to find any inconsistency or irregularity in the method adopted by this witness, to give opinion on nature of injuries. Besides that, I do not find any reason for this witness to give a false opinion or to fabricate any report. The X-ray films were also placed on the case file and defence did not take any such plea that no injury could be seen in such X-ray films. Therefore, I do not find any reason to discard the evidence of PW-2. However, I find that opinion given in respect of injury sustained by PW-1 is not acceptable, because as per X-ray report Ex.PW-3/E, PW-1 also sustained fracture in his nasal bone. Therefore, the injury of PW-1 is also found to be grievous in nature.
25.PW-5 deposed that he had examined all injured persons at first instance. He proved the MLCs, which were prepared by him and he also explained the external injuries noticed by him on each injured. His testimony establishes that all injured persons were medically examined on 15.10.2006 at Sushrut Trauma Centre. The MLCs of all the injured persons further established that these injured persons were taken there at 8:00 AM by PCR officials. It was only injured Ranbir Singh (PW-11), who had come after three injured persons at about 8:20 AM. PW-11 deposed before the Court that his brothers i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-12 went to hospital in PCR van and he reached there with his brother Kiran Pal because there was no space in PCR van. His such statement is consistent with note mentioned in his MLC i.e. Ex.PW2/D. Therefore, I find that it is well established on the record that PW-1, PW-4, PW-11 Page no. 13 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :14: FIR No. 444/06 and PW-12 had sustained certain bodily injuries and they were taken to Sushrut Trauma Centre for their medical examination.
26.Now the question is that how did these witnesses suffer the respective injuries. In this regard, all these four witnesses deposed before the Court that initially accused Lal Chand, Bhagmal and Satpal came on the field of the injured persons and they started beating Sh. Shyam Singh (PW-12). Other three injured persons tried to save their brother i.e. PW-12 and they were also beaten by accused persons. By this time, other accused namely Bhule, Vijay Pal and thereafter, Lalit, Sumit and Kalu had also come on the field and they all gave beatings to these four injured persons. PW-1 deposed that accused Bhule and Vijay Pal attacked on Sh. Gajraj Singh (PW-4) and accused Lalit, Sumit and Kalu caught hold of Sh. Ranbir Singh (PW-11) and started beating with iron rod and 'lathi'. He further deposed that accused Vijay Pal bite Ranbir.
27.PW-4 Sh. Gajraj Singh also gave same account of the sequence of arrival of the accused persons on the spot stating that accused Lal Chand, Bhagmal and Satpal came on the field having 'lathi' and sticks in their hands and attacked upon Sh. Shyam Singh (PW-12). He further deposed that accused Bhagmal and Vijay Pal also reached there having sticks in their hands and they also attacked upon the injured persons, while other injured were trying to save Shyam Singh. This witness gave further account of the beating given by the accused persons stating that accused Bhule gave a blow from stick (danda) on his left forearm and accused Vijay Pal gave another blow of stick on his back. Accused Lalit and Sumit caught hold of Sh. Ranbir Singh Page no. 14 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :15: FIR No. 444/06 (PW-11) and accused Vijay Pal bite him on his back. He further deposed that thereafter, all the accused persons kept beating them and since he was under severe pain on account of fracture on his hand, he could not notice as to which person gave injuries to whom. This witness also corroborated statement given by PW-1 that PW-1 made a call to police and police officials came there.
28.PW-11 Sh. Ranbir Singh also gave sequence of arrival of all accused persons on the spot and deposed that accused Bhule, Lal Chand and Satpal attacked upon Shyam Singh with hockey and stick (danda). He further deposed that accused Bhule and Vijay Pal attacked on PW-1 and PW-4. He further deposed that accused Lalit, Sumit and Kallu attacked upon him with iron rod, 'danda' and 'lathi'. He further deposed that they caught hold of him and accused Vijay Pal bite him on his back side. He further deposed that Vijay Pal snatched iron rod from accused Kallu and hit the same on the head of Shyam Singh (PW-12). All the accused persons had surrounded them and they exhorted that "Aaj inko khatam kardo". He further deposed that accused persons continued to beat them with their respective weapons. According to this witness, accused Vijay and Bhule had come equipped with handle of 'fawda'. Accused Lalit, Sumit and Kallu were having iron rod, 'danda' and 'lathi'. He also deposed that PW-1 made call at 100 number and PCR reached there.
29.PW-12 Sh. Shyam singh also gave same sequence of arrival of accused persons. He also deposed that accused Lal Chand, Bhule and Satpal came on their field equipped with wooden handle of 'fawda' and Page no. 15 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :16: FIR No. 444/06 'lathi'. They attacked upon him and he screamed. Thereafter, his brothers i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-11 came to rescue him, however, they were also attacked upon by these accused persons, who were also joined by accused Vijay Pal and Bhule Ram. Accused Bhule Ram was having a 'lathi' and Vijay Pal was having hockey stick. In the meantime, accused Lalit, Sumit and Kallu also came there having hockey, 'danda' and iron rod. Kallu was having iron rod and all of them attacked upon the injured persons with their respective weapons. He further deposed that accused Vijay Pal hit hockey on the head of PW-4 and while Gajraj Singh (PW-4) tried to rescue himself by raising his hands, the hockey stick hit on his hands and was broken. He further deposed that accused Vijay Pal snatched iron rod from Kallu and hit the same on his head. When he turned towards him, this accused again hit him with iron rod on his face. He further deposed that accused Bhule Ram exhorted to kill all injured persons. He further deposed that accused Vijay Pal bite on the back and hands of Ranbir. It is to be seen that even PW-4 had responded to a Court question stating that accused Bhule had exhorted to finish all injured persons.
30. All the injured persons were cross-examined at length by ld. defence counsels. However, from their cross-examination also, I do not find any material contradiction in respect of alleged incident. Questions were asked about the Khasra No. of the land and about the owners of the adjoining land, which could not be answered by these witnesses. An argument was made on behalf of defence that when these witnesses even could not tell the name of owners of adjoining land or the area of Page no. 16 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :17: FIR No. 444/06 their own land, then it is reflected that they were not even sure about the identification of the place of alleged incident. In my considered opinion, there cannot be a hard and fast formula regarding such kind of knowledge of a person. All the injured persons were admittedly in Government Service. It was so stated by PW-4 and not disputed by the accused persons. Therefore, they may not be spending much time on their fields and on related affairs. It cannot be said that in all circumstances, these witnesses must have known the owners of the adjoining land or about the exact area of their land or about the respective Khasra numbers. Though, PW-11 had mentioned the Khasra number as 606 and 616, however, mentioning such Khasra number is not a material question. If I peruse the statement given by witness produced by accused persons i.e. DW-1 Sh. Mahesh Pal, then I find that even he was not aware of the Khasra no. of his field or the filed of accused persons. Though, he claimed that his fields were adjacent to the fields of accused persons and the complainant. Therefore, the argument in respect of absence of such knowledge, on the part of injured persons, does not make any significant impact.
31. Defence has also referred to some contradictions relating to oozing of blood and the same being dropped on the spot. IO (PW-13) had deposed that he did not find any blood on the spot of incident. On the other hand, the injured persons deposed that the blood had fallen on the spot. Even PW-7, who accompanied the IO deposed that blood was lying at the spot on 5/7 places. It is admitted fact that IO did not lift any blood stained soil from the spot. There may be a situation that blood Page no. 17 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :18: FIR No. 444/06 had fallen on the spot and might not have been noticed by the IO. Another situation may be that blood was so mixed with soil that IO opted to ignore it and therefore, he did not lift such soil. It is very obvious that when the questions were being raised regarding authenticity of investigation conducted by IO, he shall try to show that he conducted skillful investigation and did not commit any error. In that situation, it is probable that IO may come-up with an answer that he did not find any blood on the spot. It is also relevant to be seen that the place of incident was an agricultural field, which was being ploughed. In that situation, any blood dropped on earth would easily be mixed and absorbed by the soil and therefore, lifting such blood stained earth would not have been a possible task. Just because such blood stained earth was not lifted, it cannot be said that no incident took place at all. The judgments referred by prosecution do show that a contradiction or omission, which does not go into the root of the case, should be ignored by the Court. Therefore, even such argument of defence does not make any impact on the decision of this case.
32.Defence has taken another argument that there is no consistency between contents of DD No. 3-A and contents of the FIR. DD No. 3-A was recorded when information of an incident was received in PS- Khajoori Khas at about 7:02 AM. As per this DD i.e. Ex.PW8/A, Ct. Dharamvir from PCR had sent information via wireless that a quarrel had taken place related to agricultural filed near Sabha Pur Village, Sonia Vihar Wala Temple. The FIR was lodged on the basis of statement given by PW-1 before the IO i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, wherein PW-1 Page no. 18 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :19: FIR No. 444/06 gave account of all facts which resulted into sustaining injuries by him and his brothers. Argument of ld. defence counsel was that the term 'quarrel' means that there was fight between two parties and the complaint was made by PW-1 does not show that there was a fight. The complaint Ex.PW1/A shows that accused persons came on the spot and started beating the injured person, which means one sided act of beating.
33. In my considered opinion, a person cannot make choice of very proper term, while giving information of an incident like this, to Police Control Room. Especially, when the victim of an incident like in hand gives an information to PCR, he is not expected to have a very balanced posture, balanced mind and presence of mind, so as to give a very minutely accurate account of happenings. At such moment, a victim merely makes SOS call in briefest manner, in order to seek help of police. Therefore, it is neither probable nor natural to use well balanced terms, while giving any information of an incident or to give further account of facts suo moto. The term quarrel is very general term, which is even used by a person for incident in question. Therefore, I do not find any inconsistency in the contents of the DD No. 3A and FIR.
34. The next contention of defence is that prosecution did not call a Halka Patwari to establish the identity of the place of occurrence nor took any photograph of the spot and proved the same on the record. As far as calling Halka Patwari is concerned, I do not find relevance of the same because this proceeding was not about identity of agricultural field. The major issue involved herein was an incident, wherein accused persons Page no. 19 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :20: FIR No. 444/06 had allegedly given severe beatings to the injured persons. Therefore, there was no purpose for calling Halka Patwari along with revenue records. Apparently, Halka Patwari was not an eye-witness of the incident, so as to point out the place of occurrence. As far as absence of any photograph is concerned, it is true that IO did not take such photograph. However, such omission on the part of the IO cannot be fatal to the case of prosecution because the case of prosecution is based upon the account of facts given by victims of offence and other consequential evidence like medical evidence as well as the evidence of the IO and his colleagues. Hence, even this argument does not wash away the case of prosecution.
35. Ld. defence counsel took plea that there was no motive on the part of accused persons, to be involved in this incident because already a civil litigation was pending between both the parties. However, I find that the admitted fact of pendency of a civil litigation over property dispute between the parties, shows and establishes the motive for the accused persons, to indulge into such violent act against the injured persons. It was in the background of property dispute existing between both the parties that all accused persons came to the place of occurrence i.e. agricultural field, which was being ploughed by the injured persons and they gave severe beatings to the injured persons with the weapons brought by them. This fact is well corroborated by the first information received vide DD No. 3A to the effect that this quarrel was in respect of an agricultural field. Therefore, the dispute over the agricultural field was the reason for the happening of this incident. Hence, I find that Page no. 20 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :21: FIR No. 444/06 motive on the part of the accused persons to be involved in such incident, is well established on the record.
36. Another argument was taken that none of the public witnesses was joined by the IO and IO even did not produce the officials of PCR Van as witnesses. Record shows that it is not the case of the prosecution that other public witness has witnessed the incident in question, which had taken place at around 7 AM. The injured persons have stated that accused had come to their field around this time. It cannot be expected that the exact time of arrival on the field would be noted down by the injured persons, in anticipation of the incident of beating. It is not even expected that at the time of being beaten up or making call at 100 number, a person would note down the exact time. PW-7 and PW-13 deposed that when they reached the place of occurrence after the incident, they did not find any eye witness. Even the officials of PCR could not have been the eye witness of the incident. The injured persons deposed that the accused flee away from the spot, after hearing the siren of police when PCR Van reached there. Which means that even PCR officials reached the spot after the incident and they did not have the occasion to see the assailants. In that situation, there was no occasion to cite a public person as witness. The omission to cite PCR Van officials as witness also did not have much bearing on the merit of this case. Therefore, I do not find any force in such argument.
37.Another plea was taken on behalf of accused persons that it was not probable act of the accused persons to go back to their house and to remain there, after being involved in such incident. Therefore, the Page no. 21 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :22: FIR No. 444/06 arrest of all accused persons from their house on same day shows the falsity of case of prosecution. I am not in agreement with such argument of the defence because this fact in itself cannot prove the falsity of case of the prosecution. Once again, there cannot be any hard and fast formula regarding conduct of an offender. May be with this thought itself that they would claim innocence on the basis of their presence in their house, accused persons remained at their house. Even otherwise, after being involved in such incidence, a requirement of being in secured place in anticipation of retaliation, would have also prevailed in the minds of accused persons and for them, there could not have been a better place than their house, to be a secured place.
38. I have gone through the statement of each accused as recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All of them denied the allegations regarding their visit to the field at Yamuna Khadar, Pushta Road and beating of the injured persons with hockey, 'lathi' as well as iron rod. The accused persons also denied arrival of PCR on the spot, though, admitted that a civil litigation is pending in the Court. All of them expressed ignorance about the medical examination and treatment given to the injured persons, vide their respective MLCs. However, they came up with plea that IO had prepared false documents i.e. seizure memos and that all medical papers were manipulated by the complainant party in connivance with the police. In their defence, they produced DW-1, according to whom, no incident had taken place on 15.10.2006. However, I find that the contentions raised by the accused persons regarding manipulation of medical documents is not supported with any Page no. 22 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :23: FIR No. 444/06 evidence and in my foregoing observations, I have, therefore, accepted the credibility of such evidence. I am not able to rely upon the testimony of DW-1 for simple reasons that he may be a tutored witness on behalf of the accused persons. The testimony of this witness does not stand the test of truthfulness in view of the well corroborated evidence of prosecution regarding the alleged incident. Even this witness has deposed that he had come to know that all injured persons had sustained injuries but he immediately modified his statement to say that only Shyam had sustained injuries. But he could not tell out of his personal knowledge that how did even Shyam sustain injury, if no incident had taken place at all? He did not clarify such situation at all.
39. On the other hand, the testimony of PW-5 that he did seal the clothes of PW-1 and PW-12 after their medical examination corroborates the testimony of PW-7 as well as PW-13 that such clothes were seized at the hospital. Within short span of time, there could not have been any manipulation regarding the clothes of these injured persons. Such clothes of injured persons were duly produced before the Court in sealed condition with seal of STC (Sushrut Trauma Center) and were identified and proved by PW-1 as Ex.PW-1/P-5, Ex.PW-1/P-6 and Ex.PW-1/P-7.
40. In the testimony of PW-7, it was mentioned that when they reached the place of occurrence, public persons were standing at some distance from the spot. The site plan Ex.PW-13/B shows that the place of occurrence was at some distance from the main road and the public persons would have been watching the arrival of police on the spot Page no. 23 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :24: FIR No. 444/06 from that road. If no incident had taken place, then there could not be any occasion for public persons to be present there, in order to watch the after effects of the incident. The description of attack initiated by accused Bhagmal, Lal Chand and Satpal and joining of accused Bhule, Vijay Pal, Lalit, Sumit and Kallu in that attack being equipped with different weapons like iron rod and lathi as well as hockey stick, have been consistently given by all injured persons. All injured persons have consistently deposed that accused Vijay Pal bite on the back side of PW-11 and this fact is corroborated with the noting made by PW-5 in the MLC Ex.PW-2/D. PW-5 made his noting that there were abrasional bruises over right arm and back side of lower chest in oval shape, which might be due to human bite, as told by the patient. It is not expected that within short period of time, PW-11 would have artificially and falsely given such account of fact before the treating doctor. Since the accused persons fled away from the spot after hearing the siren of police and arrival of PCR van, there could not have been any occasion either for the injured persons or for the police officials to chase the accused persons because of serious injuries received by injured persons specially PW-12. It is also well established on the record that PW-12 remained under treatment and other injured persons were discharged on the same day, though, PW-4 deposed that he had revisited Trauma Centre for his treatment. His such statement corroborates the statement of PW-2 that PW-4 was recalled for repeat X-ray.
41. PW-7 and PW-13 deposed that on the spot, they had recovered broken Page no. 24 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :25: FIR No. 444/06 hockey and danda and such testimony of these two witnesses corroborate the statement given by injured persons that they were assailed with hockey stick and danda and the hockey stick was broken when PW-4 tried to save himself at the time of being hit by accused Vijay Pal. Thus, I find that all material facts relating to incident in question are well corroborated and established on the record, which show that all accused persons had come to the place of occurrence equipped with different weapons like hockey stick, 'danda' and iron rod and they attacked upon PW-12 and thereafter, they had beaten all four injured persons.
42. Out of four injured persons, three had received grievous injuries PW-1, (PW-4 and PW-12) and one had received simple injuries (PW-11). Now the question is that whether the accused persons are liable for offence U/s 308 IPC or not. In this case, it is established that all accused persons had come prepared with iron rod, hockey stick and danda. There were 7 persons, who attacked upon 4 persons. During such attack, they hit upon the head and face of they of PW-1 and PW-12 apart from other parts of body. Though, they did not cause any fracture in the skulls of these injured persons. However, it must would have been in their knowledge that hitting on the delicate parts like head and nose of a person, with weapon like iron rod, hockey stick and danda, they could have caused their death as well. Any of such weapons is capable to cause death of a person, if same is used to hit on the head with greater force. The evidence also establishes that it was not a case of single blow. All the accused persons kept on beating the injured Page no. 25 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :26: FIR No. 444/06 persons for around half an hour. In these circumstances, it can be safely inferred that the accused persons acted having knowledge that the beatings being given by them, could have caused death of the injured Shyam Singh. Therefore, I find all accused persons guilty for offence U/s 308/34 IPC. Besides that, all accused persons are found guilty for offence U/s 323/325/34 IPC as well for causing simple hurt to Ranbir Singh and causing grievous hurt to Gajraj Singh, Maharaj Singh as well as Shyam Singh. All accused persons are convicted accordingly. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 25.07.2014 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara) (This judgment contains 26 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page no. 26 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :27: FIR No. 444/06 IN THE COURT OF SH. PULASTYA PRAMACHALA ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : SHAHDARA DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI State Vs. Lal Chand etc. FIR No. 444/2006 U/s 308/323/325/34 IPC PS: Khajoori Khas 28/07/2014 ORDER ON SENTENCE Vide this order, I propose to pass order on sentence against the convicts in this case.
2) Ld. Chief P.P. for State submitted that all the convicts had attacked upon the injured persons in pre-planned manner and they caused injuries upon all four injured persons. Therefore convicts are not entitled for any leniency and they must be punished severely.
3) On the other hand, ld. Counsels for convicts sought release of convicts on probation making following plea :-
Convicts had not been involved in any other case and they are not hard-core criminals. There are several mitigating factors in their favour. The convicts did not misuse bail throughout the period of trial. They have deep roots in the society and their respective families to support because they are the earning members of their family. The injured persons were the relatives of the convicts and there was a dispute related to property left by Late Sh. Ram Singh. There was no brutality nor any abnormal situation is attached with the incident. All convicts faced trial for around 8 years and there are no Page no. 27 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :28: FIR No. 444/06 aggravating factors against them. Their reformation is very much possible. Even the offence in question was not against the society. Since no minimum punishment is provided in any of the offences in question, therefore, there is no bar to release convicts on probation on the basis of period of custody already undergone by them. Convict Lal Chand is Retired Government Servant and convict Bhagmal is a Government Servant.
4) During the course of arguments, an application under Section 360 Cr.P.C. was also moved on behalf of convicts and reference was made to several case laws, which are as under :-
(i) Mussabir & Anr. v. State & Anr., 2011 (VII) AD (Delhi) 90,
(ii) Afsar & Anr. v. State of Delhi, 2012 (III) AD Delhi 354,
(iii) Praveen Kumar v. State, 2013 (4) JCC 2624,
(iv) Hazara Ram & Anr. v. Jagir Singh & Anr., 2010 (1) Crimes 315 (P&H),
(v) Eliamma & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2009 (2) JCC 1007,
(vi) Narsa Ram & Ors. v. State, 2008 (3) Crimes 748 (Rajasthan),
(vii) Raghunath & Ors. v. State, 2008 (3) Crimes 372 (P&H),
(viii) Singhasan v. State, 2014 (2) JCC 1184.
(ix) Ashwani Kumar v. State, 2012 (3) AD (Delhi) 114, and
(x) Sitaram Paswan & Anr. v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 Supreme Court 3534.
5) I have given due attention to the rival contentions and perused the record.
6) As far as the case laws referred by ld. Counsels are concerned, I have Page no. 28 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :29: FIR No. 444/06 perused all the case laws and I find that orders were passed by the Court in each case, on the basis of the peculiar facts. None of the cited cases had similar facts as pertain to this case. In Sitaram's case (supra), the Supreme Court made observation regarding the guiding principles to invoke Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958, in the following terms :-
"For exercising the power which is discretionary, the Court has to consider circumstances of the case, the nature of the offence and the character of the offender. While considering the nature of the offence, the Court must take a realistic view of the gravity of the offence, the impact which the offence had on the victim."
7) Therefore, I have to evaluate the facts and circumstances of this case, nature of offence and background of convicts as peculiar to this case. I cannot be guided by particular order passed in other cases, which were passed on the peculiar facts related to those cases. In the present case, the facts show that all convicts had enmity with the injured persons over a dispute of land. Such fact was also referred by ld. Counsel as a mitigating factor, but I do not find this factor to be mitigating in nature. This fact is further aggravated with another fact that all the convicts approached the agricultural field, where all injured were ploughing the field. They did not approach the field empty handed, rather they had come prepared well equipped with weapons of offence i.e. lath, hockey stick and iron rods. Such facts show that it was a well motivated, pre-planned and well prepared act on the part of the convicts, to attack upon the injured persons. The number of attackers was 7, out of which 2 were juveniles. This number also assumes importance, which further supports the theory that all convicts had come to the field with pre-planned Page no. 29 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :30: FIR No. 444/06 and determined intention to beat the injured persons. The kind of weapons carried by them were found to be sufficient, so as to cause death of any person and therefore, the knowledge was imputed upon them, as required U/s 308 IPC. They continued beating injured persons for quite sometime i.e. upto around half an hour and their beating caused grievous injuries to 3 of the injured persons. Out of three injured persons, one injured namely Shyam Singh remained admitted in the hospital for number of days. The exact number of days of his admission in the hospital was not proved, however, copies of his medical treatment were placed on the record, which show that he had received severe injuries.
8) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case do not support the plea of the convicts that there are mitigating factors in their favour. In fact these facts and circumstances of the case, makes this case distinct from the facts of the cases, which were referred before me.
9) While deciding sentence, the Court has to strike a balance between the peculiar situation of the convicts and expectations of the victims as well as society at large and its impact on the society. The instances of taking law in hand by using all might and physical force, in order to settle score or enmity, are on rise in the society. There is no check over such instances for want of any deterrent effect. At the same time, victims also loose their faith in the justice delivery system, once they find that the culprits were left scot-free by the Court. Such psychology of one victim takes form of general perception of whole society. Therefore, this Court has to take care of such expectations of the society as well.
10) A plea was taken on behalf of convicts that they suffered trial for 8 Page no. 30 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :31: FIR No. 444/06 years, and they did not misuse the bail. It is true that this trial continued for 8 years but that is not such a factor which should be given much importance over the expectations of whole society. Furthermore, the record of the case shows that the trial continued for such period for various reasons including adjournments taken on behalf of accused persons as well. Therefore, I cannot give this factor too much importance. In fact, convicts availed their right to claim trial and the over burdened system is well known to everybody. Therefore, after availing such right and after being declared guilty, such contentions cannot be impressive.
11) As far as question of reformation of convicts is concerned, I find such plea to be half-hearted and after-thought. Had there been any inclination towards reformation, then the convicts would have at least apologized for their conduct before the injured persons and they could have made this Court aware about such apologies. The inclination for reformation has taken birth only after declaration of guilt by this Court.
12) Therefore, I find that in the present case, the appropriate sentence would be governed by retributive and deterrent theory of punishment. Hence, the plea for release on probation is rejected.
13) During the course of the arguments, an approximate estimate of present age of all convicts was made. Convict Bule Ram is found to be aged around more than 70 years. Convict Lal Chand is found to be aged around 65 years. Convict Bhagmal is found to be aged around 46 years. Convict Vijay Pal is found to be aged around 43 years and convict Satpal is found to be aged around 48 years. As per record, convict Lal Chand, Bhagmal and Satpal remained in custody from 15.10.2006 to 28.02.2007 i.e. for around 136 days.
Page no. 31 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :32: FIR No. 444/06 Convict Vijay Pal remained in custody for around 44 days and convict Bhule Ram was granted anticipatory bail. A query was made from all convicts regarding their present land holding and they came up with plea that all of them jointly hold around 45-50 bighas of land.
14) On the basis of the peculiar age of each convict, I will have to make some distinction in sentence against them and accordingly, the proposed sentence against each convict is as follows :-
(i) Sentence in respect of convict Bhule Ram :-
This convict was aged around 65 years, at the time of alleged incident and now has crossed the age of 70 years. Keeping in view his old age at both times, I find that it would not be appropriate to send him for imprisonment. However, he must be penalized with financial burden in the form of fine and compensation. In these circumstances, convict Bhule Ram is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for offence under Section 308/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days.
He is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and fine of Rs. 6,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
He is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
(ii) Sentence in respect of convict Lal Chand :-
Page no. 32 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :33: FIR No. 444/06 Convict Lal Chand was around 57 years of age at the time of incident and now he is around 65 years old. Keeping in view his age as well, he is also treated at par with convict Bhule Ram. In these circumstances, convict Lal Chand is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for offence under Section 308/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days.
He is also sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and fine of Rs. 6,000/- for offence under Section 325/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
He is further sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the rising of this Court and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Section 323/34 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
(iii) Sentence in respect of convicts Satpal, Bhagmal and Vijay Pal.
Convicts Satpal, Bhagmal and Vijay Pal are below or around 50 years, on this date. The offence under Section 308/34 IPC and 325/34 IPC have a maximum punishment of 7 years each. Keeping in view their comparatively younger age, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 year for offence U/s 308/34 IPC. They are also directed to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 60 days.
They are further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 6 months for offence under Section 325/34 IPC and are also directed to pay fine of Rs.
Page no. 33 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi :34: FIR No. 444/06 6,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 30 days.
They are further sentenced to undergo SI for a period of 3 months for offence under Section 323/34 IPC and are also directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, they are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Convicts namely Vijay Pal, Bhagmal and Satpal shall be entitled for benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
An amount of Rs. 10,000/- from the fine deposited by each convict for offence under Section 308 IPC, shall be payable as compensation to injured Shyam Singh.
An amount of Rs. 4,000/- (each) from the fine deposited by each convict for offence under Section 308 IPC, shall be payable as compensation to injured Maharaj Singh and Gajraj Singh.
An amount of Rs. 1,000/- from the fine deposited by each convict for offence under Section 308 IPC, shall be payable as compensation to injured Ranbir Singh.
Thus, the total compensation to be payable to Shyam Singh would be Rs. 50,000/-, to Maharaj Singh and Gajraj Singh would be Rs.20,000/- (each) and to Ranbir Singh would be Rs. 5,000/-.
Announced in the open court (PULASTYA PRAMACHALA) today on 28.07.2014 Additional Sessions Judge (Shahdara), (This order contains 07 pages) Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Page no. 34 of 34 (Pulastya Pramachala) Addl. Sessions Judge (Shahdara) Karkardooma Courts / Delhi