Delhi District Court
State vs . Satpal & Ors. on 12 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Satpal & Ors.
FIR No. 1343/96.
U/s. 323/324/325/506/34 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
a) The sl. no. of the case : 269/02.
b) The Unique ID No. of the case : 02401R0048271997.
c) The date of commission of the : 19/12/1996.
offence
d) The date of institution of case : 14/02/1997.
e) The name of the complainant : Sh. Shyam Kumar S/o
Sh. Vishwa Nath
f) The name & address of accused : 1. Satbir Singh and
2. Satpal Singh both S/o Sh. Sharwan Singh, : R/o S1069, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
: 3. Maharaj Singh S/o Sh. Sardar Singh, R/o S1068, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
: 4. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Anjor, R/o S1048, Mangol Puri, Delhi.
FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 1
g) The offence complained of : U/s. 323/324/325/506/34 IPC.
h) The plea of the accused : pleaded not guilty.
i) The date of reserving the order : 19/08/2011..
j) The final order : Convicted U/s. 323/324/506/34
IPC.
Acquitted U/s. 325/34 IPC.
k) The date of such order : 12/09/2011.
THE BRIEF REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT :
1. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19/12/1996 at about 10:30 am, at H. No. 1066, Mangol Puri, Delhi, accused Satbir, Raj Kumar, Satpal and Maharaj Singh, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily gave beatings with dandas and bricks to Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar, Shyam Kumar, Jitender and Santosh and also caused sharp injury by daranti (sickle) on the person of Shyam Kumar and Raj Kumar, both S/o Sh. Vishwa Nath and also criminally intimidated all of them by threatening them with dire consequences. The complaint was made to the police and after investigation, the challan was filed by the police.
FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 2
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused persons and after hearing arguments, charge was framed against all the accused persons for trial of offence U/s. 323/324/325/506/34 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution in its case examined nine witnesses in total. PW.1 Ram Kumar, PW2 Raj Kumar, PW3 Shyam Kumar, PW5 Jitender and PW6 Santosh are the injured persons and witness to the incident. PW.4 is WASI Somna, Duty Officer, who has proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW4/A. PW.6 is J.C. Vashisth, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital, who has proved the MLC No. 11412 Ex. PW6/A of injured Shyam Kumar, MLC No. 11413 Ex. PW6/B of injured Raj Kumar, MLC No. 11414 Ex. PW6/C of injured Santosh, MLC No. 11415 Ex. PW6/D of injured Jitender and MLC No. 11410 Ex. PW6/E of injured Ram Kumar. PW.8 is IO HC Bachu Singh, who on receipt of DD No. 14A, Ex. PW8/A alongwith Constable Hawa Singh reached at the spot and has proved endorsement on rukka Ex. PW8/B, prepared site plan vide Ex. PW8/C, personal search of accused Maharaj Singh vide Ex. PW8/D, personal search of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju vide Ex. FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 3 PWX3/PX1, disclosure statement of accused Raj Kumar Ex. PW3/PX4, seizure of recovered sickle (darati) vide memo Ex. PW3/PX3, personal search of accused Satpal vide Ex. PW3/PX2 and also identified the case property in court vide Ex. P1. PW.9 is ASI Mool Chand, MHC(M), who has proved the relevant entry in Register No. 19 vide Ex. PW9/A regarding depositing of case property in PS Malkhana.
4. Statement of accused persons was recorded separately U/s. 313 CrPC, wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication in this case. They wished to lead D.E., and examined DW1 Om Prakash, DW2 Amar Singh and DW3 Phool Singh in support of their defence evidence.
5. I have heard arguments from Ld. APP for State, Ld. Defence Counsel for accused persons and also gone through the evidence and documents on record carefully.
6. To prove the offence U/s. 323/324/325/506/34 IPC, the prosecution has to prove that all the accused persons have committed the above alleged offences. FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 4
The prosecution has examined five witnesses to the incident viz., PW1 Ram Kumar, PW2 Raj Kumar, PW3 Shyam Kumar, PW5 Jitender and PW7 Santosh. Whereas, PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 are brothers, PW7 is the friend of PW5. The PWs have deposed about the beatings given by the accused persons to them in the morning of 19/12/1996 with a sharp edged weapon (daranti - used for cutting sugarcane), bricks, dandas, fist blows and kicks. The witnesses have deposed that the accused persons did so when the accused persons were asked why they had beaten PW3 Shyam Kumar on the previous day i.e. 18/12/1996. As per PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5, there was a previous altercation on 18/12/1996 between the parties because the accused persons had broken the iron frame/bridge put over the nali (open sewage water stream) running across street so that the vehicles could not enter inside the street by passing over the iron frame. This was the street in which the complainants were residing.
PW1 Ram Kumar deposed that accused Raju and Satpal had pharsa and lathi with them, with which they attacked his brother Raj Kumar. He deposed that he was beaten by the accused persons with dandas and bricks FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 5 and he sustained injuries on his teeth, forehead and back and he was bleeding from his mouth. PW1 identified the accused persons in the court and deposed that the accused persons told that they were the dada (goons) of the area they will kill them.
PW2 Raj Kumar similarly deposed that accused Raju had one pharsa type weapon (which is used for cutting sugarcane), with which he attacked him on the back of his right shoulder. He deposed that rest of the accused persons had dandas and bricks, with which they assaulted and injured him and his brothers Shyam Kumar and Ram Kumar. He deposed that he also sustained minor injury on his head which was stitched at DDU hospital. PW2 also identified the accused persons in the court and deposed that the accused persons threatened to kill them.
PW3 Shyam Kumar deposed that on 19/12/1996 accused Raju, Satpal, Satpal and Amar Singh (?) entered in his house in which his brother Ram Kumar and Raj Kumar were also present and the accused attacked them with a pharsa which hit upon Raj Kumar. He deposed that thereafter the FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 6 accused persons gave fist blows to his brother Ram Kumar and his teeth were dislocated, whereas, he sustained injury on his head. PW3 Shyam Kumar was a bit incoherent in his examination in chief and did not give the essential details of the incident due to which he was cross examination by Ld. APP. In his cross examination by Ld. APP, he admitted all the suggestions put to him about the incident as correct and identified the accused persons present in the court. PW3 also admitted that accused Raju brought a daranti (instrument used to cut sugarcane) and caused injury to his brother Raj Kumar and waved the daranti in the air and threatened to kill them in case they tried to face him in future. PW3 proved his statement given to the police Ex. PW3/A. He identified the daranti in the court as Ex. P1 and deposed that it was used by accused Raju to cause injury to Raj Kumar.
PW5 Jitender deposed that on 19/12/1996 at about 10:30 AM he was playing with his friend PW7 Santosh in the street and he saw accused Maharaj Singh, Satbir, Satpal and Raj Kumar started beating his three elder brothers namely Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar and Shyam Kumar when his brothers asked accused Raj Kumar why had he beaten Shyam Kumar on the FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 7 previous night. He deposed that he saw accused Raju hitting Raj Kumar on the back with a sickle (daranti - used to cut sugarcane). He deposed that his brother Ram Kumar sustained injury on his left hand and mouth, whereas, his brother Shyam Kumar sustained injury on his head. He deposed that he was also beaten by the accused persons when he tried to intervene in the fight. He deposed that he was pushed by the accused persons and was attacked by accused Satbir who threw a half brick at him which hit him on his left ear. He also identified all the accused persons in the court.
PW7 Santosh deposed that on 19/12/1996 he was playing in gali with his friend PW5 Jitender. He deposed that at about 10:30 AM he saw accused Raj Kumar giving blow on the shoulder of Raj Kumar with a kulhari (instrument used to cut sugarcane). He deposed that 45 other associates of accused Raju also came there and attacked and injured him, Jitender and the brothers of Jitender. He deposed that one of the accused gave stone blow on his head. He also identified the accused persons in the court and deposed that at the time of incident, accused Raju threatened to kill them if they quarreled with him.
FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 8
7. All of the above said PWs deposed that they were taken to DDU Hospital after the incident and were medically examined there.
8. Ld. counsel for the accused persons has argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the eye witnesses/injured persons, which discredit the prosecution case. He has argued that PW1, PW2 and PW3 have not even mentioned about the presence of PW5 and PW7 at the spot. He argued that some PWs deposed that accused Raj Kumar used pharsa, while others deposed that it was a kulhari, although, as per prosecution case accused Raj Kumar used daranti to cause injuries. He argued that the depositions of the PWs are not congruous and do not match with each other regarding the inception and sequence of events, which took place on 19/12/1996, and the number of persons who quarreled with the PWs. He further argued that the alleged injuries, sustained by the PWs were not proved by the doctors examining them, due to which the injuries sustained by the PWs are not proved. Moreover, as per all the above said PWs, the weapon of offence (daranti) was not recovered by the police in their presence. FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 9
9. Per contra, Ld. APP has argued that this case pertains to incident dated 19/12/1996, whereas, the examination of PWs commenced in June 2003, i.e. around 6 ½ years after the registration of the case. Ld. APP has argued that all the PWs have deposed about the essence of the incident; they have clearly mentioned the role of the accused persons regarding infliction of injuries, the weapon used by the accused persons and the nature of the injuries sustained by them. Ld. APP has explained that human memory is subject to gradual decay with lapse of time and the witnesses are generally able to depose about the essence of the incident witnessed by them, although they may not be able to recall the each fine detail of the incident.
Indeed, PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have deposed about the encounter with the accused persons. In the sudden street fight between several persons from both sides, the sequence of the time when each accused and each victim joined the fight may not be recalled by the witnesses. The important question is which party is the aggressor and whether the witnesses were actually present at the spot at the time of incident. The prosecution witnesses deposed that the accused persons were the aggressors, to which FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 10 deposition there is no cross examination by the accused persons, neither have the accused persons questioned about the presence of the above said PWs at the spot.
The mentioning of daranti as pharsa by PW1 and PW2 and as kulhari by PW7 was sufficiently explained when it was mentioned in the brackets next to the word pharsa and kulhari that it was an instrument used to cut sugarcane. This is the precise use of a daranti (sickle). Thus, the variance in terminology has been sufficiently explained in the depositions of PWs.
10.The weapon of offence i.e. daranti (sickle) may have not been recovered by the police in the presence of the injured persons but this fact does not avail the accused persons because the PWs /injured persons have deposed about the weapon of offence used by the accused persons. Moreover, PW3/complainant Shyam Kumar had also identified the seized daranti in the court as the one which accused Raju use to injure him. The daranti is Ex. P1.
Upon close analysis of the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 11 PW7, I am of the opinion that the inter se contradictions and slight incoherence in the testimonies of the said PWs are not such as to discredit the prosecution version of the events.
11. In proof of police proceedings, PW8 IO HC Bachu Singh, deposed that on 19/12/1996 on receipt of DD No. 14A regarding quarrel, he alongwith Ct. Hawa Singh reached at the place of incident i.e. opposite S1069, Mangol Puri, Delhi where he came to know that the injured had already been taken to DDU Hospital by PCR van and he alongwith Ct. Hawa Singh reached at DDU Hospital and collected the MLC of Shyam Kumar, Raj Kumar, Santosh and Jitender and recorded the statement Ex. PW3/A of Shyam Kumar. He deposed that he prepared rukka and got the case registered through Ct. Hawa Singh. He further deposed that he alongwith complainant Shyam Kumar reached at the spot and prepared site plan on his instance and also recorded the statement of witnesses. He further deposed that accused Maharaj Singh was arrested from his house at the instance of Shyam Kumar and his personal search was conducted. He further deposed that he also searched for other accused persons but all in vain. PW8 further deposed that on 20/12/1996 the FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 12 complainant Shyam Kumar told him that accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was present at his house and at his instance he arrested the accused Raju from his house No. 10471048, Mangol Puri. He further deposed that the disclosure statement Ex. PW3/PX4 of accused Raj Kumar @ Raju was recorded in which he stated that he could get recovered the weapon of offence (daranti) from his house. He further deposed that the daranti was recovered from the taand (a projection between ceiling and floor of the room on which the household articles are kept) of the house of accused Raju. He deposed that accused Satpal was apprehended from his house at the instance of complainant Shyam Kumar, who was interrogated and arrested. He further deposed that the statement of witnesses was recorded and the case property was deposited in malkhana. He further deposed that on 04/01/1997 accused Satbir was formally arrested and was released on bail by the order of Ld. ASJ. He further deposed that he deposited the MLC for taking the opinion of doctor. He deposed that the doctor had opined the nature of injuries as grievous on the MLC of Ram Kumar and then he added the section 325 IPC. PW8 correctly identified the accused persons as well as case property i.e. daranti Ex. P1 in court. The cross examination of PW8 by Ld. defence FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 13 counsel did not yield anything in favour of the accused.
PW1, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW7 were taken to DDU Hospital after the incident and were medically examined there. PW Ram Kumar and PW Jitender were medically examined by Dr. Pradeep. PW Raj Kumar and PW Santosh were medically examined by Dr. Rekha Anand. PW Shyam Kumar was medically examined by Dr. Rajnish Gulati. The said doctors were unavailable at the time of the trial and their handwriting and signature on MLC of Shyam Kumar (Ex. PW6/A), MLC of Raj Kumar (Ex. PW6/B), MLC of Santosh (Ex. PW6/C), MLC of Jitender (Ex. PW6/D) and MLC of Ram Kumar (Ex. PW6/E) were identified by J.C. Vashisth, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital. PW6 deposed that he had seen the above said doctors writing and signing during the official course of his duty. The MLC Ex. PW6/E of patient Ram Kumar describes that he was diagnosed for bleeding from nose and CLW on right hand. The MLC Ex. PW6/D of patient Jitender describes that he was diagnosed for a small CLW over back of right ear. The MLC Ex. PW6/B of patient Raj Kumar describes that he was diagnosed for clean cut on the back of right scapula (shoulder blade) - 2cm long, and clean cut just FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 14 below right scapula - 3cm long. The MLC Ex. PW6/A of patient Shyam Kumar describes that he was diagnosed for CIW ( clean incised wound ) over lower neck below occipital region. The MLC Ex. PW6/C of patient Santosh describes that he was diagnosed for CLW on left side of forehead, bleeding present. The injuries described by the PWs matches with the nature of injuries for which they were examined in DDU Hospital immediately after the incident, with the exception of PW5 Jitender, who deposed that he received injury behind left ear, although, as per MLC Ex. PW6/D, he was diagnosed with CLW behind right ear. Thus, the injuries described by the PWs substantially match with the locus and nature of injuries mentioned in the MLCs Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/E.
12.A glance at the depositions of DW1 Om Prakash, DW2 Amar Singh and DW3 Phool Singh would show that their testimonies are but an after thought, tutored by the accused persons. The depositions of DWs pertain to the alibi that the accused Maharaj Singh and Satbir did not visit the spot of incident on the day of incident. DW1, surprisingly exhibited exemplary feat of memory regarding as routine and as mundane events as standing in the ration queue FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 15 with accused Maharaj Singh from 8:30 am to 11:15 am on 19/12/1996, although, he was examined in the court on 23/07/2011. In the cross examination by Ld. APP, DW1 answered that he knew it was 19/12/1996 because accused Maharaj Singh was also standing in the queue alongwith him at the ration shop. Merely standing together in a ration queue cannot be a reason to remember a date and time which are fifteen years in distance from the date of deposition.
DW2 Amar Singh only deposes about meeting accused Satbir at 8:00 am on 19/12/1996. He deposed that thereafter, accused Satbir went to Shivaji college, whereas he himself went to his shop. Thus, DW2 cannot be a witness to the whereabouts of accused Satbir at the time of incident, which occurred at 10:30 am on 19/12/1996.
DW3 Phool Singh deposed that on 19/12/1996 he had not seen the alleged incident taking place. He deposed that there was no fight between the accused persons and the complainant. DW3 gives no reason as to how he could have witnessed an incident, if it had taken place between the accused FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 16 persons and the injured persons/complainants. The testimony of DW3 is incoherent and does not help the defence of accused persons in any manner.
Accused Satbir and Maharaj Singh did not take any specific alibi in their statement recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. From the above mentioned analysis of the defence evidence, it is apparent that the defence led by accused Satbir and Maharaj Singh is an after thought and unworthy of credit.
13.Hence, in view of the above observation and discussion and the evidence on record, in my opinion, the prosecution has successfully proved its case against all the accused persons beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt that on 19/12/1996 at about 10:30 am, at H. No. 1066, Mangol Puri, Delhi, accused Satbir, Raj Kumar, Satpal and Maharaj Singh, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily gave beatings with dandas and bricks to Ram Kumar, Raj Kumar, Shyam Kumar, Jitender and Santosh and also caused sharp injury by daranti (sickle) on the person of Shyam Kumar and Raj Kumar, both S/o Sh. Vishwa Nath and also criminally intimidated all of them by threatening them with dire consequences. Since, FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 17 the doctors who examined the injured persons, did not appear to depose in the court, the grievous hurt to the injured persons has not been proved, although, the hurt caused to the injured persons is apparent from the MLCs Ex. PW6/A to Ex. PW6/E, all the accused persons are acquitted of the offence U/s. 325/34 IPC. I hereby hold all the accused persons guilty for the offence U/s. 323/324/506/34 IPC and convict them accordingly. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 12/09/2011. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 + 1) Delhi
FIR No. 1343/96
PS Mangol Puri 18
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH : MM : DELHI
State Vs. Satpal & Ors.
FIR No. 1343/96.
U/s. 323/324/506/34 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Ld APP for State.
All four accused/convicted persons are present on bail with
Counsel.
I have heard arguments on the point of sentence from the Ld. APP for State and the Ld. defence counsel for the accused persons. It is stated on behalf of all the accused persons that they are facing trial for the last 15 years. It is further stated that there is no record of any previous conviction against the accused persons. It is further stated that they are the only bread earner of their families. It is prayed that a lenient view may kindly be taken by the court.
On the other hand, it is stated by Ld. APP that the only fact that it is an old case does not entitle the convict persons for any lenient view. It is further stated by Ld. APP that convict persons deserve maximum punishment. FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 19
It is true on the one hand that there is no record of previous conviction against the accused persons and they are facing trial since 1996, but on the other hand, the accused persons have voluntarily given beatings with dandas and bricks to the injured persons and caused sharp injury by daranti (sickle) on the persons of Shyam Kumar and Raj Kumar and also criminally intimidated them by threatening them with dire consequences. Hence, keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by the counsel for accused persons, I hereby sentence all the accused persons for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 323 IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 324 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each i.d. to undergo three months simple imprisonment each. Further, they are sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 506 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each i.d. to undergo six months simple imprisonment each. All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convicted persons and any previous imprisonment suffered by them in this case shall be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to them. Fine paid. File be consigned to Record Room.
Copy of Judgment and order on sentence be provided to the convicted persons free of cost.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON 17/09/2011. (VISHAL SINGH)
Metropolitan Magistrate
(Copies 1 +1) Delhi
FIR No. 1343/96
PS Mangol Puri 20
State Vs. Satpal & Ors.
FIR No. 1343/96.
U/s. 323/324/506/34 IPC.
PS Mangol Puri, Delhi.
17/09/2011
Pr. Ld. APP for State.
All accused/convicted persons are present on bail with their respective counsels.
Heard. Vide separate order on sentence announced in the open court all the accused persons for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 323 IPC, two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 324 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each i.d. to undergo three months simple imprisonment each. Further, they are sentenced for a period of three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence U/s. 506 IPC and further to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ each i.d. to undergo six months simple imprisonment each. All the sentences shall run concurrently and benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convicted persons and any previous imprisonment suffered by them in this case shall be set off against the substantive period of imprisonment awarded to them. Fine paid. File be consigned to Record Room.
At this stage, the convicted persons have moved separate applications U/s. 389 CrPC and submit that they intend to appeal against the sentence passed against them by this court and seek interim bail till the filing of appeal. The convicted persons were on bail during the trial. In view of FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 21 submissions made, the convicted persons are admitted to bail U/s. 389 (3) CrPC on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 20,000/ each with one surety to the like amount each. BB furnished and accepted till one month. File be consigned to Record Room.
BB of convicted persons be put up on 17/10/2011 at 2:00 pm. MM:DELHI 17/09/2011 FIR No. 1343/96 PS Mangol Puri 22