Delhi District Court
State vs . Tarak Paik on 11 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
STATE Vs. Tarak Paik
FIR No: 85/11
P. S. Jaitpur
Date of Institution of Case : 16.08.2011
Date on which case reserved : 28.01.2015
for Judgment
Date of Judgment : 11.03.2015
JUDGEMENT :
a) Date of offence : 27.03.2011 b) Offence complained of : 325/34 IPC c) Name of complainant : Sanjay d) Name of accused, : 1. Tarak Paik their parentage and residence s/o Sh. Niranjan Paik r/o B2/586, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar New Delhi. 2. Nirmal @ Nimol s/o Sh. S. Kumar r/o B2/648, JJ Camp, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi. 3. Gopal FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS. PS Jaitpur Page No. 1 of 11 s/o Sh. Sunil Das r/o B2/351, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar New Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Not guilty g) Final order : Convicted for offence U/s 325/34 IPC Counsels for the Parties: Sh. Pradeep Kumar, Ld. APP for the State.
Sh. Sunil Ahlawat, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons. BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
The case of prosecution in brief is that on 27.03.2011 at about 8:30 pm to 9:00 pm at B2/924, near Sulabh Shauchalaya, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, Jaitpur, New Delhi accused Tarak Paik, Nirmal @ Nimol and Gopal in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous injuries with fists and blows to complainant. Complainant Sanjay made a complaint regarding the incident. Accordingly FIR no. 85 of 2011 under section 325/34, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC) was registered at PS Jaitpur.
2. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet for offence u/s 325/34 IPC was filed against accused Tarak Paik, Nirmal FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 2 of 11@ Nimol and Gopal. Cognizance of the offence was taken. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused persons. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence u/s 325/34 IPC was framed against accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution has examined five witnesses to prove its case.
4. PW1 Dalip Kumar Singh is the alleged eye witness of the incident.
5. PW2 Sanjay is the complainant/injured in this case.
6. PW3 SI Dara Singh is the IO of the case. SI Dara Singh has deposed that on 27.03.2011, he was posted as SI at PS Jaitpur. On that day, after receiving the DD No. 40 A, regarding the quarrel at B Block, Sulabh Shauchalaya at Madanpur Khadar, Jaitpur, New Delhi, he alongwith Ct. Manoj reached at the spot. They came to know that the injured was shifted to the hospital through PCR. No eye witness met at the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Manoj reached at AIIMS Trauma Center. Complainant Sanjay and three others were found under treatment. He recorded the statement of complainant Sanjay which is Ex PW2/A. MLC was prepared but opinion about the nature of injury was not given by the concerned doctor.
FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 3 of 11
7. He has further deposed that on 06.04.2011, he collected the opinion on the MLC vide MLC No. 251706/2011 of injured Sanjay and three other MLC's of one Ismail and MLC of Dileep Kumar Singh. He prepared the site plan at the instance of complainant Sanjay which is Ex PW3/A.
8. He has further stated that case was registered on 06.04.2011. He arrested accused Tarak Paik, accused Nirmal @ Nimmo and Gopal on pointing out of complainant Sanjay. He prepared the arrest memos Ex PW3/B to Ex PW3/D. He recorded the statement of the witnesses. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet in the court for judicial verdict.
9. PW4 Rajender Singh is the record clerk who proved the MLC of the injured. The original transfer out form and MLC is Ex PW4/A and Ex PW4/B.
10. PW5 Ct. Manoj is the official who joined proceedings with the IO during arrest of accused.
11. During trial, Ld. counsel for accused submitted that the accused do not dispute genuineness of FIR (without contents). In view of the submissions examination of Duty Officer was dispensed with vide FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 4 of 11order dated 05.03.2014. PE was closed vide order dated 05.03.2014.
12. After PE, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C and their statement was recorded separately, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence against them. They did not lead DE in their defence. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
13. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of Ld. Defence Counsel and Ld. APP for the State.
14. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant and other prosecution witnesses have proved that the accused had voluntarily caused injury to the complainant by beating him. It is also argued on behalf of State that the testimony of prosecution witnesses leaves no doubt that the accused had committed the offences with which they have been charged.
15. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Ld. Counsel has also argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of eye witness which makes his testimony unreliable. Therefore, benefit of doubt may be given to accused and they may be acquitted.
FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 5 of 11
16. I have considered the submission of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the entire material on record.
17. The accused has been charged with offence u/s 325/34 IPC. 325 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
18. The perusal of testimony of prosecution witnesses would show that complainant/injured Sanjay and one Dalip Kumar Singh are the eye witnesses of the incident. The entire case of the prosecution is based on the statement of PW1 Dalip Kumar Singh and PW2 Sanjay.
19. PW1 Dalip Kumar Singh has deposed that on the day of incident, at about 8:45 pm he returned back to his house from his job and was going towards Public Convenience. Suddenly, some public persons were seen running from the spot. Some persons fell down upon each other and he tried to lift one of them. In the meantime, he sustained injuries on the finger of his right hand. He got medical treatment. He does not know what else happened in this case. Police took him to AIIMS Hospital.
20. The witness/ PW1 was declared hostile by the prosecution and during cross examination by the Ld APP for the State, he has denied that he was trying to stop the quarrel and during that proceedings, he FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 6 of 11sustained injuries in his finger. He has also denied that he has seen the accused persons at the spot.
21. Now, I will examine the evidence of complainant/injured Sanjay. Complainant/injured Sanjay has been examined as PW2.
22. PW2 Sanjay has deposed that on the day of incident, at about 8:00 pm, he was going to purchase some articles and when he reached near public convenience, JJ Colony, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi, suddenly three accused persons came and started giving him beatings. They were under influence of liquor.
23. The complainant has further deposed that he does not know the reason as to why they gave him beatings. The accused persons were having knife and dandas in their hands. One of them hit him on his head and he fell down and became unconscious. After beating him, accused persons went away from the spot. One of his neighbour named Ismail and Dalip tried to apprehend accused persons but the accused also caused injuries to them. Someone informed on number 100. After sometime, PCR van came at the spot and took him to the hospital. He came to know the name of the accused persons as Gopal, Nimol and Tarak. Police inquired him and recorded his statement vide memo Ex FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 7 of 11PW2/A.
24. The complainant has correctly identified all the three accused persons in the court.
25. Accused Tarak during his statement u/s 313 CrPC has taken defence that Sanjay was molesting his niece Monika after consuming alcohol, therefore Sanjay was beaten by him and others.
26. Accused Nirmal during his statement u/s 313 CrPC has stated that he had gone to the spot to save Gopal who was beaten by complainant Sanjay and during that process complainant had sustained injury.
27. Accused Gopal during his statement u/s 313 CrPC has stated that quarrel took place between him and Sanjay as Sanjay after consuming alcohol was abusing and molesting his younger sister Monika. He has further stated that Sanjay started beating him when he objected and Nirmal and Tarak Paik came to spot to save him during which Sanjay sustained injury.
28. The accused have admitted during their statement u/s 313 CrPC that the alleged incident of quarrel took place and the complainant had sustained injury. The accused had also admitted that complainant was FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 8 of 11beaten by them.
29. The accused have not examined any witness in their defence to the effect that Monika was allegedly molested by complainant Sanjay and therefore the quarrel started between the complainant and the accused persons.
30. Complainant/injured Sanjay during his examination has categorically stated that when he had gone to purchase articles, the three accused persons who were under influence of alcohol started beating him.
31. The complainant was cross examined at length by the defence counsel, however no material contradiction could be found in the statement of complainant Sanjay so as to make his statement unreliable.
32. The complainant has been immediately taken to AIIMS for his medical examination on the date of incident i.e 27.03.2011 and the MLC of Jai Prakash has been proved by PW4 Rajinder Singh. MLC of complainant is Ex PW4/B and alleged history of injury is mentioned as assault in the said MLC. The complainant has been taken to hospital at 22:45 on the same day. As per the MLC, the complainant had FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 9 of 11sustained grievous injury.
33. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the complainant is an interested witness and his testimony can not be relied upon to convict the accused, and another eye witness namely Dalip has not supported the case of prosecution.
34. I do not agree with the contention of Ld. Defence Counsel. Merely because eye witness Dalip has not supported the case of prosecution, it does not make testimony of complainant/injured unreliable. As per law, testimony of a single witness is sufficient to prove a fact if there are no reasons to disbelieve it. I do not find any contradiction in the testimony of the complainant to make his testimony untrustworthy.
35. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Tarak Paik, Nirmal and Gopal have voluntarily caused grievous injury to complainant Sanjay.
36. In view of discussion here in above, I hold that accused Tarak Paik, Nirmal and Gopal are guilty for offences punishable U/sec. 325/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Tarak Paik, Nirmal and Gopal are FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 10 of 11convicted for offences punishable U/sec. 325/34 IPC. Let the convicts be separately heard on the quantum of sentence. Copy of judgment be given Dasti.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neha)
today on 11th March, 2015 MM03 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
FIR No. 85 of 2011 State Vs. Tarak Paik & ORS.
PS Jaitpur Page No. 11 of 11