Delhi District Court
State vs Bunty @ Ramesh on 8 December, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE5, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 106/14 ID No. 02406R0212202011 FIR No. 137/11 PS. Neb Sarai U/s. 307/34 IPC State Versus 1. Bunty @ Ramesh S/o. Sh. Amar Singh R/o. C1372, JJ Colony Tigri New Delhi 2. Lalit @ Lugdi, S/o. Sh. Bhagwati Prasad R/o. E1St, 3rd Floor, JJ Colony Tigri New Delhi 3. Vikram @ Kallu S/o. Shri Pal, R/o. C47, Gali No. 10, Khanpur Extn. New Delhi. Date of Institution : 10.08.2011 Final arguments heard on : 02.12.2014 FIR No. 137/11 1/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr. Judgment pronounced on : 08.12.2014 Judgment : Convicted JUDGMENT
Prosecution version based on the statement of injured Vinod is as follows :
1. On 10.06.11, accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, came to injured Vinod and started fighting with injured alleging that injured has stolen the phone of one Harish. Injured expressed his ignorance about the phone of Harish but three accused persons manhandled the injured Vinod and threatened him that if he does not return the phone of Harish, he will be killed. On the same day, when Vinod was going out of his house in the evening, three accused persons namely Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, met Vinod and caught hold of him. Accused Bunty @ Ramesh and Vikram @ Kallu, caught the hands of Vinod and accused Lalit @ lugdi took out a knife from his pocket and assaulted Vinod with knife in his stomach 34 times and thereafter, all the three accused persons fled from the spot. Information about this incident was received in Police Station Neb Sarai through DD No. 21A and thereafter, SI Pushpender along with HC Nawal reached B807, JJ Colony, Tigri. No eye witness was found at the spot. Injured had been shifted to hospital. In the meanwhile, SI Pushpender through DD No. 24A came to know that Vinod has been admitted in Safdarjung FIR No. 137/11 2/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
Hospital with stab injuries. SI Pushpender left HC Naval at the spot and himself reached Safdarjung Hospital with HC Rambir and obtained MLC of injured Vinod. The concerned Doctor declared the patient unfit for statement. No eye witness was found in the hospital. Considering the circumstance of case and MLC, case u/s. 307 IPC was registered. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to SI Kamal Kishore. SI Kamal Kishore recorded the statement of Vinod u/s. 161 Cr.PC, after he was declared fit for statement.
2. On 14.06.11, SI Kamal Kishore got a secret information that accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, would come to their houses in night. Accordingly, SI Kamal Kishore along with staff apprehended all the three accused persons on 15.06.11 from Baba Ramdev Park. All the three accused persons admitted their guilt. Accused Lalit @ Lugdi, got recovered the knife used in the commission of crime from his house at E1st, Third Floor, JJ Colony. Tigri. The knife was seized by the Investigating Officer. In the meantime, injured Vinod also came at the spot and identified all the three accused persons as the same persons who caused severe injuries to him. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. All the three accused persons were charged u/s. 307 rw section 34 IPC on 19.11.11. Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well FIR No. 137/11 3/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
as Mr. Naushad Ali, Advocate for all the three accused person and carefully considered the rival submissions. Prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove the charge against accused persons. Statements of accused persons were recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC wherein accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the present case.
4. Mr. Naushad Ali, learned counsel for accused persons submitted that PW4 Hari Chand @ Harish, did not support the case of prosecution, that PW1 Vinod made improvements over his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC as in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC, he stated that he was caught hold of by two accused and was given knife injuries by third accused while in the Court he deposed that three accused persons caught hold of him while fourth one attacked him 34 times in his stomach and other parts of his body, that no complaint or 100 number call about first incident as mentioned by PW1 Vinod in his deposition was made nor any MLC regarding injuries suffered by PW1 Vinod in the first incident was prepared, that PW1 Vinod deposed that he was taken to hospital by the persons of locality while in the MLC it was mentioned the he was brought to the hospital by his wife Kavita, Kavita was not cited as prosecution witness nor she was examined as witness in the Court, that PW1 Vinod in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC stated that he was taken to hospital by Manu Bhaiya, that PW1 Vinod in cross examination deposed that after he was assaulted by accused FIR No. 137/11 4/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
persons, he made noise 'chor chor pakdo pakdo' and this shows that injuries was not caused by accused persons, that PW1 Vinod in cross examination deposed that he along with other persons had drinks from 1 pm to 4 pm, then how is it possible that accused Bunty and other persons caused injuries to him at 22.30 pm, that there is contradictions in the depositions of PW5 HC Satish and PW9 SI Kamal Kishore.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State on the other hand argued that improvement made by PW1 Vinod over his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC is not material and accused persons have been named by PW1 Vinod as the same persons who caught hold of PW1 Vinod while fourth one gave 34 knife blows in his stomach and other parts of his body. Learned Public Prosecutor for State submitted that even if one goes by the deposition of PW1 Vinod, all the three accused persons are liable u/s. 307 IPC and charge u/s. 307 IPC stands proved against all the accused persons with the aid of section 34 IPC.
6. PW1 Vinod is the star prosecution witness in this case as he is injured as well as complainant. PW1 Vinod deposed that on 10.06.11 he had a quarrel with accused persons namely Bunty (nick name Ramesh), Lalit (nick name Lugdi) and Vikram (nick name Kallu), Lugdi committed theft of one mobile belonging to Harish. Lugdi handed over that phone to Bunty, however, accused persons were blaming PW1 Vinod for the theft of that mobile phone and therefore they had a quarrel. PW1 Vinod further deposed that thereafter, in the FIR No. 137/11 5/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
evening accused persons caught hold of him while he was present at C Block and caused head injuries to him at about 22.30 pm. Bunty gave the stone blow on his head, Kallu gave danda blow to him, thereafter, all three accused gave beating to him and he was saved due to the intervention of other persons of locality and PW1 Vinod left for his home and slept. PW1 Vinod further deposed that at about 8 pm, he got up and left his home and when he was going towards the park, accused persons came over there, there was one more person along with them whose name PW1 does not know, these three accused persons (correctly identified by PW1 Vinod in the Court), caught hold of PW1 while the fourth person gave 34 knife blows in his stomach and other parts of body, PW1 Vinod was taken to hospital by persons of the locality.
7. PW1 Vinod was allowed to be cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor for the State as he was resiling from his previous statement and in cross examination by learned Public Prosecutor, PW1 Vinod denied the suggestion that he told the police that accused persons namely Bunty and Kallu caught his hands while accused Lalit gave knife blows to him. PW1 Vinod denied that he has mentioned in his statement Ex. PW1/A that he was stabbed by accused Lalit while two other accused persons caught hold of him. When PW1 Vinod was cross examined by learned counsel for accused Bunty, he deposed that has stated in his statement to police that he was given danda blows and FIR No. 137/11 6/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
stone blows. PW1 Vinod further deposed in cross examination that when accused persons caught hold of him, he did not make noise at that time and after the incident when accused started running, he made noise 'chor cohr pakdo pakdo'. PW1 Vinod deposed in cross examination that he could not see the knife when he was attacked with same. PW1 Vinod further deposed in cross examination that he did not know the person who had taken him to hospital, PW1 further stated in cross examination that he was drunk on the day of incident.
8. PW2 HC Om Prakash was posted as Duty Officer is PS Neb Sarai at the relevant time and recorded FIR in the present case and brought original FIR in the Court and proved the correct copy of FIR Ex. PW2/A.
9. PW4 Hari Singh @ Harish deposed that on 10.06.11, a quarrel took place between Vinod and other persons. PW4 Hari Singh @ Harish further deposed that he does not know who were other persons who gave beatings to Vinod and Kishan. PW4 Hari Singh @ Harish further deposed that after the quarrel, they left for their respective homes and in the quarrel he lost his phone. PW4 Hari Singh @ Harish was declared hostile and was allowed to be cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
10. Medical evidence is also on record. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani, Medical Officer, Department of Paediatric Surgery, Safdarjung Hospital, deposed that Vinod was brought to the hospital FIR No. 137/11 7/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
with the history of stab injury. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani further deposed that he (Vinod) has three stabbed wounds in left lower chest and one on the back of the left shoulder. The patient was attended by SR, Surgery, SR Anaesthesia and SR, Cardiothoracic Surgery. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani proved the MLC prepared by Dr. Rahul Upadhyay as Ex. PW6/A. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani, deposed that he has not seen Dr. Rahul Upadhyay signing any papers, but he can say that MLC is signed by him as PW6 had brought the MLC maintained in the hospital records which bears the signatures of Dr. Rahul Upadhyay and has been confirmed by PW6 in the office. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani, also deposed that he is verifying the signature of Dr. Rahul Upadhyay on the MLC Ex. PW6/A. In response to a Court question : PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani deposed that from the MLC, he cannot say exactly how many hours old the injury was, but it was definitely less than 24 hours. Responding to same Court question, PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani deposed that from his experience, he can say that if a patient in such a situation is left untreated for several hours, may be one day, it can lead to death. PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani further deposed that patient had definitely bled more than 2 liters i.e., more than 40 % of his blood volume ( and on an average it is 5 liters blood volume of an average adult) only then the blood pressure drops as low as 86/60 in a young adult. In response to another Court question, PW6 Dr. Narinder Teckchandani deposed FIR No. 137/11 8/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
that from the observations in the MLC, he has to say that the injuries were dangerous in nature.
11. PW5 HC Satish deposed that on 15.06.11, he joined the investigation of this case when accused persons viz. Bunty, Lalit and Vikram (correctly identified) were arrested by the Investigating Officer in his presence from Baba Ramdev Park, Tigri. PW5 HC Satish deposed that at the instance of accused Lalit, one knife was recovered from his room from beneath the mattress of his bed and memo to this effect Ex. PW5/G was prepared which bears the signature of PW5. PW5 HC Satish further deposed that sketch of knife was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide memo Ex. PW5/H. PW5 HC Satish further deposed that the knife was sealed with the seal of KK. PW5 HC Satish identified the knife in the Court. In cross examination, PW5 HC Satish deposed that he and other police officials reached Baba Ramdev Park on 11.25 pm. PW5 HC Satish further deposed in cross examination that all the three accused persons were sitting together on a chabutara. PW5 HC Satish deposed that he and other police officials left the park at about 2 pm and distance between Ramdev Park and the house of Lalit is about 100150 meters. PW5 HC Satish further deposed that he along with other police officials reached the house of Lalit at 1 am and no other family member of accused was present at that time.
12. PW7 SI Pushpinder proceeded to spot after receiving DD FIR No. 137/11 9/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
No. 21A, prepared the ruqqa Ex. PW7/A, sent the same through HC Nawal for registration of FIR. PW8 HC Nawal accompanied SI Pushpinder to the spot after receiving DD No. 21A, took the ruqqa Ex. PW7/A to Police Station for registration of FIR and after registration of FIR, handed over the copy of FIR to SI Pushpinder.
13. PW9 SI Kamal Kishore, second Investigating Officer in this case, inter alia deposed that on 12.06.11, investigation of this case was marked to him and on that day, he had gone to Safdarjung Hospital where injured Vinod was found admitted, Doctor on duty declared him to be fit for statement vide his endorsement Ex. PW9/A, PW9 SI Kamal Kishore recorded the statement of injured and tried to arrest accused persons namely Bunty, Vikram and Lalit, whose names were told by injured in his statement). PW9 SI Kamal Kishore further deposed that on 14.06.11, he along with HC Satish and Ct. Akhilesh and Raj Kumar, had gone to Baba Ramdev Park, Tigri for the purpose of investigation of this case as he had secret information about accused persons, at about 11.30 pm all the accused persons came inside the park, secret informer pointed out towards the accused persons and they are apprehended, accused persons were interrogated and were arrested on 1.30 am on 15.06.11. Accused Lalit disclosed that he can get the knife recovered from his house, accused Lalit took PW9 SI Kamal Kishore and other police officials to his house i.e, E1st, third floor, JJ Colony, Tigri, and got recovered knife under the mattress of his bed FIR No. 137/11 10/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
which was used in the offence. The knife was sealed in pulinda and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/G. PW9 SI Kamal Kishore identified the blade of knife Ex. P1 in the Court.
14. As has been discussed above, the person who suffered stab injury in this case namely PW1 Vinod, came in the witness box and deposed that accused Bunty, Kallu and Lugdi, caught hold of him while the fourth persons gave 34 knife blows in his stomach and other parts of body. PW1 Vinod also gave background of the crime committed in this case deposing that on the same day i.e, 10.06.11, at about 22.30 pm, he was given stone blows and danda blows by accused Bunty and Kallu blaming PW1 Vinod for the theft of mobile of Harish. All the three accused persons were clearly identified by PW1 Vinod in the Court as the same persons who caught hold of him while the fourth person gave 34 knife blows in his stomach and other parts of body. No doubt, PW1 Vinod in his statement given to Investigating Officer u/s. 161 Cr.PC has stated that accused Bunty and Kallu caught his hands while Lalit attacked with knife 34 times in his stomach. However, one should not forget that aforesaid statement of injured Vinod was recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC and obviously same was not signed by him. PW1 Vinod when being cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor categorically deposed that he did not mention in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC that he was stabbed by accused Lalit while other accused caught hold of him. There is strong likelihood that PW1 Vinod gave same FIR No. 137/11 11/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
version to Investigating Officer while giving his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC which he has given during his deposition before the Court but the Investigating Officer, for the reasons best known to him, recorded that two accused caught hold of PW1 Vinod while the third injured him. Therefore, there is improvement in the deposition of PW1 Vinod over his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC but it is not such a material improvement which will make PW1 Vinod an unreliable witness. One should not forget that PW1 Vinod received three stabbed wounds in left lower chest and one on the back of the left shoulder and he would not give false version to the Investigating Officer or before the Court about the number of assailants and names of assailants. PW1 Vinod is the injured in this case and he, by any stretch of imagination, can not be expected to implicate the wrong person for assault on him knowing fully well that by doing so, he will, infact, be protecting the real culprits. Accused persons have not been able to establish previous enmity between them and PW1 Vinod to make out a case of false implication. PW1 deposed in the Court what he saw and suffered at the spot and at relevant time. Some minor contradictions in the depositions of PW1 Vinod will not weaken the case of prosecution. In 2013 (IV) AD (S.C.) 416 - Lal Bahadur and Ors. Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of minor contradictions and inconsistencies held in para 19 as under :
" So far as the contradictions and inconsistencies in the FIR No. 137/11 12/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by the counsel for the Appellants, are concerned, we have gone through the entire evidence and found that the evidence of the witnesses cannot be brushed aside merely because of some minor contradictions, particularly for the reason that the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses are trustworthy. Not only that, the witnesses have consistently deposed with regard to the offence committed by the Appellants and their evidence remain unshaken during their cross examination. Mere marginal variation and contradiction in the statements of the witnesses cannot be a ground to discard the testimony of the eye witness who is none else but the widow of the one deceased. Further, relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a witness."
15. I find substance in the contention of learned Public Prosecutor that even if one goes by the testimony of PW1 Vinod that he was caught hold of by three accused persons namely Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, and stab injury was given to him by fourth unknown person, charge against accused persons u/s. 307 IPC stands proved with the aid of section 34 IPC. Three accused persons and fourth unknown person who gave stab injury to PW1 Vinod, had gone to the spot with a prearranged plan to cause injuries to PW1 Vinod and section 34 IPC which lays down that when criminal FIR No. 137/11 13/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone, is clearly applicable to the facts of the present case. In any case, the knife used in the commission of crime was recovered at the instance of one of the accused persons namely Lalit.
16. No doubt, PW4 Hari Chand @ Harish did not support the entire prosecution case, but, PW4 Hari Chand @ Harish deposed that on 10.06.11 a quarrel took place between Vinod and other persons. PW4 Hari Chand @ Harish has also deposed that in the quarrel PW4 lost his phone. Hence, PW4 HC Hari Chand @ Chand, corroborated the testimony of PW1 Vinod that on 10.06.11, a quarrel took place between PW1 Vinod and other persons and in the process PW4 Hari Chand @ Harish lost his phone. The contention raised by learned counsel for accused as to why no complaint or 100 number call was made when PW1 Vinod was assaulted by accused Bunty and Kishan on the same day at 22.30 pm was answered and clarified by PW1 Vinod in his cross examination by saying that injuries were minor. Not every person rushes to Police Station or to the Court after receiving minor injuries. PW1 Vinod also clarified that he did not visit hospital and took no treatment since injuries were minor.
17. Mr. Naushad Ali, Advocate for accused, sought to discredit PW1 Vinod with the assistance of MLC and submitted that PW1 Vinod in cross examination has deposed that he was taken to FIR No. 137/11 14/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
hospital by persons of locality while in the MLC it is mentioned that he was brought to the hospital by his wife Kavita. Learned Counsel for accused also referred to the statement of injured Vinod recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC wherein he has stated that he was taken to hospital by one Manu Bhaiya. It has been proved on record that PW1 Vinod received three stab injuries in his stomach. Any person who received three injuries in his stomach, described by the concerned doctor as dangerous, would not be in mentally and physically fit condition to recollect as to who took him to hospital after receiving injuries. Infact, PW1 Vinod deposed in cross examination that two persons took him to hospital but he cannot identify them as he was not in full senses. Obviously, after injuries being caused to PW1, his wife would have rushed to hospital and that is how name of wife of injured came in the MLC in the column of name of relative or friend. It is nowhere mentioned in the MLC that wife of injured Kavita brought injured in the hospital.
18. The next contention of leaned counsel for accused was that immediate reaction of injured after being stabbed was he raised noise 'chor chor pakdo pakdo'. Learned counsel for accused argued that when a person is stabbed in stomach, he will raise noise 'bacho bacho' and not 'chor chor pakdo pakdo'. As has been discussed above, accused had received grievous injuries in his stomach at the hands of accused persons. It has come in the deposition of PW1 Vinod that he was FIR No. 137/11 15/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
caught hold by three accused persons and was given 34 knife blows in his stomach and other parts of body by fourth person. In other words, injured hardly had any time to cry for help as he was caught hold by three accused persons and was stabbed by fourth person. The word 'chor chor pakdo pakdo' instantaneously and spontaneously came out of his mouth when he was all of a sudden assaulted by accused persons. Therefore, the argument that accused raise noise 'chor chor pakdo pakdo' and this shows that injuries was not caused by accused persons, has no leg to stand on.
19. PW1 Vinod deposed in cross examination that he, Manoj, Krishan and Kanhaiya had drinks together in the house of Manoj upto 4 pm. Learned Counsel for accused submitted that prosecution has not explained as to how Bunty and other persons caused injuries at 22.30 pm to PW 1 Vinod when injured was having drinks with some other persons till 4 pm. This controversy was resolved by PW1 Vinod when he volunteered to depose that Bunty, Lugdi and Harish had come there and Lugdi and Bunty had stolen the mobile of Harish on which the quarrel broke.
20. Learned counsel for accused heavily relied upon the contradictions in the depositions of PW5 HC Satish and PW9 SI Kamal Kishore submitting that PW5 HC Satish deposed that police officials reached at the park at 11.25 pm while PW9 SI Kamal Kishore deposed that he reached Baba Ramdev Park at 11.30 pm. PW5 HC FIR No. 137/11 16/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
Satish deposed that all the accused persons were sitting together at chabutra while PW9 SI Kamal Kishore deposed that at about 11.30 pm all the accused persons came inside the park. According to PW5 HC Satish the distance between Baba Ramdev Park and the house of Lalit is about 150 meters while the distance between Baba Ramdev Park and the house of accused Laliat as per the deposition of PW9 SI Kamal Kishore is 200300 meters. PW5 HC Satish deposed that when they reached the house of accused Lalit, no other family members of accused was present at that time while PW9 SI Kamal Kishore deposed that at the house of accused Lalit, he met one or two ladies. Learned counsel for accused also referred to the cross examination of PW5 HC Satish wherein he has deposed that he along with other police officials left the park at about 2 am and in the next line, PW5 deposed that they reached the house of accused Lalit at about 1 am.
21. The contradictions pointed out by learned counsel for accused in the depositions of PW5 HC Satish and PW9 SI Kamal Kishore, are minor contradictions which can be safely ignored. These inconsistencies do not make PW5 HC Satish and PW9 SI Kamal Kishore, unreliable witnesses. In any case, case of prosecution has been proved on the basis of oral evidence of injured supported by medical evidence. Accused persons cannot take any advantage of shortcoming in the investigation or discrepancies in the depositions of police officials. Accused persons cannot take any advantage from the lapse FIR No. 137/11 17/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
on the part of Investigating Agency and defective investigation on certain aspects of case. If a person accused of serious offence is acquitted merely because of negligence and lapse on the part of Investigating Officer, it will be a mockery of justice and judicial process. If the evidence adduced on record is sufficient to prove the charge against the accused persons, such lapses on the part of police will not advance the case of accused persons. In (2013) 10 SCC 192 - Hema Vs. State. Hon'ble Supreme Court held and observed in para 17 as under :
" Since, the Court has adverted to all the earlier decisions with regard to defective investigation and outcome of the same, it is useful to refer the dictum laid down in those case (Gajoo case, SCC pp. 54044 para 20).
"20. In regard to defective investigation, this Court in Dayal Singh vs. State of Uttranchal, while dealing with the cases of omissions and commissions by the investigating officer, and duty of the court in such case, held as under: (SCC pp. 28083, paras 2736).
'27, Now, we may advert to the duty of the court in such cases. In Sathi Prasad v. State of UP, this Court stated that it is well settled that if the police records become suspect and investigation perfunctory, it becomes the duty of the court to see if the evidence given in court should be relied upon and such lapse ignored. Noticing FIR No. 137/11 18/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
the possibility of investigation being designedly defective, this Court in Dhanraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, held (SCC p.657, para 5)' '5. In the case of a defective investigation the court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective".
28. Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the Court in Paras Yadav V. State of Bihar enunciated the principle, in conformity with the previous judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency, negligently or otherwise, the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand in the way of evaluating the evidence by the Courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party." The legal preposition laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely application to the present case. If the testimonies of PW1 Vinod and medical evidence in the form of MLC, is evaluated properly without taking into consideration the defects in the investigation and inconsistencies in the depositions of police witnesses, it can be safely concluded that accused persons, in furtherance of their FIR No. 137/11 19/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
common intention, gave knife blows in the stomach of PW1 Vinod causing grievous injuries to PW1 Vinod.
22. In other words, prosecution has successfully proved charge u/s. 307/34 IPC against accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, beyond reasonable doubt.
23. In view of the proved facts and the legal preposition discussed above, accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, are convicted under section 307/34 IPC.
Let the accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, be heard on the point of sentence.
Copy of this judgment be given to all accused persons immediately.
Announced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav) Additional Sessions Judge5 (South) Saket Courts, New Delhi/08.12.14 FIR No. 137/11 20/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE5, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 106/14 ID No. 02406R0212202011 FIR No. 137/11 PS. Neb Sarai U/s. 307/34 IPC State Versus
1. Bunty @ Ramesh S/o. Sh. Amar Singh R/o. C1372, JJ Colony Tigri New Delhi
2. Lalit @ Lugdi, S/o. Sh. Bhagwati Prasad R/o. E1St, 3rd Floor, JJ Colony Tigri New Delhi
3. Vikram @ Kallu S/o. Shri Pal, R/o. C47, Gali No. 10, Khanpur Extn.
New Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE 09.12.14 Pr. Public Prosecutor for State Convict Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu produced from j/c.
1. I have heard all the accused persons as well as learned Public FIR No. 137/11 21/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
Prosecutor for the State on the point of sentence. Accused Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, have been convicted u/s. 307 rw section 34 IPC vide judgment dt. 08.12.14. Convict Vikram @ Kallu submitted that he has three school going kids who are totally dependent on him. Convict Vikram @ Kallu further submitted that he spent 11 months and 28 days in custody during the trial of this case. Convict Vikram @ Kallu further submitted that after his release on bail in this case he has been working in BSES.
2. Convict Bunty @ Ramesh submitted that his father has died and he has an old mother to support who is dependent on him. Convict Bunty @ Ramesh further submitted that his brother is living separately from his mother. Convict Bunty @ Ramesh further submitted that he has got his left hand fractured in an accident and has spent two years in judicial custody in this case.
3. Convict Lalit @ Lugdi submitted that his father has died and he has an old mother to support and he has spent two years in judicial custody in this case.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that all the convicts have caused dangerous injuries to injured Vinod and hence convicts do not deserve any leniency.
5. Convict Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, have been held guilty of causing grievous injury in stomach of injured Vinod in furtherance of common intention of all of them. It has been FIR No. 137/11 22/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
proved during trial that all the three convicts caught hold of injured Vinod while the fourth unknown person gave three stabbed wounds in left lower chest and one on the back of the left shoulder of injured Vinod. Although the injuries suffered by injured Vinod were not caused by three convicts but their act of holding hands of injured Vinod facilitated the fourth unknown person in causing dangerous injury to injured Vinod.
6. After considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances, convict Bunty @ Ramesh, Lalit @ lugdi and Vikram @ Kallu, are sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years (5 years) each and fine of Rs. 5,000/ each. In default, convicts will further undergo simple imprisonment for one year (1 year). Out of the fine of Rs. 15,000/ (in total), Rs. 10,000/ shall be paid as compensation to injured Vinod. Fine of Rs. 5,000/ has been imposed on each accused persons, keeping in view their socio economy condition. However, the Court is of the considered opinion that compensation awarded u/s. 357 Cr.PC to injured Vinod is not adequate. Accordingly, a recommendation is made to District Legal Service Authority, Delhi, (South), u/s. 357A Cr.PC, for compensation to the injured Vinod. Injured Vinod be informed about this order through IO.
Copy of this order as well as judgment dt. 08.12.14, be supplied to all the three convicts immediately, free of cost. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Superintendent, Jail, Tihar. FIR No. 137/11 23/24 St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.
Copy of this order be sent to District Legal Service Authority, Delhi (South).
Benefit of section 428 Cr.PC is extended to all the convicts. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav)
Additional Sessions Judge5 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi/09.12.14
FIR No. 137/11 24/24
St. Vs. Bunty & Anr.