Delhi District Court
State vs . Vinod Etc on 29 June, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. CHANDER MOHAN
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. VINOD ETC
FIR No. 52/2010
U/S 323/324/34 IPC
Case No.290749/16
P.S. : Sarai Rohilla
Date of institution of case : 28.04.2010
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 07.06.2018
Date of judgment : 29.06.2018
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 24.02.2010
b) Offence complained of : U/s 323/324/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Vijay Kumar
d) Name of accused, : 1. Vinod
his parentage : S/o Sh. Harish Chander
local & permanent residence R/o: B1058,
Shastri Nagar,
Delhi
2. Sonu @ Mohit
S/o Sh. Nand Kishor
R/o E2/212,
Shastri Nagar,
Sarai Rohilla,
Delhi .
e) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f) Final order : Convicted
FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 1
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:
1. As per the prosecution both the accused on 24.02.2010 at about 6.30 am at H. No. 194/1, Padam Nagar, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi in furtherance of their common intention had beaten the complainant Vijay Kumar with broken glass causing simple injury to him .
2. On the basis of material filed along with the chargesheet, notice u/s 323/324/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.
4. PW 2 Sh Vijay Kumar ( also complainant) narrated the entire incident in his testimony. He deposed that on 24.02.2010 he was present in his house . At about 6.15 am loud noise was coming from the down stairs where a tea shop is situated. The loud noise was creating nuisance as his son was having exams. The rickshaw pullers gathered at the tea shop were making the noise. Disturbance was caused to him and his family members due to the loud noise. At about 6.30 am he went down stairs near the tea shop and tried to make the accused Vinod Kumar understand that due to the noise disturbance is caused . Accused Vinod Kumar replied that such type of noise will continue. He tried to disperse the rickshaw pullers from the spot as they were creating loud noise. On this accused Sonu caught hold of him from behind and FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 2 accused Vinod hit him with glass after breaking the same . Due to hitting by the accused Vinod by glass he sustained injury over his chest and right hand. In the meantime his brother Dev Kumar came there and when he tried to save him accused Vinod also hit him with glass. He also sustained injury on his hand due to hitting by the glass. The injury was caused to him and his brother by both the accused as accused Sonu caught hold of him and accused Vinod Kumar hit him and his brother with glass. Thereafter, PCR van came on the spot and they were taken to HRH where they were medically examined. Police recorded his statement Ex PW2/A . He showed the police official the place of incident who prepared the site plan . Police seized the glass in his presence with which accused persons hit him and seizure memo was prepared vide memo Ex pw2/B bears his signatures at point A. Accused Vinod and Sonu were arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW 2/ C and Ex PW2/D. Personal search of accused persons were conducted vide personal search memo Ex PW 2/ E and F. He further correctly identified the accused persons in the court. His testimony was corroborated by his brother PW6 Sh Dev Kumar. He deposed that on 24.02.2010 at about 6.15 am he went in the gali where his house was situated and from there he saw that accused Vinod and Sonu @ Mohit were beating his brother Vijay Kumar with tea glass. He rescued his brother from both the accused persons but they also hit him with the tea glass. He alongwith his brother Vijay Kumar received injuries. He called at 100 number. Police reached at the spot and took them to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical treatment. He also correctly identified both the accused in the court .
FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 35. PW1 W/ASI Anita was the duty office on 24.02.2010 who received the rukka and on the basis of same registered the present FIR Ex PW1/A .
6. PW3 Ct Naresh alongwith HC Sukhbir Singh reached the spot on receiving the DD No 7A. On the spot they met the complainant Vijay Kumar and his brother Dev Kumar. As per his testimony both were in injured condition and further both the accused were also present on the spot. He also correctly identified both the accused in the court . He further deposed that IO recorded the statement of complainant and got registered the case and thereafter IO prepared the site plan, arrested the accused, seized the broken glass vide seizure memo Ex PW 2/B . The pulanda of the broken glass was opened by the MHC(M) by the permission of the court and he correctly identified the same as the weapon used in the offence. The same was collectively exhibited as Ex P
1.
7. PW 4 Sh K V Singh deposed that he has been working as record clerk in HRH Hospital since 1980 and had worked with Dr Prateek and seen him writing and signing during the course of official work. He further deposed that Dr. Prateek had let the services of hospital and his whereabout are not known. He has seen the original MLC No 1369/10 dated 24.02.2010 of Dev Kumar S/o Jar Prashad aged 37 years, male which is on judicial file and as per record the injured was brought in the hospital on 24.02.2010. As per the record, he was examined by Dr Prateek vide MLC Ex PW 4/A bearing signature of Dr Prateek at point 'A' FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 4 and after examination he opined the injury as simple blunt.
8. Sh K V Singh was again examined as PW 7 on 13.01.2017 and proved the MLC No.1370/10 of complainant Vijay Kumar S/o Har Prasad dated 24.02.2010. MLC was already Ex PW5/A bearing the signature of Dr Bhupinder and Dr. Tarun Kumar at point B and C. He deposed that he can identified the signatures of both the doctors as he had seen them writing and signing on various documents in ordinary course of his duty . The said doctors have left the services of the hospital and their whereabout are not know to the hospital . PW5 Dr Anand Kumar, Senior Medical Office Hindu Rao Hospital examined injured Vijay Kumar vide MLC No. 1370/10 (Ex PW 5/A). He also examined patient Sonu S/o Nand Kishore vide MLC No. 1368/10 (Ex PW5/B). He further examined patient Vinod vide MLC No.1366/10 (Ex PW5/C).
9. PW8 ASI Sukhbir Singh was the IO in the present case . He alongwith Ct Naresh went to the spot after receiving the information of the quarrel. On the spot he met complainant Vijay Kumar and injured Dev Kumar. He also deposed that both the accused were also present on the spot . He further correctly identified both the accused in the court . He recorded the statement of complainant and seized the broken pieces of glass and sealed it with seal of SSD. He thereafter send all the four persons (both accused, complainant and PW Dev Kumar ) to Hindu Rao Hospital . He prepared site plan Ex PW8/A. Thereafter accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex PW2/C and Ex PW2/D . Thereafter, investigation was concluded and charge sheet was filed .
FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 510. PW9 ASI Rattan Singh deposed that on 24.02.2010 he was posted as HC at PS Sarai Rohilla and was working as MHC(M). On that day HC Sukhbir Singh IO of the present case had deposited one pulanda sealed with the seal of SSD. He deposited that same in the malkhana and made entry in the register No.19 vide serial no.2517. He got the copy of same exhibited as Ex PW 9/A .
11. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence statement of both the accused U/s 313 /281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 19.04.2018. No DW was examined by the accused persons in their defence .
12. I have heard Ld APP for the state and counsel for the accused persons.
13. As per the prosecution both the accused persons caused simple injuries to the complainant Vijay Kumar. It has come on record that accused are tenants in the shop of complainant Vijay Kumar and running a tea shop/tea stall. PW2 Sh Vijay Kumar in his detailed testimony has narrated the entire incident. He has clearly mentioned the reason for the quarrel . As per his testimony accused persons got agitated when he tried to make them understand that due to the noise caused by the customers in his shop his peace was disturbed. He has narrated that accused Sonu got hold of him from behind and accused Vinod hit him with glass after breaking the same due to which he sustained injury on his chest and right hand. When his brother tried to intervene he was also hit by accused Vinod with the glass. His testimony stands corroborated by PW 6 Dev Kumar who is an eyewitness . He deposed that he saw FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 6 accused Vinod and Sonu @ Mohit beating his brother with tea glass and when he tried to rescue he was also hit. Both these PWs in their cross examination have stood their ground. Accused have through their suggestions put to both these PWs as well as in their SA raised the defence that the complainant and his brother were the aggressors and falsely implicated them in the present case. However, except self serving suggestions there is nothing on record for the court to draw the conclusion that the complainant party was the aggressor . Counsel for the accused has failed to draw the attention of the court towards any circumstance which may lead to this conclusion or establish innocence of the accused persons . They have failed to impeach the credit of both the complainant or anyh other PW. There is no explanation how the complainant got the injuries if the same were not inflicted by the accused. Broken glass pieces were recovered from the spot and identified by concerned witnesses. Further, there is ample evidence and circumstances for the court to prove that both the accused persons shared common intention. Complainant Vijay Kumar has clearly deposed that accused Sonu @ Mohit caught hold of him from behind and accused Vinod hit him with the glass after breaking the same. Hence, common intention can safely be inferred. The testimony of complainant PW 6 also stands corroborated by the medical evidence. MLC of Vijay Kumar Ex PW5/A clearly shows injuries on index finger and incised wound approximately 2 inch long over side of the chest . MLC Ex PW5/B of PW Sonu also shows simple injuries on various parts of his body .
15. To conclude, prosecution has clearly established that both FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 7 accused in furtherance of their common intention caused simple injury to the complainant Vijay Kumar and PW Dev Kumar with broken tea glass punishable U/s 324/34 IPC. However, there is no corroboration of the statement of the complainant that other injuries were caused by the accused persons . The testimony of PW 6 Sh Dev Kumar is absolutely silent on this aspect and his testimony is confined to hitting of broken glass to complainant Vijay Kumar and himself . Hence, no case U/s 323 is made out. Accordingly, both the accused stands convicted U/s 324 read with section 34 IPC only.
Be listed for hearing on the point of sentence . Let complainant Vijay Kumar and injured Dev Kumar be also summoned for determination of sentence /compensation . Ahlmad is directed to issue summons to both for 05.07.2018 .
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (CHANDER MOHAN)
TODAY ON 29th JUNE, 2018 MM04 (CENTRAL),
DELHI
FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 8
FIR No.52/2010 State Vs. Vinod etc . 9