Delhi District Court
State vs Nikhil Kumar on 21 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (SOUTH-EAST)-03,
SAKET COURTS: DELHI
DLSE010016752020
SC No. 95/2020
FIR No. 322/2019
Police Station: Jaitpur
STATE
VERSUS
Nikhil Kumar
S/o Sh. Arun Thakur
R/o H. No. 92, Gali No. 12 K, Block,
Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi
Date of institution : 12.02.2020
Date of Reserving judgment : 17.12.2024
Date of Pronouncement : 21.12.2024
Decision : Convicted u/s 304
(Part II) IPC
Digitally
signed by
LOVLEEN
LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21
15:40:26
+0530
FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 1.of 36
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 11.12.2019, HC Inder Singh was on emergency duty and during the duty hours he received DD No. 32 A regarding the admission of injured at Apollo Hospital who was beaten up by some boys. Thereafter, HC Inder Singh along with Ct. Ramesh reached at Apollo Hospital and obtained the MLC No. 1034/19 of injured Ranvijay Singh, on which the doctor concerned had endorsed 'patient not present in emergency casualty'. In the meantime, HC Inder Singh received DD No. 33 A regarding a quarrel in the area of K Block, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur. Upon reaching there, he learnt that one Nikhil Kumar S/o Thakur had beaten said Ranvijay Singh with a stick. However, injured could not be met. Thereafter, HC Inder Singh received DD No. 47A regarding admission of said Ranvijay Singh in AIIMS Trauma Center vide MLC No. 500212282/2019. HC Inder Singh and Ct. Ramesh reached AIIMS and collected the MLC of Ranvijay Singh. The doctor opined that the injured was not fit for statement. The 'call' was kept pending by police. On 12.12.2019 HC Inder Singh reached at the spot of incident in search of an eye witness where he met one Azad Kumar. Said Azad Kumar made the following statement:-
" ब्यान किया कि मैं पता उपरोक्त पर परिवार के साथ किरागे पर रहता हूँ और मेहनत मजदरू ी का काम करता हूँ कल दिनांक LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 2.of 36 Date: 2024.12.21 15:40:32 +0530 11/12/19 को समय करीब 3 बजे दोपहर मे मै खाना खाने के बाद कॉलोनी के Park मे धूप में बैठा था तभी कॉलोनी में रहने वाले निखिल कुमार S/० अरुण ठाकुर को उसकी माँ रजो देवी पकड कर अपने घर ले जा रही थी क्योकि निखिल कुमार नशे मे लग रहा था और गाली गलौच व शोर शराबा कर रहा था और अपनी माँ का व घर जाने का विरोध कर रहा था शोर-शराबा सुन कर पडौस मे रहने वाले हमारे पडौसी रणविजय सिंह जी वहाँ आ गये और लडके निखिल कुमार को समझाने लगे जो इससे निखिल कुमार और ज्यादा गुस्से मे आ गया और रणविजय के हाथ से उनकी लाठी (छडी) छीन कर उन्हें मारने लगा जब तक हमने छुडाने कि कोशिश कि तब तक लडके निखिल ने रणविजय जी के सिर पर कही बार कर दिये छडी टू ट गई रणविजय जी वेहोश होकर वही गिर गये थे हमारे पकडने के दौरान भी लडके निखिल ने वेहोश पडे रणविजय को कही लाल मार दी जिससे उनके सिर और कही जगह चोट आई मैने तुरन्त अपने Mobile से 102 व 100 न. पर Call किया था और रणविजय के घर वालो को सूचना दी थी। इसी दौरान रणविजय कि पुत्र वधु वुलवुल देवी मौका पर आ गई और Private गाडी से अस्पताल ले गई लडके निखिल कुमार S/० अरुण ठाकुर R/o 92/12 K-Block सौरभ विहार जैतपुर ने लाठी से सिर मे गम्भीर चोट पहुच ं ायी है। उसके खिलाफ उचित कानूनी कार्यवाही कु जाये।
2. On the basis of said statement made by the said Azad Kumar, FIR No. 322/2019 PS Jaitpur was registered u/s 308 IPC and investigation was taken up. After due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused u/s 308 IPC. However, said Ranvijay Singh succumbed to his injuries later on. Consequently, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the accused u/s 304 IPC.
3. Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate, after complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., committed the case to the Court of Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: Sessions for trial.
2024.12.21 15:40:36 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 3.of 36 CHARGE
4. Ld. Predecessor of this Court found a prima facie case against the accused and accordingly, charge for the offence punishable u/s 304 IPC was framed against the accused on 21.09.2022, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all.
6. PW-1 Azad Kumar deposed that he was mechanic of Printer repairing. On 11.12.2019 at about 3 p.m., he was sitting in the park of colony after having lunch. He knows accused Nikhil Kumar. The mother of accused Nikhil Kumar was also present at the corner of the park on the road. The mother of accused Nikhil Kumar was trying to take him to house as accused Nikhil Kumar was under the influence of liquor. Accused's mother and accused were quarreling with each other and accused's mother was trying to drag accused to house but accused was protesting. Meanwhile, Ranvijay Singh to whom he know was passing from there carrying a walking stick in his hand for his support in walking. Ranvijay Singh asked accused Nikhil Kumar to go home with his mother on which accused became furious. Accused took the walking stick from the hand of Ranvijay and gave blows on his leg and then on his head due to which the stick broke. LOVLEEN Due to the injuries, Ranvijay fell down and became unconscious. He Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 4.of 36 15:40:39 +0530 came outside immediately from the park and reached before Ranvijay. He with the help of another person lifted him. Meanwhile, accused had given leg blow upon the stomach of Ranvijay due to which his eye lids remained opened and he started urinating and passing stool. Complainant made call on 102 and 100 number from his mobile No. 9910519847. After the incident, some public persons also gathered there. He immediately rushed towards the house of Ranvijay, on which daughter-in-law of Ranvijay came and she accompanied him to the spot. He helped her in putting Ranvijay in a private vehicle in which she (daughter-in-law) took him to hospital. His statement was recorded by the police vide Ex.PW1/A. He had shown the spot of incident vide Ex. PW1/B to the police where they prepared the site plan of the spot at his instance. Accused Nikhil Kumar was arrested at his instance vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused was correctly identified by him in Court. Witness has correctly identified one walking stick of wood (in two pieces) Ex. P1 which was used by accused for causing injury to Ranvijay. Later, he came to know that after some days, Ranvijay had expired.
7. PW-2 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 11.12.2019, he was posted as Constable at PS Jaitpur. On that day, he was on emergency duty from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. alongwith HC Inder Singh. The information of GD No. 32A regarding the MLC at Apollo Hospital was received on which they reached at Apollo Hospital. HC Inder Singh had collected the MLC of injured from the Apollo Hospital. The injured Digitally signed by was not found in the hospital. Meanwhile, information regarding GD LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 15:40:42 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 5.of 36 No. 33A was received on which they reached near Nala Road, Saurabh Vihar. There they came to know that injured had been taken to some hospital by his relatives. Meanwhile, information regarding GD No. 47A was received regarding admission of injured at AIIMS Trauma Center. Thereafter, they reached at Trauma Center, AIIMS. HC Inder Singh collected MLC of injured Ranvijay Singh. Doctor had opined on the MLC that injured was not fit for statement. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Inder Singh reached at the spot and searched the eye witness of the incident. He further deposed that the complainant met them and his (complainant) statement was recorded by HC Inder Singh, on the basis of which FIR No. 322/2019 was lodged. After lodging of FIR, further investigation was marked to ASI Malkhan Singh. He further deposed that on 13.12.2019, he had joined the investigation of case alongwith HC Inder Singh and ASI Malkhan Singh. They reached at the spot where site plan of the spot of incident was prepared by ASI Malkhan Singh where they met complainant Azad and at his instance, site plan was prepared. Thereafter, complainant accompanied them for the arrest of accused Nikhil Kumar. Accused was arrested at the instance of complainant vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C. Accused was personally searched vide Ex.PW2/A. Accused was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded by the IO vide Ex.PW2/B. He further deposed that at the instance of accused from the bushes in the park a walking wooden stick (in two pieces) was recovered which was measured by the IO and same was kept in a cloth parcel and sealed with seal of MS and LOVLEEN taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/C. Accused led Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 6.of 36 15:40:48 +0530 them at the spot of incident where pointing out memo Ex.PW2/D prepared by the IO. Accused Nikhil Kumar was correctly identified by witness in Court. Witness has correctly identified one walking stick of wood (in two pieces) vide Ex. P1 which was seized by the IO.
8. PW-3 Dr. Mohammad Azharuddin deposed that he had been deputed by the Director of Apollo Hospital in place of Dr. Vijender to prove the MLC No. 1034/19 of patient Rana Vijay Singh dated 11.12.2019. The above said MLC was prepared by Dr. Vijender who has left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known. He had seen him signing and writing during in course of his service in the hospital. He can identify the signature and writing of Dr. Vijender. He had seen the above said MLC vide Ex.PW-3/A of injured prepared by Dr. Vijender. Dr.Vijender had written in the MLC in his hand that 'opinion reserved about the injuries'. He further deposed that on 21.01.2020, Dr. Vijender had opined on the above said MLC that the injury was "grievous" in nature.
9. PW-4 Dr. Tapan Kumar Ray, deposed that on 11.12.2019, he was posted as Sr. Resident at JPNATC, AIIMS Trauma Center. He further deposed that on that day at 18:06:54, patient Ran Vijay Singh S/o Ram Saugarath Singh, Male, 61 years was brought in the hospital with the alleged history of RTA (Pedestrian Injured by Unknown Mechanism) at Badarpur Border. The patient was initially treated at Digitally signed by Apollo Emergency 24*7 where MLC was made bearing No. 1034119 LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date: and then patient was referred to AIIMS Trauma Center. He examined 2024.12.21 15:40:51 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 7.of 36 the injured vide MLC No. 500212282/11 DEC 2019. On presentation, the patient had vital signs as BP 150/90, PR 88, Respiratory rate of 18, GCS of E3 V3 M5 (11/15). He further deposed that on examination, visible injuries on patient was abrasion multiple over left side of face; laceration 3 cm X 0.5 cm on occipital scalp region. Investigations were done i.e. NCCT Head, CX Spine, CECT Abdomen, CECT Chest, E-Fast, CXR, PXR. Following which Call was given to Radiology, Neurosurgery, Orthopedics, Trauma Surgery. Initial treatment Inj. Tetanus 0.5 ml IM, Inj. Augmentin 1.2 gm (IV Stat, Inj. Pantop 40 MG IV Stat, Inj EMSET 8 MG IV Stat, Inj PCM 1 gm IV, Nebulisation were given. The MLC was Ex.PW4/A. The patient was got admitted in AIIMS with diagnosis of severe head injury with bifrontal contusions and diffuse axonal injury; anterior maxillary sinus wall fracture for further management. Final opinion regarding the nature of injury were pending investigation at that time.
10. PW-5 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed that on 12.12.2019, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Jaitpur and was working as duty officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 night. On that day, at about 09:00 p.m., HC Inder Singh had produced rukka before him for registration of FIR. On the basis of which, the computerized FIR No. 322/2019 u/s 308 IPC was got lodged through CCTNS Operator. He made endorsement on the rukka. Computer generated copy of the FIR was Ex.PW-5/A(OSR computerized copy). Endorsement on the rukka was LOVLEEN Ex.PW-5/B. He had prepared certificate under Section 65B Indian Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Evidence Act vide Ex.PW-5/C. He had handed over the computerized Date: 2024.12.21 15:40:55 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 8.of 36 copy of FIR, original rukka and certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act to ASI Malkhan Singh as per the direction of SHO for further investigation.
11. PW6 Dr. K. Karthi Vignesh Raj deposed that on 07.04.2020, he was working as SR at Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, AIIMS, New Delhi. On that day, Postmortem Request Form alongwith inquest papers (21 in number) including copy of FIR, MLC, statement record of the deceased etc. were submitted by the police official of PS JaitPur for the postmortem of deceased. The postmortem request form is Ex. PW6/A (colly.) Before that the dead body was preserved in the mortuary pursuant to the request Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that on 07.04.2020, he conducted postmortem on the dead body and prepared the postmortem report in detail Ex. PW6/C (running into four sheets). He had described the ante-mortem injury i.e. bed sore probably developed during the course of treatment. After conducting the postmortem and going through the inquest paper particularly the treatment record of the deceased, he came to the conclusion that the death in the present case was septicemia due to the complication of the injuries sustained by the deceased as described under the heading of '(B) Head & Neck'. He had also described the medical findings under heading '(F) Additional Remarks' presented by the deceased during the course of treatment, though the same were found to be healed up at the time of postmortem Digitally examination.
signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 15:40:58 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 9.of 36
12. PW7 Dr. Arijit Dey deposed that in 2019, he was posted as SR in the Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi. Pursuant to an application received from police along with two original MLCs, original road certificate and one sealed parcel along with original seal containing the weapon of offence seeking opinion with regard to the injuries sustained by the injured after allegedly being hit by stick. Same was marked to him. The seals and the parcel found tallied with the sample seal. Parcel was opened and seal was found tallied with the sample seal. Two broken parts of the stick were taken out. He took the measurement of the stick as described in his report. After examining the said stick and after going through relevant medical papers and the history of case provided to him and in his opinion, the injuries sustained by the injured as described in the said two medical MLCs were caused by the said stick. The injuries were simple in nature. His detailed report in this regard is Ex. PW7/A. Witness had correctly identified wooden stick vide Ex. P1 broken in two pieces as the same pieces of stick submitted to him for the opinion.
13. PW8 Ms. Bulbul deposed that she does not remember the month of the incident. However, it happened on the 11th day of that month in the year 2019. On that day, while she was present at her home, at about 4-5 pm, a girl came rushing to her and informed her that Baba (her father-in-law) Sh. Ranvijay Singh was lying unconscious outside the home, a park like place. She immediately LOVLEEN rushed there. She saw that his said father-in-law was lying Digitally signed unconscious. He had sustained injuries in the head and some blood by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:02 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 10.of 36 stains were also visible on his head. 2/3 public persons including a person whose name was revealed to her as Azad, were standing there. The said public persons took her father-in-law to Apollo Hospital in private vehicle. She also accompanied him to the hospital. Later on her husband and brother-in-law (Devar) also came up there and they took her father-in-law to AIIMS Hospital.
14. PW9 Sh. Vinod Kumar deposed that on 11.12.2019 since his brother-in-law Sh. Sanjay Singh was to be operated upon at Dharamshila Hospital, he along with family members had gone there. While they were present there, their neighbour Azad informed them at about 2 pm stating that, "Ek Ladka Ne Aapke Pitaji Ko Mara Hai.". He further told him that he is arranging a vehicle and sending his father to Apollo hospital along with his wife Ms. Bulbul. He immediately went to the Apollo Hospital. His father was found admitted. Doctor had advised him for surgery. Since he had no money to bear the expenses of surgery of his father at Apollo hospital, they took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre and got him admitted there. The condition of his father was not stable and he (father-in-law) was not able to speak. He was unconscious. His father remained admitted at AIIMS Trauma Centre for about four months and he died on 06.04.2020. He further deposed that on 28.03.2023, his father was discharged from AIIMS Trauma Centre as it was converted into Covid hospital. He brought his father to his home after being discharged LOVLEEN from the said hospital. His father continued to take medicines Digitally signed by prescribed by AIIMS Trauma Centre. Till his (father-in-law) death his LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:04 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 11.of 36 father did not regain consciousness and he could not speak anything to them. He informed the police regarding his father. IO of the case had got the postmortem on the dead body of his father conducted at AIIMS Hospital on 07.04.2020. He was not present at the hospital when the said postmortem was conducted.
15. PW-10 Dr. Rishi Singh Meena, JNMC, AMU, Aligarh deposed that on 06.04.2020, he was posted as JR non-academic, AIIMS Trauma Center, New Delhi. On that day at 05.51 PM, patient Ran Vijay Singh, 61 years of age was brought in the emergency of the said Trauma Center by the police. He examined him and found him to be brought dead. The MLC prepared in this regard was Ex. PW10/A. Dr. Abhishek, SR of the emergency had also supervise the said examination and appended his seal and signature.
16. PW 11 Rajesh Chauhan deposed that he did not remember the exact date when but he had visited Mortuary of AIIMS hospital to bring the dead body of his chacha namely Ranvijay Singh, where he had identified the dead body of Ranvijay Singh. The postmortem of deceased was conducted and thereafter, same was handed over to them for last rituals. The dead body identification memo was Ex. PW11/A. His statement was recorded by the IO.
17. PW-12 Jitender deposed that on 11.12.2019, he received LOVLEEN telephonic call from Pankaj Mishra and one Azad who told him that accused Nikhil had given beatings to his father Ranvijay Singh and Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 12.of 36 2024.12.21 15:41:08 +0530 assaulted him with danda on his head. At that time, he was present at Dharamshila hospital with his jijaji. His neighbours took his father to Apollo hospital. Thereafter, he went to Apollo hospital. Doctor advised him to take his father to AIIMS Trauma Center due to severe injuries. Thereafter, he took his father to AIIMS Trauma Center and got admitted him in ICU AIIMS Hospital. During that time, he tried to talk to his father but he was not able to speak much and giving indication. He gave indication to his injuries that he had received injuries from accused Nikhil. He further deposed that on 28.03.2020, his father was discharged from hospital but his condition was not good and was not able to speak. Later on, on 06.04.2020, his father expired and he called the police. They took him to the mortuary of AIIMS hospital and got conducted postmortem on 07.04.2020. He had identified the dead body of his father Ranvijay Singh in the hospital. The dead body identification memo was Ex.PW12/A. Thereafter, the dead body of his father was handed over to them for last rituals. Accused Nikhil was correctly identified by witness in Court. His statement was recorded by the police.
18. PW-13 ASI Inder Singh deposed that on 11.12.2019 he was posted at PS Jaitpur as HC. On that day, he along with Ct. Ramesh on emergency duty from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. During the duty hours he received a DD No. 32 vide Ex. PW13/A regarding the admission of injured at Apolo Hospital who was beaten up by some boys. He along LOVLEEN with Ct. Ramesh reached at Apolo Hospital but the injured was not found at the hospital. He collected the MLC of injured Ranvijay Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 13.of 36 15:41:11 +0530 Singh. In the meantime, he received DD No. 33 regarding quarrel in the area of K Block, Saurabh Vihar. The certified copy of DD was Ex.PW13/B. They reached at K Block, Saurabh Vihar and there it was revealed that a quarrel had taken place between a boy and a person in the park but the injured had been shifted to hospital. He further deposed that he received DD No. 47 A regarding the admission of one injured at AIIMS hospital. The certified copy of DD was Ex. PW13/C. In the AIIMS hospital he collected the MLC of Ranvijay Singh. The doctor opined the injured was not fit for statement. Therefore, they returned to the spot. No eye witness was found at the spot. He further deposed that deposed that on 12.12.2019 one eye witness Azad Kumar met and he gave his statement Ex. PW1/A upon which he made a rukka vide Ex. PW13/D and then got registered the FIR. After registration of the FIR the investigation was assigned to ASI Malkhan. On 13.12.2019 he along with the IO and the eye witness reached at the spot and there IO arrested accused Nikhil Kumar vide arrest memo Ex. PW1/C, Personal search Memo Ex. PW2/A, IO interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW2/B. Accused disclosed that the danda which accused had used in the commission of offence was lying the bushes near K Block Park. In pursuance of his disclosure statement accused led them to Gali No. 12, K Block, Saurabh Vihar and from near the park he recovered one danda having length about 3 feet which was broken into pieces and end of the danda was having 'L' shape. The IO sealed the danda in a cloth parcel with the seal of MS and then seized it through seizure Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 memo Ex. PW2/C. Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence 15:41:16 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 14.of 36 in the memo was prepared thereof vide Ex. PW2 /D. Witness had correctly identified accused in court. He further deposed that he can identify the danda if shown to him. Accused with Ld. LAC has not disputed the identity of danda vide Ex. P1.
19. PW-14 ASI Malkhan Singh deposed that on 12.12.2019 he was posted at PS Jaitpur. On that day, after registration of FIR of this case, the investigation was assigned to him. On the direction of the SHO, HC Inder Singh had handed over the copy of FIR along with the rukka appended with the statement of complainant. After collecting the FIR he visited the place of occurrence with HC Inder and complainant Azad Kumar. He prepared the site plan at the place of occurrence at the instance of Azad Kumar vide Ex. PW1/B. On the same day, i.e. in the intervening night of 12/13.12.2019, he along with Inder Singh and Azad went in the area of K Block, Saurabh Vihar in search of accused Nikhil Kumar. Upon reaching there, the complainant pointed out the accused Nikhil Kumar who was sitting in front of his house No. 92, Gali No. 12, K Block, Saurabh Vihar, Jaitpur. He arrested accused Nikhil Kumar in this case vide his arrest memo Ex. PW1/C. He conducted the personal search of accused and prepared memo thereof vide Ex. PW2/A. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex.PW2/B. Accused Nikhil was correctly identified in Court by the witness. He further deposed that during the interrogation accused disclosed that he could LOVLEEN get recovered the danda which he had used in the commission of offence. Thereafter, accused led them to the park and got recovered Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:20 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 15.of 36 the danda from the bushes in the park. The danda was like a stick having the shape of 'L' type and it was broken into 2 pieces. The length of the stick was about 3 feet including both pieces. He sealed the pieces of stick in a cloth of parcel with the seal of MS and then seized the same through seizure memo Ex. PW2/C. At the instance of accused, he also prepared the pointing out memo of the place of occurrence vide Ex. PW2/D. He deposited the parcel in the malkhana. He further deposed that accused was sent to hospital for medical examination along with Ct. Ramesh. After medical examination he brought the accused in PS and was lodged in lockup. On 13.12.2019 he produced the accused before Ilaka Magistrate and he was remanded to JC. He further deposed that on 28.01.2020, he sent the parcel containing the stick to the Trauma Center AIIMS for opinion vide the copy of request letter Ex. PW14/A. The victim/ injured remained unconscious and despite several visits he could not record statement of injured. He collected the MLC of injured vide Ex. PW4/A. He also collected the other MLC of injured/ deceased vide Ex. PW10/A. He stated that initially the injured was taken to Apolo Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW3/A and from there he (injured/ deceased) was referred to Trauma Center, AIIMS. He recorded the statement of witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and put in Court. He further deposed that on 06.04.2020 during the treatment, the injured had died due to his injuries. The opinion of the expert also collected vide Ex. PW7/A. After the death of injured, he prepared the death report vide Ex. PW14/B. He also recorded the statement of relative of deceased LOVLEEN regarding his identity vide Ex. PW12/ A and Ex. PW11/A. The Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:23 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 16.of 36 postmortem upon the body of deceased was got conducted and collected the same later on vide Ex. PW6/C. As per the postmortem the cause of death was opined as 'Septicemia due to the injures sustained'. During the entire investigation due to the unconsciousness of the deceased he could not record his statement. He recorded the statement of other witnesses. Thereafter, he prepared supplementary charge sheet and put in Court. He further deposed that he can identify the stick if shown to him. Ld. LAC for accused with accused did not dispute the identity of the stick as the same has already been produced in the Court and exhibited as Ex. P1.
20. PW-15 Dr. Kulbhushan Prasad, working Additional Professor in Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi deposed that On 07.10.2024, he was working as Additional Professsor in Department of Forensic Medicine, AIIMS, New Delhi. He deposed that an application was submitted by Insp. Sunil Kumar PS Jaitpur for re-opinion regarding nature of injury in MLC No. 500212282/11DEC2019 dated 11.12.2019 of JPNATC, AIIMS New Delhi pertaining to deceased Ran Singh Vijay. The request was received vide receipt No. 274/24 dated 07.10.2024. After perusal of MLC's, discharge summary and postmortem report of the deceased, he was of the considered opinion that the injury sustained by the deceased as mentioned in MLC was Grievous in nature and was caused by blunt force / surface impact. The opinion dated 14.10.2024 on the above said MLC was Ex.PW15/A. LOVLEEN FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 17.of 36 Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:27 +0530
21. Prosecution evidence was then closed on 14.11.2024.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C & DEFENCE EVIDENCE
22. Accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C wherein incriminating material appearing in evidence against accused was put to him. Accused claimed that it is a false case and that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of complainant and IO. He examined DW1 Ms.Ranju Devi in his defence.
ARGUMENTS
23. Ld. Addl. PP for State has argued that the prosecution has established its case against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and prayed for convicting the accused.
24. Per contra, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the prosecution case is liable to be discarded for multiple reasons. It is argued:-
a) there is a great deal of discrepancy in the contents of DD No. 32 A, DD No. 33 A and DD No.47A. Ld counsel submits that DD No. 32 A contains a narration to the effect that the caller's father (deceased Ranvijay Singh) was beaten by a few boys; while DD No. 33A does not reflect any such incident and LOVLEEN DD No. 47A reflects that deceased Ranvijay Singh was admitted Digitally signed by LOVLEEN after he had sustained an accident in Mithapur;Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:33 +0530
FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 18.of 36
b) that the presence of eye witness/ informant Azad Kumar is doubtful. It is argued that PW1 Azad Kumar has deposed that the accused gave blows on the face of deceased Ranvijay Singh.
However, the medical record reflect that deceased Ranvijay Singh sustained injuries in occipital region of his head;
c) that the injuries sustained by the deceased Ranvijay Singh are not sufficient to cause his death as the doctors concerned have clearly deposed that chances of death due to the stick allegedly used by the accused to inflict injuries on deceased Ranvijay Singh are remote;
c) that police has failed to explain as to why no public/ independent witness was joined in the proceedings despite the fact that the spot is a heavily populated area;
d) that prosecution has not led sufficient evidence on record to prove that the deceased Ranvijay Singh died on account of any injuries. It is claimed that the deceased died of Covid-19 complications;
e) that the case of prosecution is faulty and bears multiple inconsistencies, which factors must be read in favour of the accused and the accused may be granted benefit of doubt.
25. In rebuttal, Ld. Addl. PP submits that the role of the accused in the commission of the crime has been clearly spelt out by the victims/ LOVLEEN eye witnesses during trial. He further submits that the Ld. Defence Counsel is merely indulging in hair-splitting of the facts, but the same Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 19.of 36 15:41:36 +0530 is not sufficient to discard the substantial evidence led on record against the accused.
DISCUSSION
26. I have heard the submissions made by Ld. Addl. PP and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the case file.
27. As per prosecution's case, on 11.12.2019 at about 3 p.m. at a spot situated near K Block park, Saurav Vihar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, the mother of the accused was trying to take the accused to their home as the accused was in an inebriated state. Accused was resisting his mother and was also cursing and shouting at the relevant time. In the meantime, deceased Ranvijay Singh came to the spot and tried to persuade the accused to accompany his mother, but the accused got infuriated. Without any provocation, accused then attacked deceased Ranvijay Singh, with a walking stick (belonging to deceased Ranvijay Singh) and gave multiple blows in his head, due to which deceased Ranvijay Singh fell down unconscious. Thereafter, the accused also kicked the deceased Ranvijay Singh in his head and other parts of his person. Deceased Ranvijay Singh was removed to a hospital, where he remained admitted till 28.03.2020. On the said date, deceased LOVLEEN Ranvijay Singh was discharged from hospital, as the said hospital was earmarked for Covid-19 patients only. On 06.04.2020, deceased Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 Ranvijay Singh succumbed at his home. His postmortem was 15:41:40 +0530 conducted on 07.04.2020 at AIIMS Trauma Center, wherein it was opined that the deceased Ranvijay Singh died on account of FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 20.of 36 septicemia due to injuries sustained by him.
OCCURRENCE OF INCIDENT AND ROLE OF ACCUSED.
28. In order to prove to its above allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined informant Azad Kumar as PW-1. PW-1 clearly and categorically deposed during trial that at the relevant date, time and place, the mother of the accused was trying to take / drag him back to their home as the accused was in an inebriated state but the accused was protesting / resisting and was quarreling with her. In the meantime, deceased Ranvijay Singh came to the spot with his walking stick. He (deceased Ranvijay Singh) asked the accused to accompany his mother, which infuriated the accused. Accused took the walking stick from the hand of deceased Ranvijay Singh. He then attacked deceased Ranvijay Singh with the same stick and gave blows in his legs and on his head as well due to which the stick broke into two. Deceased Ranvijay Singh fell down and lost his consciousness. Accused then gave kicks in the stomach of the deceased Ranvijay Singh due to which he lost bladder and rectum control. In the meantime, PW-1 came to the rescue of deceased Ranvijay Singh. He (PW-1) made a call at the Police Emergency Number from his mobile phone number and also rushed to the house of deceased Ranvijay Singh to inform about the occurrence of the said incident. Thereafter, LOVLEEN the daugther-in-law of deceased Ranvijay Singh arrived at the spot Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 and shifted the deceased Ranvijay Singh to a hospital in some private 15:41:43 +0530 vehicle. PW-1 proved his statement Ex.PW1/A, on the basis of which FIR was registered by the police. PW-1 further deposed that accused FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 21.of 36 was arrested at his instance. He identified the accused during the course of trial and also identified the walking stick, used by the accused to attack deceased Ranvijay Singh, as Ex.P1. PW-1 further deposed that later he came to know that deceased Ranvijay Singh had expired.
29. PW-1 was duly cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but nothing material could be brought on record by said accused so as to create any doubt in the case of the prosecution. Multiple suggestions contrary to the prosecution case were put to the said witness on behalf of the accused, but he did not betray any signs of falsity. The witness remained steadfast in his testimony against the accused. The witness seems to have withstood the test of cross examination. Admittedly, the accused has not attributed any motive to the witness, which could have prompted him to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. As such, this Court does not find any reason to disbelieve the above oral testimony of said witness. That apart, during the course of cross-examination of said witness, certain relevant admissions were made by the accused which seem to fortify the prosecution's case against the accused. The relevant extracts of the cross-examination are reproduced for ready reference:-
"..........I had gone to park alone on that day. I had LOVLEEN reached at the park at about 02:30 P.M. No security Digitally signed guard was deputed at the park at that time. There was by LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 15:41:46 +0530 no CCTV camera installed in the park or nearby the park. Old-aged persons were present there, who used to FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 22.of 36 play cards. I do not know the names of old aged persons, however, one old aged person was known to me as Pandey Uncle. The incident took place outside the park on the road at the relevant day. The distance between where I was sitting and the incident where took place was about 15 ft. It took about two minutes from the place to reach at that spot as I had come out from the gate for reaching there. Again said it took about one minute. I know the accused Nikhil Kumar for the last five years. ..........The mother of accused was taking the accused by holding his hand via naale wala road towards colony road at around 02:45 P.M. The arguments between accused and his mother were going on for about five minutes. I had not intervened while arguments were going on between accused and his mother, I was standing there. Ranvijay said to accused "mummy bol rahi hai, ghar chale jao". After hearing this accused replied "chup ho jaa buddhe".Thereafter, the mother of the accused tried to take the accused but he was opposing on which Ranvijay again said "Chala jaa beta, ghar chala jaa". ..................... Accused hit the stick on the front side on head of Ranvijay. I had seen only once stick blow upon the head, given by accused. I was seeing that accused had given stick blow LOVLEEN to the Ranvijay and I immediately rushed towards him, Digitally signed when I saw that he had given stick blow on the head of by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:41:50 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 23.of 36 Ranvijay. When I reached and caught hold the head of Ranvijay, meanwhile accused had given leg blow upon the stomach of Ranvijay due to which his eyelid remained open. ................... I had made a call to 100 number after shifting of the injured to hospital. One motorcyclist had arranged private four-wheeler vehicle and accompanied Ranvijay alongwith his daughter-in- law to the hospital. ........................... When I left the spot, accused Nikhil was present at the spot itself and he was abusing.......................... Police officials searched for the wooden stick in the nearby area and it was recovered from the naala and the same was identified by me. ................Accused was arrested in my presence on 12.12.2019 at about 10:00 P.M. from the gali of accused, while I was returning from mandir................. ........."(cross-examination of PW1 Azad Kumar dated 31.01.2023)
30. The above cross-examination clearly reflects that the accused admits:-
a) that informant/ PW-1 Azad Kumar, deceased Ranvijay Singh, his mother (mother of accused) and accused himself were available at the spot of incident at the relevant time;
b). that the mother of accused was trying to drag him (accused) Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
back to their home and an argument ensued between them at 2024.12.21 15:41:54 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 24.of 36 the relevant time;
c). that deceased Ranvijay Singh asked the accused to accompany his mother to their home at the relevant time;
d). that the accused did not respond to the entreaties of deceased Ranvijay Singh and rather uttered hot words;
e). that the accused gave one blow in the head of deceased Ranvijay Singh with the walking stick (of deceased Ranvijay Singh) at the relevant time.
31. All the said admissions are binding upon the accused in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC
355. The accused, having made said admissions during the cross- examination of said witness, could not be permitted to raise a dispute as to the said aspects during final arguments. As such, all the relevant arguments raised by the accused in order to dispute the above facts are discarded and rejected. The above admissions are also sufficient to summarily reject the oral statement of DW1 Ms. Ranju Devi, who deposed, in defence of accused, (i) that deceased Ranvijay Singh had fallen on the road and his head had struck against the boundary wall of the park leading to injuries on his person and; (ii) that PW1 Azad was not available at the spot at the relevant time.
SHIFTING OF DECEASED RANVIJAY SINGH TO HOSPITAL
32. As per prosecution's case, immediately after the said incident Digitally deceased Ranvijay Singh was shifted firstly to Apollo Hospital and signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 25.of 36 15:41:57 +0530 then to AIIMS. In this regard, prosecution has examined PW 8 Ms. Bulbul, who deposed during trial that she is the daughter in law of deceased Ranvijay Singh and that she had been informed of the deceased Ranvijay Singh lying in a unconscious state near a park. She further deposed that she rushed to the spot and discovered that deceased Ranvijay Singh was lying unconscious at the spot and he had some injuries in his head. She further deposed that she shifted deceased Ranvijay Singh to Apollo hospital with the help of some public persons. PW9 Vinod Kumar and PW 12 Jitender, both sons of deceased Ranvijay Singh, deposed about receiving a telephonic call at Dharamshila Hospital, where they were present as their close relative was to undergo a surgery. It was informed, via the said telephonic call that their father i.e. deceased Ranvijay Singh had been beaten. Both deposed that they proceeded to Apollo Hospital, from where deceased Ranvijay Singh was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center. The above facts, as deposed by PW8, PW9 and PW12 regarding removal of deceased Ranvijay Singh from the spot to Apollo Hospital and then to AIIMS Trauma Center, have not been disputed during the course of trial by the accused. As such, it could be safely assumed that the prosecution has been able to prove the above facts beyond reasonable doubt.
ARREST OF ACCUSED
33. As per prosecution's case, the accused was arrested on LOVLEEN 13.12.2019 at the instance of PW1 Azad Kuma. In this regard, prosecution examined PW1 Azad Kumar, PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar, Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: PW13 ASI Inder Singh and PW 14 ASI Malkhan Singh.
2024.12.21 15:42:01 +0530FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 26.of 36
34. PW 1 Azad Kumar has clearly and categorically stated during trial that accused Nikhil Kumar was arrested at his instance at the relevant time. So was deposed by PW 2 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW13 ASI Inder Singh and PW 14 ASI Malkhan Singh during the course of trial. Their cross-examination does not reflect any dispute as to the arrest of the accused at the relevant time. As such, it could be safely assumed that the accused was arrested on 13.12.2019 at the instance of PW1 Azad Kumar.
RECOVERY OF WEAPON / WALKING STICK
35. Prosecution claims that the accused made a disclosure, while in the custody of police, to the effect that he could get recovered the walking stick used by him in the attack upon the deceased Ranvijay Singh. In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, police was able to recover a walking stick broken into two pieces, which was seized vide a recovery memo. In order to prove the said disclosure statement Ex. PW2/B and said recovery memo Ex. PW2/C, prosecution examined PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW13 ASI Inder Singh and PW 14 ASI Malkhan Singh.
36. Their cross examination does not reflect anything which is sufficient enough to discard the entire case of prosecution regarding the making of said disclosure statement (by the accused) or the Digitally signed by recovery and seizure of said walking stick. Rather, this Court has LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 noted that certain relevant admissions were made by the accused 15:42:04 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 27.of 36 which seem to fortify the prosecution's case against the accused w.r.t to the above aspect. The relevant extracts of the cross-examination of said witnesses are reproduced for ready reference:-
"..........Complainant met us at the spot. Complainant had come to the spot on his own. .............. When we reached at the spot, complainant was present at the spot and he pointed out the accused who was sitting outside of his house that he had caused injuries to injured Ranvijay Singh......... No public person except Azad was present at the time of recovery of wooden stick. Wooden stick was recovered from the park behind the bushes............"(cross-examination of PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar dated 22.02.2023).
"............The distance between the place of recovery of weapon of offence and spot is about 100 meter. IO did not ask any public person to join the recovery process of weapon of offence in my presence................. IO prepared the site map of the place of recovery. I remained at the spot of recovery for about 20-25 minutes in the early morning. .............. I do not remember whether IO had called any family member of injured at LOVLEEN the place of recovery............" (cross-examination of Digitally signed by LOVLEEN PW13 ASI Inder Singh dated 29.04.2024).Date: 2024.12.21 15:42:08 +0530
".............. I cannot tell the distance between spot and FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 28.of 36 place of recovery of weapon of offence. At the time of recovery of weapon of offence, complainant Azad was not present with us. (Vol. He joined us later on). ............Weapon of offence was recoverd from the bushes situated nearby the spot. I did not call any person from the family of deceased at the spot............"(cross-examination of PW14 ASI Malkhan Singh dated 16.07.2024).
37. All the said admissions are binding upon the accused in view of the observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 2023 SCC Online SC
355. The accused, having made said admissions during the cross- examination of said witness, could not be permitted to raise a dispute as to the said aspects during final arguments. As such, all the relevant arguments raised by the accused in order to dispute the above facts are discarded and rejected.
MEDICAL TREATMENT OF DECEASED RANVIJAY SINGH
38. As per prosecution, the deceased Ranvijay Singh was shifted to Apollo Hospital after the incident. Deceased Ranvijay Singh was admitted under MLC Ex. PW3/A in a state of confusion of drowsiness and that he had sustained ' ABRASION OVER POSTERIOR OCCIPITAL REGION'. Subsequently, police obtained the opinion about the nature LOVLEEN of injuries suffered by deceased Ranvijay Singh. The doctor concerned Digitally signed by LOVLEEN opined that the injury sustained by deceased Ranvijay Singh was Date: 2024.12.21 15:42:10 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 29.of 36 grievous in nature. Prosecution examined PW3 Dr. Mohammad Azharuddin to prove the said MLC. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
39. Prosecution further claims that soon after his admission in Apollo Hospital, the deceased Ranvijay Singh was removed to AIIMS Trauma Center. Deceased Ranvijay Singh was admitted under MLC Ex. PW4/A, as per which he had sustained the following injuries:-
1.'ABRASION MULTIPLE OVER LEFT SIDE OF FACE 2. LACERATION 3CM 0.5 CM ON OCCIPITAL SCALP REGION'. It was opined by the doctor concerned that the deceased Ranvijay Singh was unfit for recording of his statement. Prosecution examined PW4 Dr. Tapan Kumar Ray to prove the said MLC. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
40. Prosecution claims that the injuries sustained by deceased Ranvijay Singh were grievous in nature. In this regard, prosecution has placed on record an opinion Ex. PW15/A dated 14.10.2024. Prosecution examined PW15 Dr Kulbhushan Prasad to prove the said medical opinion. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
LOVLEEN Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: 2024.12.21 15:42:14 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 30.of 36 EXPERT OPINION REGARDING THE WEAPON
41. Prosecution claims that the walking stick (of deceased Ranvijay Singh), which was used by the accused at the relevant time, was sufficient to cause the injuries sustained by deceased Ranvijay Singh. In this regard, prosecution relies upon a report Ex. PW7/A prepared by Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, which was issued when the police submitted the MLCs of deceased Ranvijay Singh as well as the walking stick. As per said report, the injuries present on the person of deceased Ranvijay Singh could have been caused by the said walking stick. Prosecution examined PW7 Dr. Arijit Dey to prove the said report. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
POST MORTEM EXAMINATION AND CAUSE OF DEATH OF DECEASED RANVIJAY SINGH
42. As per prosecution's case, deceased Ranvijay Singh never recovered from the said injuries (inflicted on 11.12.2019) and he remained admitted in Trauma Center till 28.03.2020. Deceased Ranvijay Singh was discharged from AIIMS Trauma Center on 28.03.2020 as AIIMS Trauma Center was designated as Covid-19 Hospital. Soon after his discharge, deceased Ranvijay Singh died on Digitally signed by 06.04.2020. He was shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he was LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 15:42:17 +0530 decalred as brought dead. Police got conducted his post mortem. Post mortem report Ex. PW6/C reflects that the deceased Ranvijay Singh died due to septicemia due to injuries sustained by him.
FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 31.of 36
43. Prosecution examined PW 9 Vinod Kumar and PW 12 Jitender to prove that deceased Ranvijay Singh remained admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center from 11.12.2019 to 28.03.2020. This Court could take judicial notice of the fact that AIIMS Trauma Center was designated as a Covid-19 Hospital in March 2020. Prosecution has placed on record the original discharge summary dated 28.03.2020 pertaining to deceased Ranvijay Singh along with a supplementary charge sheet placed on record. However, prosecution has failed to prove the said discharge summary in accordance with the prescribed law. Be that as it may, the oral testimony of PW 9 Vinod Kumar and PW 12 Jitender regarding the fact that deceased Ranvijay Singh remained admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center from 11.12.2019 to 28.03.2023, has gone unchallenged and unrebutted. Consequently, it could be safely held that the deceased Ranvijay Singh did remain admitted in AIIMS Trauma Center from 11.12.2019 to 28.03.2023.
44. Prosecution examined PW 10 Dr. Rishi Singh Meena who prove that the deceased Ranvijay Singh was brought to AIIMS Trauma Center on 06.04.2020, when he was declared as brought dead vide MLC Ex. PW10/A. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
LOVLEEN
45. Prosecution examined PW6 Dr. K Karthi Vignesh Raj to prove Digitally signed by LOVLEEN the said Post mortem report. In the post mortem report Ex. PW6/C, the Date: 2024.12.21 15:42:20 +0530 FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 32.of 36 doctor concerned opined that the cause of death of deceased Ranvijay Singh is 'SEPTICEMIA DUE TO INJURIES SUSTAINED'. His cross examination does not reflect any material which could be held sufficient enough to discard the opinion mentioned therein.
INVESTIGATION
46. Rest of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have deposed about the investigation carried out by police in FIR No. 322/2019 PS Jaitpur. PW-5 HC Rakesh Kumar deposed about production of a rukka sent in by PW 13 ASI Inder SIngh, on the basis of which he registered the FIR Ex. PW5/A after making an endorsement on the rukka. PW2 HC Ramesh Kumar, PW 13 ASI Inder Singh and PW 14 ASI Malkhan Singh deposed about their respective roles during the course of investigation. All the said witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of the accused, but none betrayed any signs of falsity or untruth. They seem to have withstood the test of cross-examination. This Court finds their oral testimony to be reliable, trust worthy and worth acting upon.
Moreso, in view of the admissions (referred to in the aforegoing paragraphs) made by the accused during the course of trial.
ADJUDICATION AS TO CHARGES
47. Having adjudicated the facts established on record by the LOVLEEN prosecution, now this Court proceeds to assess whether the said facts Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: justify the charges framed against the accused.
2024.12.21 15:42:25 +0530FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 33.of 36
48. It must be observed here that the prosecution has established on record that at the relevant date, time and place, the accused attacked the deceased Ranvijay Singh without any provocation, with a walking stick belonging to deceased himself and gave one blow in his head. Deceased Ranvijay Singh sustained grievous injuries due to the said attack. He was immediately removed to Apollo hospital and then further to AIIMS Trauma Center on the same day, where he remained admitted till 28.03.2020. On the said day, deceased Ranvijay Singh was discharged from the hospital as AIIMS Trauma Center was designated as a Covid-19 Hospital/ facility. On 06.04.2020, deceased Ranvijay Singh was brought back to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he was declared as brought dead. Post Mortem examination of deceased Ranvijay Singh reflects that he lost his life on account of 'Septicemia due to the injures sustained'.
49. During the course of arguments, Ld. defence counsel submitted that there is a gap of almost 04 months between the occurrence of the incident and the death of deceased Ranvijay Singh. It is further submitted that given the precarious medical condition of deceased Ranvijay Singh, prosecution ought to have led evidence to rule out the possibility that the deceased Ranvijay Singh succumbed to Covid-19 infection. It is accordingly argued that this Court may not assume that LOVLEEN the deceased Ranvijay Singh died due to injuries sustained by him at Digitally signed by LOVLEEN Date: the relevant time. That apart, it is submitted that the report Ex. PW7/A 2024.12.21 15:42:28 +0530 reflects that the doctors concerned have clearly opined that chances of FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 34.of 36 death due to the stick allegedly used by the accused to inflict injuries on deceased Ranvijay Singh are remote. It is accordingly argued that the said opinion renders this case beyond the ambit of Section 304 IPC.
50. This Court must reject the above submissions as the same are speculative in nature. It must be observed here that prosecution has led clear and categorical medical evidence on record which is suggestive of the fact that the deceased Ranvijay Singh succumbed to injuries sustained on 11.12.2019. In fact, the observations in post mortem report Ex. PW6/C are categorical regarding the presence of bed sores on the person of deceased Ranvijay Singh. That apart, the post mortem report further reflects the presence of 'pus' as well as congestion in the parenchyma of entire brain. Both the above facts are clearly indicating that the deceased Ranvijay Singh remained bed ridden for a long period of time and that the injuries sustained by him were never healed. The above inferences are sufficient to discard the above submissions made by the Ld. Defence counsel with respect to the cause of death of deceased Ranvijay Singh. Regarding the arguments pertaining to the opinion of the doctors vide report Ex. PW7/A, it must be observed that the said opinion seems to convey that the possibility of a person dying immediately after being hit by the walking stick is remote. However, the said opinion does not take into account the post LOVLEEN mortem report Ex. PW6/C pertaining to deceased Ranvijay Singh.
Digitally signed by LOVLEENInfact the said opinion was obtained on 28.01.2020, much prior to the Date: 2024.12.21 15:42:31 +0530 death of deceased Ranvijay Singh on 06.04.2020. Since the FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 35.of 36 prosecution has already established the fact that deceased Ranvijay Singh succumbed to injuries sustained on 11.12.2019, therefore, this argument is also liable to be discarded.
51. In the entire facts and circumstances proved on record by the prosecution, this Court finds it appropriate to hold that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Nikhil Kumar stands convicted u/s 304 (Part II) IPC. Digitally signed by LOVLEEN LOVLEEN Date:
2024.12.21 15:42:36 +0530 Dictated and Announced in open Court on 21.12.2024 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South- East), Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No: 322/2019 State vs Nikhil Kumar page no. 36.of 36