Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Harish Kumar @ Monu on 30 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE; FTC : E COURT: SHAHDARA:
KARKARDOOMA COURT: DELHI.
SESSIONS CASE No.32/2014
Unique Case ID No. 377/2016
FIR No.545/12
U/S: 308/34 IPC
P.S: Jagat Puri
State Versus 1. Harish Kumar @ Monu
S/o. Sh. Subhash Chand
R/o. H.No.3/12, Geeta Colony,
Delhi.
2. Krishan Kant
S/o. Sh. Hari Prakash
R/o. 2A/95, Akhadawali Gali
Geeta Colony, Delhi.
3. Harsh Arora
S/o. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Arora
_________________________________________________________________________
FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 1 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc.
R/o. 8/99, Geeta Colony, Delhi.
4. Tajinder Pal Singh @ Boby (Expired)
S/o. Sardar Amar Singh
R/o. H.No.504/1, Jheel Khuranja,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 29.05.2014
Date of Arguments : 30.10.2019
Date of Judgment : 30.10.2019
JUDGMENT
Case of Prosecution
1. Criminal law was set into motion on 13.12.2012 at about 10.40 pm, on receiving a call regarding quarrel, which was recorded vide DD No.48A and was assigned to SI C.P.Singh, who alongwith Ct. Sumit reached at the spot i.e shop of Ram Lal Halwai, Patparganj Main Road, Shivpuri, Delhi, where scooter no. DL7SH 0902 was lying on the road and broken pieces of glass bottle were lying scattered. On enquiry, SI C.P.Singh came to know that injured was taken to LBS hospital by _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 2 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. PCR. Thereupon, he reached at LBS hospital after leaving Ct. Sumit at the spot and collected MLC of injured Gopal Singh Chauhan S/o. Shankar Lal and recorded his statement. The gist of the statement is that " on 13.12.2012 at about 8.30 pm, complainant/injured Gopal Singh Chauhan after parking his Scooter no. DL7SH 0902 in front of shop of Ram Lal Halwai went to Utsav Ground to attend a marriage function alongwith his friend Raghwar on his Car. At about 10.30 pm, when he alongwith his friend Raghwar returned to the shop of Ram Lal Halwai after attending the marriage, he saw that his scooter was lying on the ground and near the scooter four boys were consuming liquor in a stationed Santro Car No. DL7CE 7457. He enquired from the boy who was sitting on the driver seat of the vehicle as who made his scooter lie on the ground and tried to lift his scooter, in the meantime, the boy who was sitting on the driver seat alighted from the Car and while abusing gave a kick on his scooter and again pushed his scooter on the ground. When he objected the another boy, who was sitting on the adjacent seat of the driver also alighted from the Car and started abusing and another two boys who were sitting on the rear seat also alighted from the Car and the boy who was sitting on the side seat of driver started abusing and asked them to caught hold him, on which, the boy who was sitting on driver seat and two others who were sitting on the rear seat of the Car caught hold him while the boy who was sitting on the side seat of the driver seat hit on his head with a liquor _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 3 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. bottle, due to which he sustained injury and blood started oozing. When he started shouting, Raghwar also came forward to save him, on which the boy who was sitting on the side seat of the driver seat of the Car threatened the Raghwar while pointing out the broken bottle that if he comes forward he will meet with same fate. Thereupon, Raghwar stopped there due to fear and all the four boys went away towards Khureji in the same Santro Car. Somebody made call to police and he was taken to LBS hospital." On the basis of this statement of complainant present case FIR was registered. On 04.01.2013, complainant got apprehended accused Harish Kumar @ Monu with the help of local police. Further investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2. On appearance copies were supplied to the accused u/s.
207 Cr.P.C. and as section 308 IPC is triable by Sessions Court, the case was committed to Session Court.
Charge framed against the accused persons
3. All the accused were charged u/s. 308/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial accused Tajinder Pal Singh @ Bobby expired and proceedings against him were abated _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 4 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. vide order dt. 04.05.2018.
Witnesses examined
4. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses to prove its case.
The brief summary of the deposition of prosecution witnesses is as under:
5. PW1 is HC Pramod, who was working as duty officer on 14.12.2012 at PS M.S.Park from 12 mid night to 8 am. He recorded the present case FIR and proved the copy of same as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
6. PW2 is Sh. Gopal Singhcomplainant, who deposed that on 18.12.2012, at about 8.30 pm. he parked his Scooter no. DL7SH 0902 near the shop of Ram Lal Halwai and thereafter, went to attend a marriage function with his friend Raghwar in his Car. He further deposed that at about 10.30 pm, when after attending the wedding they returned near shop of Ram Lal, he found his scooter lying on the road and a Santro Car bearing no. DL7CE 7457 was parked nearby in which four boys were taking liquor. PW2 deposed that when he was lifting his scooter one boy who was on the driver seat of the Car abused him _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 5 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. and got down and again threw his scooter. As per PW2 when he stopped him the boy who was sitting on the front seat of the Car next to driver seat also got down and abused him and threatened to teach him a lesson and two other boys who were sitting on the rear side of the Car also got down and caught him. He identified accused Harsh, who was sitting on the driver seat of the Car, accused Krishan, who was on front seat next with the driver and other two accused including one Harish Kumar @ Monu on the back seat of the car. He deposed that accused Krishan hit the liquor bottle on his head resulting in head injury to him and someone made a call to police and police took him to hospital. He proved his statement as Ex.PW2/A. He also identified his signature on the seizure memo Ex.PW2/B regarding broken glass pieces which were lifted from the spot.
PW2 further deposed that on 04.01.2013, at about 1.15 pm at Geeta Colony Chowk, he saw accused Harish and immediately identified him and then made a call at 100 number and handed over him to the police.
In his crossexamination on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harsh Arora he confirmed that the boy who was sitting at the driver seat was not having any role in causing injury to him. To a specific question as put by Ld.Defence Counsel for accused Harish Kumar he deposed that whatever glass pieces of bottles were lying at the spot same were sealed by the police but he does not remember if the _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 6 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. neck and cap of the bottle was also seized.
7. PW3 is Chaudhary Raghwar Singh friend of complainant, who also attended the marriage with complainant on the day of incident. He has also deposed on the line of PW2.
In his crossexamination he confirmed that there is a banquet hall in the name of Sri Ram Palace, outside which they had parked two wheeler of Gopal. He further confirmed that on the day of incident, there was no function/programme being organised in the said banquet hall and as such, there was no guard outside the said banquet hall. To a specific question he deposed that he and Gopal had consumed whiskey.
8. PW4 is Dr. S.B.Jangpangi, who examined complainant/injured Gopal Singh and proved his MLC as Ex.PW4/A. In his crossexamination he deposed that as the injuries are on different parts, therefore, the injuries are unlikely to be caused due to fall on hard surface.
9. PW5 is Dr. Narender Goyal, SR Surgery LBS hospital, who identified the signature of Dr. Rohan Gupta on the MLC of complainant Ex.PW4/A regarding the nature of injury as simple.
_________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 7 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc.
10. PW6 is ASI Kavinder, who deposed that on 04.01.2013 at about 11 am, duty officer of PS Geeta Colony entrusted him a call vide DD No.15A regarding quarrel at Fuhara Chowk, Geeta Colony and when he reached at the said place complainant Gopal Chauhan met him and produced accused Harish @ Monu while informing that on 13.12.2012 a quarrel had taken place in the area of PS Jagat Puri and accused Harish @ Monu was one of the assailants.
11. PW7 is Ct. Sumit, who alongwith SI C.P.Singh went to the spot after receiving DD No.48A. He also got registered the case FIR. PW7 deposed regarding the seizure memos prepared in his presence and proved the same as Ex.PW2/B & C.
12. PW8 is HC Rahul, who joined the investigation on 13.03.2013 & 25.03.2013 when accused Krishan Kant and Harsh Arora surrendered before the court. He proved the documents regarding arrest of these two accused as Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/F. He further deposed that during police custody remand accused Harsh Arora got recovered the Car involved in the present case, which was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/G.
13. PW9 is SI C.P.Singh Investigating Officer, who narrated the steps taken during investigation and proved various memos _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 8 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. prepared by him.
Statement and Defence of accused persons
14. Statement of accused persons u/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence put to them and pleaded innocence. Accused Harish Kumar @ Monu took the defence that on 04.01.2013, scooter of complainant struck with his i10 Car and due to this road rage, some altercation took place between him and complainant and complainant only to take revenge falsely implicated him in this case in connivance with IO. He stated that he had not committed any offence against Gopal Singh and he was not present at the spot in any manner. Accused Krishan Kant took the defence that there was previous enmity with complainant Gopal Singh and therefore, he falsely implicated him while defence of accused Harsh Arora was that some altercation took place with Gopal Singh at that time but no beatings were given to him. Accused Harish Kumar @ Monu opted to lead evidence in his defence and examined one witness in his defence.
15. DW1 is Sh. Satish Chander, record clerk RTO who produced the original record of registration of Car No. DL7CL 1310 _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 9 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. and deposed that the said car was registered in the name of Harish Kumar Suneja S/o. Late Sh. Subhash Chand till 03.02.2016 and proved the attested copy of the particulars of the said vehicle as Ex.DW1/A. Arguments and conclusion
16. Arguments have been addressed by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. Addl. PP for the State as also by Chaudhary Rajender Singh, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harsh Arora, Sh. Sadiq Hussain, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harish & Sh. Sunil Kalra, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Krishan Kant.
17. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harsh Arora argued that he did not cause any injury to complainant/injured and he was arrested pursuant to disclosure statement of coaccused Harish Kumar @ Monu. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that eye witness of the incident has not identified accused Harsh Arora.
18. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harish @ Monu argued that accused Harish Kumar @ Monu has been falsely implicated in the present case due to a road rage incident occurred on 04.01.2013 regarding which DD No. 15A was recorded at PS Geeta Colony. It has _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 10 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. been further argued that the alleged role of accused Harish Kumar @ Monu is that he caught hold the complainant and except that no overt act is attributed to him. Ld. Defence Counsel pointed out contradictions regarding call made at 100 number by the shopkeeper and about the presence of public persons/shopkeepers at the time of incident.
19. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Krishan Kant argued that ingredient of section 308 IPC are not attracted as the incident occurred at the spur of moment. It has been further argued that mechanical inspection of the Scooter was not got conducted and CCTV footage from the camera installed outside the banquet hall was not seized. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that IO only seized broken pieces of glass but the neck of the bottle by which allegedly accused Krishan Kant after breaking the same caused injury, was not seized. Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that none of the witness deposed that one of the accused was Sikh and as driver of the Car is not identified, it demolish the case of prosecution. My attention is drawn in respect of an authority reported as Pawan Chaddha & Anr. Vs. State, 2016 (1) LRC 333 (Delhi).
20. On the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that testimony of complainant is consistent, cogent, supported with _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 11 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. medical evidence and is sufficient to hold the accused persons guilty. Ld. Addl. PP for State further argued that as per MLC Ex.PW4/A, injured sustained lacerated wound on right parietal region and on lower lip, which corroborates his version. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that accused Harsh Arora also got released the vehicle in which they were sitting at the time of incident on Superdari and later on deposited the penalty amount as he could not produce the same. Ld. Addl. PP further argued that mere an attempt is sufficient to attract ingredients of section 308 IPC and drawn my attention in respect of authority reported as Sunil Kumar vs. NCT of Delhi & Ors. 1999 JCC [SC] 105.
21. Complainant PW2 Gopal Singh & his friend PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh, both are the star witnesses of the prosecution. They have deposed the entire incident in a cogent manner. PW2 Complainant has deposed that on 18.12.2012 at about 8.30 pm, he parked his scooter no. DL7SS 0902 near the shop of Ram Lal Halwai and thereupon, he went to attend a marriage alongwith his friend PW3 Raghwar Singh in his Car and when at about 10.30 pm they returned they found that Scooter was lying on the road and in front of their scooter one Santro Car was lying stationed in which four boys were consuming liquor. As per complainant when he was lifting his scooter accused Harsh Arora, who was at the driver seat of the Car _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 12 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. came down and again threw down his scooter. When he stopped him, two accused i.e accused Harish Kumar @ Monu and one another caught hold him while accused Krishan Kant hit the liquor bottle on his head resulting into head injury. The testimony of injured/complainant is also corroborated by PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh regarding the material aspects of the incident. He has identified accused Krishan Kant as the person, who caused injury on the head of complainant and accused Harish Kumar @ Monu as the person who caught hold the complainant. The testimony of complainant is also corroborated by the MLC Ex.PW4/A, wherein the concerned doctor noted lacerated wound on right parietal region and on lower lip. PW4 Dr. S.B.Jangpangi, proved the MLC the complainant/injured. In his crossexamination he deposed that injuries are unlikely to be caused due to fall on hard surface. Thus, the testimony of PW4 rules out the defence of Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant might have sustained injury due to fall as he had consumed liquor on the day of incident. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P Vs. Naresh & Ors. Manu SC 0228/2011 held that " The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 13 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein".
22. First contention of Ld.Defence Counsel was that complainant has admitted that accused Harsh Arora has no role in causing injury to him. It is further submitted that PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh has also not identified accused Harsh Arora, therefore, there is no evidence that he shared common intention alongwith co accused persons. The essence of section 34 is simultaneous consensus of the minds of persons participating in the criminal action to bring about a particular result. (AIR 1998 SC Jangeer Singh and others v State of Rajasthan).
Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1998 SC 40 Dukhmochan Pandey etc. v State of Bihar relied upon by AIR 2000SC 1779, _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 14 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. Rajendra Singh and others vs State of Bihar held as under:
" There lies a difference between common intention and similar intention and question whether there exists common intention in all the persons who made some overt act resulting in the death of some person of the other party is a question of fact and can be inferred only from the circumstances. The distinction between the common intention and the similar intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked may lead to miscarriage of justice".
23. Adverting back to the facts of the present case, as per complainant PW2 Gopal Singh when he was lifting his scooter which was lying on the ground, the boy who was sitting on driver seat of the Car i.e accused Harsh Arora abused him and again threw down his scooter and when he stopped him the other accused persons also came down from the Car and two of them caught hold him while accused Krishan Kant hit on his head with liquor bottle. PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh in his crossexamination deposed that he was sitting in the Ritz Car when Gopal alighted from his Car to take his Scooter and as Gopal shouted after sustaining injury he came running to save him. Thus, the first incident when accused Harsh Arora abused the complainant and again threw down his scooter on the road was not witnessed by PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh. Accused Harsh Arora _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 15 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. in his statement u/s. 313 Cr.P.C has also admitted that Santro Car no. DL7CE 7457 was parked near the scooter and he is the registered owner of the said vehicle. PW2 Gopal Singh i.e complainant has also identified the accused and deposed regarding his specific role in the incident as he firstly came out of the Car and while abusing again threw down his scooter. This act of accused Harsh Arora itself shows that he shared common intention with the coaccused persons and it was only when he again threw down the scooter of the complainant all the other accused persons came down and caused injuries to the complainant.
24. The main contention of Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Harish Kumar @ Monu is that he has been falsely implicated due to road rage incident occurred on 04.01.2013 in which Scooter of complainant struck with his i10 Car . As per PW2 Gopal Singh on 04.01.2013 at about 1.15 pm at Geeta Colony Chowk, he saw accused Harish @ Monu and immediately identified him and then made a call at 100 number and got him arrested by the police. Ex.PW6/DA is copy of DD no.15A, which is regarding a quarrel being taken by one person having i10 no. DL1310. The said DD No.15A was assigned to PW6 HC Kavinder of PS Geeta Colony, who deposed that when he reached at the spot complainant Gopal Singh met him and produced accused Harish @ Monu while informing that on 13.12.2012 a quarrel had taken place in the area of PS Jagat Puri and accused Harish @ Monu is _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 16 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. one of the assailants. Even a suggestion was not given to PW6 HC Kavinder who reached at the spot after receiving DD No.15A that any incident of road rage occurred between complainant and accused Harish Kumar @ Monu on 04.01.2013. No subsequent complaint is filed on record to show that although an incident of road rage was occurred but accused Harish Kumar @ Monu has been falsely implicated in the present case. Complainant PW2 Gopal Singh and PW3 Chaudhary Raghwar Singh both have identified accused Harish Kumar @ Monu and have specifically deposed that he came down from the Car and caught hold the complainant while coaccused Krishan Kant hit on his head with a broken bottle of liquor. Ld. Defence Counsel has also pointed out minor contradictions regarding the call made by public person at 100 number and about the presence of shopkeepers at the time of incident. In an authority reported as Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 Supreme Court 696, Hon'ble Court held that court while appreciating the evidence, must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies. The discrepancies which do not shake the basic version of the prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies which are due to normal errors of perception or observation should not be given importance. The errors due to lapse of memory maybe given due allowance. It was further held therein that when a doubt arises in _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 17 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. respect of certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
25. Now the question comes for consideration is as to whether the act of accused persons in causing injuries on the person of complainant attracts ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 308 IPC. In order to constitute an offence u/s. 308 IPC, it is to be proved that the said act was committed by the accused persons with the intention or knowledge to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder and that the offence was committed under such circumstances that if the accused by that act, had caused death, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide. The intention or knowledge on the part of the accused, is to be deduced from the circumstances in which the injuries had been caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of the body, where such injuries were suffered.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar's case (Supra) held as under;
" The view taken by the High Court is obviously erroneous because offence punishable under section 308 IPC postulates doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if one by that one by that act caused death, he would be guilty for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. An attempt of that nature _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 18 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. may actually result in hurt or may not. It is the attempt to commit culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 308 IPC".
26. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Krishan Kant vehemently argued that the incident occurred at the spur of moment and therefore, ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted. To attract the provisions of section 308 IPC mere an attempt is sufficient. PW2 Gopal Singh specifically deposed that accused Krishan Kant hit the liquor bottle on his head resulting in head injury to him and the broken pieces of liquor bottles were lying at the spot. MLC of injured Ex.PW4/A also support the version of complainant as he sustained injury on the parietal region of his head. In the present case when PW2 Gopal Singh enquired from accused persons who were consuming liquor in a Car that how his scooter which was parked in front of their Car fell down, accused Harsh Arora came down from the Car and while abusing again threw down his scooter. Thereupon, coaccused also came down from the Car and accused Krishan Kant hit on the head of complainant with liquor bottle while coaccused Harish Kumar @ Monu and Tajinder Pal Singh (since expired) caught hold his hands. As the injury was caused on the vital part i.e head of complainant with liquor bottle, knowledge can be attributed to the accused persons that such injury could have caused the death of complainant, therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel that _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 19 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc. ingredients of section 308 IPC are not attracted.
27. Ld. Defence Counsel for accused Krishan Kant further argued that incident occurred in front of Sri Ram Banquet Hall and CCTV footage was not seized by the IO. In this regard, PW9 SI C.P.Singh in his crossexamination deposed that on the day of incident no marriage function was being organized at the said Sri Ram Banquet Hall and he had not noticed any CCTV Camera outside the Banquet Hall. It is not the case of prosecution that Scooter of complainant had also some dents due to fall on the ground, therefore, mechanical inspection of the Scooter was not material. It was further argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that IO only seized broken pieces of liquor bottle but the neck of the liquor bottle was not seized. IO seized the broken pieces of liquor bottle by which accused Krishan Kant hit on the head of complainant vide memo Ex.PW2/B in presence of complainant when he was discharged from the hospital. Thus, there is a difference of about 34 hours in seizing the pieces of glass bottle from the time of incident. PW9 SI C.P.Singh in his crossexamination deposed that he did not find neck of the bottle but pieces of broken bottle were lying at the spot and as he seized the bottle during late night hours no public person was present there. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the testimony of PW9 SI C.P.Singh in this regard.
_________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 20 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc.
28. In the present case, complainant/injured received injury on head i.e. vital part of his body i.e head having been caused with a liquor bottle which fact has also been supported by medical evidence. The testimony of complainant corroborated by the medical evidence appears to be reliable and trustworthy. In view of above, all the accused persons are held guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence. SANJEEV KUMAR MALHOTRA Digitally signed by SANJEEV KUMAR Announced in the open court MALHOTRA Location:
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi on 30.10.2019 Date: 2019.10.30 16:16:28 +0530 (Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra) ASJ/FTC/ECOURT Shahdara/KKD/Delhi _________________________________________________________________________ FIR No.545/12, PS. Jagat Puri Page 21 of 21 St. Vs. Harish Kumar @ Monu etc.