Delhi District Court
State vs . : Pratap Singh @ Raju on 30 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SHRI SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : ACMM-01 :
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI State Vs. : Pratap Singh @ Raju FIR No. : 349/2014 U/s : 326/341 IPC PS : Paharganj Unique I.D. No. : 02401R0512652014 Date of Institution : 07.10.2014 Date of Judgment reserved on : 30.04.2015 Date of Judgment : 30.04.2015 Brief details of the case A. Sl. no. of the case 000260/P B. Offence complained of or proved U/s 324/341 IPC C. Date of Offence 10.07.2014 D. Name of the complainant Krishna S/o Ramesh Singh Rana R/o 1833, Malhotra Restaurant, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi E. Name of the accused Pratap Singh @ Raju S/o Rajender Singh R/o 1833, Malhotra Restaurant, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, New Delhi F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty G. Final order Convicted H. Date of Order 30.04.2015 Judgment On the accusation of voluntarily causing hurt to Krishna (hereinafter referred to as ' complainant' ) by biting him on his lower lip, Pratap Singh @ Raju (hereinafter referred to as ' accused' ) was sent up for trial for committing offences punishable under Section 324/341 IPC.FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 1 of 10
Brief facts as unfolded during trial
2. The case of prosecution is that complainant (PW-1) was working as a ' cook' at Malhotra Restaurant, 1833, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ' restaurant' ) while accused was working there as a ' dish-washer' . On 10.07.2014, at around 04.00 PM, at the second floor of the restaurant, an altercation took place between them over the issue of cleaning of utensils. Complainant pointed out to the accused that he was not properly cleaning the utensils and on this, accused became furious. He bit the complainant on his lower lip and blood started oozing out from the injury. At that time, Dinesh Kumar (PW-4), another employee of the restaurant, was also present there and he saw the entire episode. On hearing the cries of complainant, Harish Kapoor (PW-2), owner of the restaurant, reached the second floor and saw the accused assaulting the complainant. Complainant was taken to Lady Harding Hospital from where the information about the incident reached Police Station Paharganj vide DD Entry No.52-B. The prosecution' s case proceeds further that after receiving this information, SI Vinod Nain (PW-8) and Ct. Mukesh (PW-3) reached the hospital. These police officials collected the MLC of complainant and recorded his statement. In the said background, present case bearing FIR No.349/2014 under Section 326/341 IPC was registered at Police Station Paharganj.
3. Statement of witnesses were recorded and necessary documentation was done. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was put to the Court. Copies of the charge-sheet were supplied to the accused and charge under FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 2 of 10 Section 324/341 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded ' not guilty' and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. Eight prosecution witnesses were examined.
Witnesses from the Restaurant PW-1 Krishna (Complainant) gave a detailed account of the incident. He mentioned that accused bit him on his lower lip causing injury to the extent that it separated the middle portion of his lower lip from his face.
PW-2 Harish Kapoor (Owner of the restaurant) deposed that after hearing the noise coming from the second floor of the restaurant, he immediately reached there and saw that accused was beating the complainant. He stated that at that time, blood was oozing out from the mouth of complainant. He mentioned that he intervened and rescued the complainant from the clutches of accused. He stated that he got prepared a CD of CCTV footage of the incident and handed it over to the Investigating Officer.
PW-4 Dinesh Kumar (Employee at the restaurant) supported the testimony of complainant mentioning that accused bit the complainant on his lower lip. He mentioned about the arrival of Harish Kapoor and gave a description of the injuries suffered by the complainant. Police Witnesses PW-3 Ct. Mukesh (Police official who accompanied the Investigating Officer to the hospital) stated that statement of complainant was recorded at the hospital. He took the rukka from the hospital and got the FIR FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 3 of 10 registered.
PW-5 HC Thomas P.J. (Duty Officer) mentioned about registration of FIR and DD Entry No.52-B. PW-6 Ct. Shree Krishna (Witness of arrest) deposed that accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW-1/C. He stated that accused made a disclosure about his involvement and pointed out the place where the incident took place. The disclosure statement and the pointing out memo are Ex.PW-6/A and Ex.PW-1/E respectively.
PW-8 SI Vinod (Investigating Officer) justified the investigation carried out by him.
Medical Witness PW-7 Roop Singh (Record Clerk, LHMC) identified the signatures of doctors on the MLC of complainant mentioning that he had seen those doctors writing and signing during the ordinary course of his duty. The MLC is Ex.PW-7/A.
5. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence. He admitted that he was working as a ' dish-washer' at the restaurant and also admitted that a fight took place between him and the complainant but denied having inflicted injury upon the complainant. He stated that during scuffle, his head banged against the lips of complainant and injury was caused because of this reason. No defence witness was examined.
Arguments FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 4 of 10
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of complainant. He contended that the testimony of eye-witnesses is not convincing and cannot form the basis of conviction. He has argued that complainant was keeping a grudge against the accused and in order to settle the score, he falsely implicated him in the present case. He contended that all the purported eye-witnesses were from the restaurant itself and no independent witness was examined to corroborate the statement of these witnesses.
8. On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended that charges against the accused have been established beyond reasonable doubt. He argued that testimony of complainant finds support from the statement of other witnesses and there is medical evidence to substantiate the charges. He mentioned that there is ample evidence to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that the testimony of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely because no independent witness was examined. He has argued that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that accused voluntarily inflicted injury upon the complainant.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record.
Brief reasons for the decision
10. The crucial evidence on record is the testimony of eye-witnesses FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 5 of 10 i.e. complainant (PW-1) and Dinesh (PW-4). Besides this, the testimony of Harish Kapoor (PW-2) and the medical evidence is also relevant. Complainant gave a detailed account of the incident. He mentioned the date and time of incident and narrated the manner in which accused inflicted injuries upon him. He stated that on 10.07.2014, at around 04.00 PM, accused was doing the assigned task of cleaning the utensils. He mentioned that accused was under the influence of alcohol and instead of cleaning the utensils, he started breaking them. He stated that on being directed to clear the utensils properly, accused became furious and started assaulting him. He mentioned that accused suddenly grabbed him and bit him on his lower lip causing injury. He stated that accused bit him with such pressure that his lower lip got separated from the face. He deposed about the presence Dinesh mentioning that he saved him from the accused. He mentioned about his examination at Lady Harding Hospital and stated that his statement was recorded by the police officials. Record shows that testimony of complainant has gone uncontroverted. Eye-witness Dinesh Kumar (PW-4) has supported the testimony of complainant on all the material aspects by giving a similar account of the incident.
11. The testimony of complainant and Dinesh Kumar finds further corroboration from the statement of Harish Kapoor (PW-2). He stated that after hearing the noise coming from the second floor, he reached there and saw the accused assaulting the complainant. He mentioned that he noticed that blood was oozing out from the mouth of complainant. Although, his testimony does not fall under the category of an eye-witness but it is relevant as he immediately FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 6 of 10 reached the spot after the alleged incident. Although, the witness has not seen the accused biting the complainant but he has stated that he saw the blood oozing out of the injuries of complainant. His testimony does provide support to the version given by the eye-witnesses.
12. Ld defence counsel has argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of complainant. He stated that complainant did not mention in his earlier statement given to the police that accused was under the influence of alcohol or that he was breaking the utensils. He has vehemently argued that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of complainant which are fatal and accused should be acquitted. On the force of these submissions, counsel has prayed that the testimony of complainant should be discarded. I fail to agree with this line of argument. I have perused the entire record. No doubt, there are some discrepancies in the statement of complainant but I am of the considered opinion that they are inconsequential. It is not expected from a victim to give entire details at the time of making statement before the police. Moreover, there can' t be any surety that the exact version given by the victim was recorded by the police. Some variations in the statement made at different stages are bound to occur. The only purpose for which the earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C can be used is for contradicting the testimony of a witness as provided under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. Complainant has not been cross examined by the accused and he was never confronted with his earlier statement. The argument of defence could have been appreciated, in case, the complainant would have FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 7 of 10 been confronted with his earlier statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C at the time of his deposition before the court. Since, he was never confronted with his earlier statement, therefore, he never got an opportunity to explain the purported discrepancy. In such circumstances, it would be grossly unfair to doubt his statement merely because of some minor variations.
13. Moreover, the testimony of complainant finds corroboration not only from the statement of eye-witness Dinesh Kumar but also from the medical evidence. Complainant mentioned in his statement that he was taken to Lady Harding hospital where he was medically examined. The MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) prepared at LHMC is on record. It contains an endorsement in the handwriting of doctor who examined the complainant that he gave a history of assault/human bite. Complainant has deposed that accused inflicted injury by biting him on his lower lip. The nature and the place of injuries recorded in the MLC corroborates with the description of injuries given by the complainant. Roop Singh (PW-7), Record Clerk from LHMC has identified the signatures of concerned doctors on the MLC. The competency of this witness to identify the signatures of the doctors has not been challenged as he has not been cross examined on this aspect. I am of the considered opinion that the testimony of complainant, read in light of the medical evidence, forms a complete chain. There is overwhelming evidence to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.
14. It has been the main line of argument of defence Counsel that no public witness has been cited or examined to corroborate the version of complainant and on this ground, the accused should be acquitted. I do not find FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 8 of 10 force in the said argument. I am of the considered opinion that the unimpeached testimony of examined witnesses is more than sufficient to bring home the charges against the accused. They have specifically deposed about the aspect of assault. Their testimony has gone unchallenged. Eye-witness Dinesh Kumar and the owner of the restaurant (Harish Kapoor) can not be categorized as interested witnesses. It is not the defence raised by the accused that he was on inimical terms with these witnesses. Although, he has taken a stereo typed defence of false implication but it is not convincing. The incident took place on the second floor of the restaurant. Harish Kapoor was the owner of the restaurant and Dinesh Kumar was employed there. It is natural that these were the probable persons who would have been present at the spot. Their testimony should not be doubted merely because it does not find corroboration from an independent source. The testimony of complainant and medical evidence can not be rejected merely because prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness. I find the testimony of witnesses coherent and reliable. I am convinced that they have given true narration of the entire episode.
15. The prosecution has established its case while on the other hand, the defence taken by the accused is improbably and unbelievable. He stated in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C that a scuffle took place between him and the complainant and in the said scuffle, complainant sustained injuries. He stated that his head banged against the lips of complainant and because of this reason, complainant sustained injuries. This is a patently false version. The falsity is evident from the fact that the said defence was raised for FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 9 of 10 the first time only at the time of the statement being recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Not even a single suggestion to this effect was put to the complainant during his cross examination. In these circumstances, the defence taken by the accused is to be discarded. I have reached a conclusion that prosecution has established the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence has proved that complainant sustained sharp injuries because of being bitten by the accused. The material on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed an offence punishable under Section 324/341 IPC. Accordingly, accused Pratap Singh @ Raju stands convicted for committing the said offence.
Be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) on 30.04.2015 ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 10 (Ten) pages and each page bears my signature.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No.349/2014 State Vs Pratap Singh @ Raju Page 10 of 10