Delhi District Court
Criminal Case/646/1997 on 10 June, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI NARESH KUMAR LAKA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
DWARKA DISTRICT COURTS, DELHI
F.I.R. No. 646/97
Police Station: Najafgarh
under Section 323 and 324 r/w 34 IPC
(a) Serial number of the case : 02403RO079282003
(b) Date of commission of the offence : 26.06.1997
(c) The name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Niwas S/o Sh. Birham
Chand R/o Village Paprawat,
Najafgarh, Delhi
(d) The name of the accused persons/s : 1. Om Prakash S/o Sh. Jai
his parentage and residence Dayal R/o Village Paprawat
2. Jai Singh S/o Sh. Om
Prakash R/o Village Paprawat
3. Mahender Singh S/o Sh. Jai
Dayal R/o Village Paprawat
4. Jeet Ram S/o Sh. Ramji Lal
R/o Village Paprawat (expired)
(e) The offence complained of or : Under Section 323 and 324
proved IPC read with Section 34 IPC
(f) The plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted
(h) The date of such order : 10.06.2011
(i) In all cases in which an appeal lies : A brief statement of the reason
for the decision as follows:
Police case was instituted on: 05.03.1998
Arguments were advanced on: 04.06.2011
Judgment is announced on: 10.06.2011
JUDGMENT
The present challan was filed in respect of 4 accused persons and during the course of the trial, accused no. 4 Jeet Ram expired. The present judgment is passed in respect of other 3 accused persons. Briefly stated, the facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 26.06.1997 at 08:30 AM at village FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 1 of 7 Paprawat, Najafgarh, Delhi, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Sh. Ram Niwas with sharp weapon and simple hurt to Smt. Asha Devi and Braham Chand.
2. On appearance of the accused person, a charge for the offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined total four witnesses as under: PW1 Ct. Bijender PW2 Sh. Ram Niwas PW3 ASI Usha PW4 Sh. Braham Chand
4. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C.
5. I have heard Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and counsel for accused persons. File perused.
6. The prosecution examined total four witnesses. PW1 Ct. Bijender deposed that on 11.10.97 he joined the investigation. At that time, one Ram Niwas came to PS and lodged his complaint. IO SI Jai Parkash made his endoresement and he got the case registered through DO. Thereafter, he along with IO and complainant went to village Paprawat from where accused Mahinder Singh, Om Prakash and Jeet Ram were arrested. There arrest memos are Ex PW 1/A, Ex PW 1/B and Ex PW 1/C. IO recorded his statement. The accused Mahinder FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 2 of 7 Singh, Om Prakash and Jeet Ram are correctly identified (who were present in the court).
7. PW2 Ram Niwas deposed that he is the farmer and having a plot of 850 yards at Khasra No. 163, village Paprawat and he is residing their after construction of a house. It is further stated that a civil case is pending between Ram Niwas and accused persons at Tis Hazari Court. On 26.06.97 he was taking his buffaloes for feeding water to them. At about 08.00 am, accused Om Prakash, Mahender, Jai Singh, Jeet Ram, Maharam, Shree Chand and Tara Chand came to his house. Om Prakash and Mahender were having lathis. (Accused Jeet Ram already expired). Accused Jai Singh was having jaili in his hand and the remaining were having dandas. Accused Om Prakash gave a lathi blow on his shoulder. In the meantime, accused Jai Singh gave him a blow on his left hand with jaili. PW 2 further stated that at that time they were saying "makan khali kara ke chodege". He raised alarm and after hearing his voice, his father reached there. Accused Jeet Ram (already expired) gave him a lathi blow on his leg. His babhi Asha Devi (who was cooking food) also came there and tried to intervene in the matter but she was also given beatings by the accused persons. PW2 also stated that, thereafter, he managed to run away from the spot and made a call at 100 no. PCR van reached there. Police also reached there and recorded his statement which is Ex PW 2/A. He was medically examined at Safdurjung Hospital. His MLC is Mark X. The police called him after 3 days in the PS and obtained his signatures on blank papers. He shown the spot to the police.
8. PW3 ASI Usha deposed that she was the Duty on the FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 3 of 7 day of incident and on receiving of rukka she recorded the present FIR and handed over the copy thereof and rukka to Ct. Vijender. PW 4 Brahm Chand deposed that on 26.06.97, he was present at his house. At about 08.00, am he heard some noise and came out from his house. He saw that Om Prakash and Mahender and son of Om Prakash along with Jeet Ram gave beatings to his son by sticks and blows. He correctly identified all the accused persons who were present in the court. Thereafter, accused Mahender and Om Prakash caught hold of him and Jeet Ram gave beatings by lathi to him at his knee. He fell down and became unconscious. When he regained consciousness, he found himself in Safdurjung Hospital. Police recorded his statement in the hospital.
DEFENCE OF ACCUSED
9. In the statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused Jai Singh and Om Prakash stated that a civil case of partition is pending between them and the complainant party since 1990. Accused Jai Singh and Om Prakash further stated that as accused Jai Singh has received a letter of government job, complainant party filed the present case to unnecessarily harass them as the civil case was pending. Accused Mahender Singh also stated that a civil case of partition is pending between them and the complainant party since 1990 and complainant party filed the present case to unnecessarily harass them. Accused persons further stated that they did not cause any injury to complainant party and no quarrel took place. Accused Mahender Singh also stated that he was on duty in DVB on the day of the incident. Accused Om Prakash stated that as he was entangled in the present case as he FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 4 of 7 was a government servant working in DESU.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE
10. The prosecution cited total 11 witnesses in the list of witnesses. The present case was filed in this court on 05.03.98. The charge was framed in this case on 06.06.2002. Thereafter, many dates were given to the prosecution to conclude the PE but despite giving ample opportunity, the prosecution examined only 4 witnesses. The present case is one of the oldest identified cases as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Accordingly, PE was closed on 30.09.2010. In the present case, charge is framed for offences under Section 323 and 324 IPC against the accused persons. For proving the offence under Section 324 IPC, the prosecution is required to prove the nature of the injury through MLC and also that a weapon/instrument was used which caused sharp injury on the injured person. As the prosecution failed to prove MLC on record, the nature of injuries in terms of Section 324 IPC can not be said to be proved. The prosecution also did not prove the nature of weapon, its recovery and identification in the court. Accordingly, keeping in view the above facts and the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 324 IPC against all accused persons.
11. A charge for the offence under Section 323 IPC is also framed. But, in my opinion, the necessity of proving of MLC arises to prove specific nature of injury and in the present case the sharp injury. For proving the simple injury, no MLC is required. Section 319 defines hurt. It reads, "Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 5 of 7 hurt." In my opinion, for proving the simple injury, oral depositions of the witnesses are sufficient and proving of MLC is not the sine qua non. While recording the statement of the accused persons, the accused persons stated that they want to lead defence evidence. Despite giving opportunity, the accused persons did not lead any defence evidence nor examined any witness in their defence. Even the counsel for the accused persons stated that no defence witness is to be examined. Accordingly defence evidence was closed. Out of the 4 witnesses examined by the prosecution, two material witnesses are PW 2 Ram Niwas and PW4 Brahm Chand. PW2 specifically deposed that Om Prakash and Mahender were having lathi. Then the accused Om Prakash gave a lathi blow on his shoulder and Jai Singh gave him a blow on his left hand with jaili. PW4 Brahm Chand specifically disclosed the name of the persons as Om Prakash, Mahender and son of Om Prakash along with Jeet Ram who gave beating to his son by sticks and blows. PW4 also specifically stated that accused Mahender and Om Prakash caught hold and accused Jeet Ram gave beatings by lathi to him. Despite cross examination of the public witnesses at length nothing contrary came on record to disbelieve the version of PW 2 and PW4. Certain questions were put to PW2 and PW4 in their cross examination which were specifically alleged not the part of statements recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. The confrontation brought to the notice can not be said to be contrary to the statement of PW2 and PW4 recorded under Section 161 Cr. P. C. Rather they are in the nature of elaboration or explanation. PW2 specifically deposed in his examination in chief that after his discharge from the hospital he collected the FIR and he found that all his version was not so mentioned in his statement. He also stated that police called him after 3 days FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 6 of 7 at the police station and obtained his signatures on blank papers. This statement further corroborates the version of the complainant/PW2 that the police did not record the entire version of the complainant and the elaborations made at the time of recording of evidence can not be said to be improvement of facts as alleged by the counsel for the accused.
12. It is the next argument of the counsel for the accused that the accused persons have been falsely implicated as some civil cases was pending between the parties. None of the accused person examined any witness in their defence nor filed the copy of any such documents relating to the pendency of civil suit between the parties. Accordingly, I hold that the explanation given by the accused persons is not trustworthy.
13. Keeping in view the evidence brought on record, I hold that the prosecution succeeded to prove the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC against the accused persons, namely, accused no. 1 to accused no. 3. Accused persons are accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. They are, however, acquitted for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
Announced in the open court
On 10.06.2011 (Naresh Kumar Laka)
Metropolitan Magistrate,
Dwarka District Courts,
Delhi.
FIR No. 646/97 P.S. Najafgarh 7 of 7