Delhi District Court
State vs 1.Afsar S/O Mohd. Asgar on 28 February, 2015
Sessions Case No. 77/14
FIR No. 183/12
State Vs 1.Afsar s/o Mohd. Asgar
2.Jabir Ali s/o Sabir
3.Babu s/o Meer Hussain
4.Nafis Khan s/o Meer Hussain
Police Station Delhi Cantt.
Under Section 308/ 323/ 34 IPC
28.02.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Accused are on bail.
File perused, vide separate detailed judgment placed along side
in the file, I convict the accused persons for the offences u/s 308/ 34
and 323/ 34 IPC.
Accused persons are taken into custody and sent to JC.
Now, case be fixed for order on sentence for 04.03.2015.
(Raj Kapoor)
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI
FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc
PS Delhi Cantt.
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJ KAPOOR, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE (03) , PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Sessions Case No. 77/14
FIR No. 183/12
State Vs 1.Afsar s/o Mohd. Asgar
2.Jabir Ali s/o Sabir
3.Babu s/o Meer Hussain
4.Nafis Khan s/o Meer Hussain
Police Station Delhi Cantt.
Under Section 308/ 323/ 34 IPC
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
04.03.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Ld. counsel for convict persons.
ld. APP submits that offence of such types are increasing day
by day. Accused persons have been convicted for the offences
punishable u/s 308 and 323 /34 IPC . On these grounds ld. APP
submits that convict persons deserve maximum punishment.
Contrary to it, ld. Counsel Sh. Surender Bharti for convict
persons submits that convict Afsar is aged about 23 years old
having wife, one infant child of four months besides mother and father.
He is a very poor person. He is the only bread earner in his family.
Ld. counsel again submits that accused is neither involved in any
other case nor facing trial nor previous convict. He has clear
antecedents. On these grounds ld. counsel for convict prays for
release of convict on probation of good conduct taking lenient view at
the time of awarding the sentence.
ld. Counsel for convict persons again submits that convict
Jabir is aged about 22 years old. He is working labour work and
looking after his mother and father who are dependent upon him. He
FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc
PS Delhi Cantt.
2
is a very poor person. He is the only bread earner in his family. Ld.
counsel again submits that accused is neither involved in any other
case nor facing trial nor previous convict. He has clear antecedents.
On these grounds ld. counsel for convict prays for release of convict
on probation of good conduct taking lenient view at the time of
awarding the sentence.
ld. Counsel Sh. Surender Bharti further submits that convict
Babu is aged about 30 years old He is doing labour work. He is a
very poor person. He is the only bread earner in his family. Ld.
counsel again submits that accused is neither involved in any other
case nor facing trial nor previous convict. He has clear antecedents.
On these grounds ld. counsel for convict prays for release of convict
on probation of good conduct taking lenient view at the time of
awarding the sentence.
ld. Counsel Sh. Surender Bharti again submits that convict
Nafis is aged about 22 years old. He is working as labourer. He has
wife and two small children besides mother and father. He is a very
poor person. He is the only bread earner in his family. Ld. counsel
again submits that accused is neither involved in any other case nor
facing trial nor previous convict. He has clear antecedents. On these
grounds ld. counsel for convict prays for release of convict on
probation of good conduct taking lenient view at the time of awarding
the sentence.
Having given careful consideration to the submissions of ld.
Counsel for the convict persons and ld. APP as well. Since, convict
persons have clear antecedents and they are not involved in any other
FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc
PS Delhi Cantt.
3
previous criminal case. In light of these facts and circumstances of the
case I am of the view that it is a fit case to release the convict persons
on probation of good conduct on furnishing personal bond in the sum of
Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount for three years
subject to the condition that they shall pay Rs.20,000/ each as
compensation, which is to be paid to the victims. Rs.65,000/ shall be
paid to injured Ravinder, who received grievous injury and Rs.5000/
each shall be paid to the other victims, who received simple injuries.
Accordingly, convict persons namely Afsar,
Jabir, Babu and Nafis Khan are released on
probation of good conduct on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one
surety in the like amount for three years subject
to the condition that they shall pay Rs.20,000/
each as compensation, which is to be paid to the
victims. Rs.65,000/ shall be paid to injured
Ravinder, who received grievous injury and
Rs.5000/ each shall be paid to the other victims,
who received simple injuries.
File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN
COURT ON THIS 04.03.2015
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS\
NEW DELHI
FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc
PS Delhi Cantt.
4
Sessions Case No. 77/14
FIR No. 183/12
State Vs 1.Afsar s/o Mohd. Asgar
2.Jabir Ali s/o Sabir
3.Babu s/o Meer Hussain
4.Nafis Khan s/o Meer Hussain
Police Station Delhi Cantt.
Under Section 308/ 323/ 34 IPC
04.03.2015
Pre: Ld. APP for the state.
Ld. counsel for convict persons.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard, vide separate
detailed order placed along side in the file, convict persons namely
Afsar, Jabir, Babu and Nafis Khan are released on probation of good
conduct on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each
with one surety in the like amount for three years subject to the
condition that they shall pay Rs.20,000/- each as compensation, which
is to be paid to the victims. Rs.65,000/- shall be paid to injured
Ravinder, who received grievous injury and Rs.5000/- each shall be
paid to the other victims, who received simple injuries.
At this stage, ld. Counsel seeks time to deposit the
compensation amount. Heard. Time granted. Now, file be put up on
07.03.2015.
(RAJ KAPOOR)
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-03
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS\
NEW DELHI
FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc
PS Delhi Cantt.
5
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KAPOOR: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE-03 /PHC / NEW DELHI.
Sessions Case No. 77/14
Assigned to Sessions. 13.02.2014
Arguments heard on 26.02.2015
Date of order 28.02.2015
FIR No. 183/12
State Vs 1.Afsar s/o Mohd. Asgar
2.Jabir Ali s/o Sabir
3.Babu s/o Meer Hussain
4.Nafis Khan s/o Meer Hussain
all are r/o Village Mohraka, PS
Gajroula, Distt. Amroha, U.P.
Police Station Delhi Cantt.
Under Section 308/ 323/ 34 IPC
JUDGEMENT
1. Briefly facts of the case are that on 03.08.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. at Sub-way, Dhaula Kuan accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous injury to Ravinder with Lathi and Danda on his head with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they cause the death of victim Ravinder they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Besides, on the same date, time and place, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused simple injuries on the persons of Rakesh, Nand Ram and Kailash with lathi and danda. Accordingly, accused persons were arrested and booked for the offences u/s 308/323/34 IPC. FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
6
2. This case was committed to this Court and was received on 13.02.2014 for trial as it pertains to the henious crime committed under sections 308/ 323/ 34 IPC which is exclusively triable by court of Sessions. A charge for the offences punishable u/s 308/ 323/ 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 13.02.2014 to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, prosecution has examined 14 witnesses namely PW1 Rakesh Kumar - victim; PW2 Ravinder - another victim who received grievous injuries; PW3 Dr. Shikha Chaddha; PW4 Nand Ram - victim as well as eye witness to the incident; PW5 Kailash
- another injured; PW6 SI Vijay Pal Singh - IO of the case; PW7 SI Suraj Bhan - duty officer; PW8 HC Ved Prakash - he accompanied the IO; PW9 Dr. Loveneesh Kumar, EMO, Govt. Medical College, Chandigarh; PW10 Ct. Joginder - he visited the spot and hospital on 03.08.2012 along with HC Ved Prakash; PW11 Mahender Kumar - formal witness being DD writer on 03.08.2012; PW12 Dr. Manoj Kumar, Medical Officer; PW13 HC Jai Veer - he accompanied the IO on 04.08.2012 and he is the witness with regard to the recovery of 4 dandas at the instance of accused persons; and PW14 HC Munni Ram - formal witness being MHCM at police station Delhi Cantt. on 04.08.2012.
4. PW1 Rakesh Kumar is the most material witness in this case being one of the victims. He appeared in the witness box and FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
7categorically deposed that on 03.08.2012 in the morning hours he was present near Dhaula Kuan Sub-way Ring Road at about 7-8 a.m. since he had to go to the toilet. He had a verbal altercation with accused persons on the issue of going toilet. He further deposed that on the same day in the evening hours at about 4:30 pm accused persons encircled him near the sub-way Ring Road and told that why he was behaving like dada of the area and all you accused persons had beaten him with dandas. This witness sustained injuries on his whole body. In between, somebody informed at Rakesh Kumar's house that he was being beaten by accused persons and thereafter, Rakesh's brother Ravinder, chacha Nand Ram and cousin brother Kailash reached the spot and accused persons had also beaten them and they suffered injuries. Thereafter, Rakesh was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by a Govt. Ambulance where he was admitted. This witness further stated that 4 danda were got recovered at the instance of accused persons from 6 no. railway crossing and same were taken into possession vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D. Accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/E1, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/F1, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/G1, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/H1. The Site plan of the place of incident is Ex.PW1/J and the site plan Ex.PW1/K showing the place of recovery of dandas was also prepared at the pointing out of Rakesh Kumar. The dandas were also identified by Rakesh Kumar and were Ex.P1 to FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
8Ex.P4. This witness further testified that accused Jabir had given danda blow on the head of Nand Ram and when Kailash tried to apprehend accused Jabir then accused Nafis gave danda blow on the person of Kailash and when Ravinder tried to save Kailash and Nand Ram then accused Afsar tried to catch hold of Ravinder and accused Babu gave danda blows on the head of Ravinder and all accused persons had run away from the spot after giving beatings. This witness has been cross-examined at length by the defence counsel. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
5. PW2 Ravinder appeared in the witness box and deposed that he was a labourer at Dhaula Kuan and on 03.08.2012, at about 4:30pm, he was present in his jhuggi. One friend of his brother came to jhuggi and told that his brother Rakesh was being beaten up by accused persons near Dhaula Kuan, Sub-way Ring Road and thereafter, he along with his chacha Nand Ram and brother Kailash also reached there. This witness identified all accused persons correctly This witness further deposed that when Ravinder tried to intervene in the quarrel he was beaten by somebody amongst all accused persons from behind and his brother Kailash and chacha Nand Ram were also beaten up by the accused persons. He testified that he had become unconscious and was taken to hospital by Ambulance. Thereafter, police met Ravinder and recorded his FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
9statement Ex.PW2/A and had also took his thumb impression on arrest memos of all accused persons vide Ex.PW1/E to Ex.PW1/H at point B. This witness further deposed that all the accused persons are already known to him as they used to work near the railway line. This witness correctly identified the accused persons and revealed their name as Afsar, Babu, Nafis and Jabir.
6. PW3 Dr. Shikha Chaddha came to the witness box and deposed that she had examined Nand Ram and Kailash vide MLCs exhibited as Ex.PW3/A and Ex.PW3/B who were brought in hospital with the alleged history of assault wherein she had opined that both the patients suffered from simple injuries.
7. PW4 Nand Ram and PW5 Kailash have deposed more or less on similar lines as deposed by PW1 Rakesh Kumar and PW2 Ravinder Kumar and had seen all accused persons giving beatings Rakesh. During this scuffle PW4 sustained injuries on his forehead and injuries on his legs. PW5 Kailash sustained injuries on his legs by danda blows . Both these witnesses have been cross-examined. I have perused the same. I found some minor type of contradictions which are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being.
8. PW6 SI Vijay Pal Singh deposed that on 04.08.2012 he along with HC Ved Prakash, HC Jaiveer and Ravinder went to the place of FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
10occurrence at Subway Ring road and Nand Ram, Kailash and Rakesh had also reached the spot a while later where SI Vijay Pal Singh had prepared the site plan vide Ex.PW1/J at the pointing out of Rakesh and Ravinder. PW6 SI Vijay Pal was informed that all accused persons who had beaten the complainant and his relatives were living near Barar Square Jhuggies near Railway crossing. Thereafter, all accused persons were identified by the victims namely Ravinder, Rakesh, Nand Ram and Kailash and accused persons were arrested and personal search was conducted. Thereafter, disclosure statements vide Ex.PW6/A to Ex.PW6/D were recorded. Then he alongwith Rakesh and other police staff reached crossing no.6 Rring Road, where from accused persons got recovered dandas vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D which were sealed with the seal of VPS and pullandas no. 1 to 4 were also given Sl. No. 1 to 4. PW6 SI Vijay Pal had also prepared the site plan of recovery Ex.PW1/K and got deposited case property in the malkhana. Thereafter, all accused persons were got medically examined and produced in the court on the next date. He had also obtained the result regarding nature of injuries on all the four MLC's. He had also recorded the statement of witnesses and also recorded the statement of Rakesh vide Ex.PW1/L. He had also identified the case property from Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. This witness has been cross-examined. I have perused the same. No contrary evidence has come on record.
FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
11
9. PW7 SI Suraj Bhan deposd that on 03.08.2012 he was working as Duty Officer in PS - Delhi Cantt. and his duty hours were from 04:00PM to 12 midnight. He had received a rukka which was sent by HC Ved Prakash through HC Jaiveer on the basis of which he registered the present Ex.PW7/A. He had also made entry on original rukka Ex.PW7/B and handed over the further investigations of the case to SI Vijay Pal.
10.PW8 HC Ved Prakash deposed that on 03.08.2012 he was posted as HC in police post Subroto Park under the jurisdiction of PS - Delhi Cantt and on receipt of DD No. 36 he along with Ct. Joginder reached at the spot at near Subway Dhaulakuan Ringh Road where he did not find any quarrel. On receipt of DD No. 38 regarding the admission of the injured persons at Safdurjung Hospital. Thereafter, he along with Ct. Joginder reached Safdurjung Hospital where four injured person Kailash, Rakesh, Nand Ram and Ravinder were found. He had obtained the MLCs of all the four injured persons. This witness further deposed that on 04.08.2012 at about 04:00 - 04:30 PM injured Ravinder had gone to police post Subroto Park and met HC Ved Prakash and thereafter he had recorded the statement of Ravinder Ex.PW2/A and made endorsement Ex.PW8/A and prepared rukka and handed it over to HC Jaiveer to get the registration of the present case. After registration of the case HC Jaiveer returned back to the police post Subroto Park and handed over the copy of the FIR and therir to SI Vijay Pal. He had also FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
12accompanied SI Vijay Pal to the spot and was a witness to your arrest, recovery of dandas from Barar Square and your making of disclosure statement vide memo Ex.PW6/A, Ex.PW6/B, Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. He had also identified you all accused persons and the case property Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 correctly in the court today. This witness has been cross-examined at length. I found some minor type of contradictions which are bound to be occurred due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. These contradictions do not go to the root of this case.
11.PW9 Dr. Loveneesh Kumar deposed that on 03.08.2012 he was posted as a JR in Safdarjung Hospital and at about 06:05 PM and he had examined Rakesh with alleged history of assault at about 05:00 PM on 03.08.12 vide MLC Ex.PW9/A wherein he had opined that he did not find any bony injury and that the nature of injure was simple blunt. He further referred the patient to Senior Resident surgery.
12.PW10 Ct. Joginder was on emergency duty and his duty hours were from 08:00 AM to 08:00 PM. He has also deposed in a similar manner as PW8 HC Ved Prakash.
13.PW11 HC Mahender Kumar stated that on 03.08.2012 he was working as DD writer in PP Subroto Park, PS Delhi Cantt and had recorded DD no. 36 and DD no.38 Ex.PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
13
14.PW12 Dr. Manoj Kumar had examined Ravinder with alleged history of assault vide MLC Ex.PW12/A dated 03.08.2012. He had opined that as per record the patient had suffered from grievous injuries.
15.PW13 HC Jai Veer testified that on 04.08.2012 he was posted in PP Subroto Park PS Delhi Cantt. and HC Ved Prakash had handed over him a tehrir at about 06:30 PM and he had taken the same to the PS and the same was handed over to the duty officer who registered the present case. The copy of FIR and rukka was handed over by him to ASI Vijay Pal. He was also a witness to the preparation of site plan, recovery of dandas; arrest and personal search of all accused persons and medical examination.
16.PW14 HC Munni Ram was working as MHC (M) PS Delhi Cantt. and had produced the original register no. 19 and as per the record on 04.08.2012 ASI Vijay Pal had deposited 4 dandas duly sealed the details of which were entered at Sl No. 2441 in register no. 19 by HC Sita Ram. He had identified the handwriting and signatures of HC Sita Ram and he had seen him writing in the due course of duties. Copy of the register no. 19 is Ex.PW14/A.
17.Statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr. PC were recorded. Accused persons pleaded that they are innocent and they have FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
14been falsely implicated in this case. However, they do not lead any defence evidence.
18.Arguments were heard at length. During the course of arguments ld. APP for the state submitted that all the injured persons PW1 Rakesh; PW2 Ravinder; PW4 Nand Ram; and PW5 Kailash have deposed against the accused persons and these witnesses are victims and corroborates the testimony of each other. All the victims have correctly identified the accused persons. Ld. APP has also gone through the depositions of PW3 Dr. Shikha Chaddha; PW6 SI Vijay Pal Singh; PW9 Dr. Loveneesh; and PW12 Dr. Manoj Kumar. Ld. APP for the state further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 308/323/34 IPC against all the accused persons and they are liable to be convicted.
19.Contrary to submissions of Ld. APP, Ld. counsel for the accused submitted that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and no eyewitness has been produced in the court in this case. On these grounds he submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 308/323/34 IPC against all the accused persons and therefore, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
15
20.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections be re- produced verbatim, which are as under:-
"34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.--When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.]
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.--Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
21.It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that in case of conviction of accused the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point has observed in a case titled as 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP AIR 1990 SC 1459' that:-
"'Reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man- The 'reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words 'proof', disproved' and 'not proved' lays down the standard of proof, namely about the existence or non-existence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, 'believe it to exist' and secondly in which, though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.16
the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the court believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved, i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'."
22.So long as the question of interested witnesses is concerned the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Hari Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 82 and Tameshwar Sahi v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1976 SC 59 that :-
"General - Interested evidence is no necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. Nor can it be laid down as an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon. Although in the matter of appreciation of evidence, no hard and fast rule can be laid down, yet, in most cases, in evaluating the evidence of an interested or even a partisan witness, it is useful as a first step to focus attention on the question, whether the presence of the witness at the scene of the crime at the material time was probable. If so, whether the substratum of the story narrated by the witness, being consistent with the other evidence on record, the natural course of human events, the surrounding circumstances and inherent probabilities of the case, is such which will carry conviction with a prudent person. If the answer to these questions be in the affirmative, and the evidence of the witness appears to the court to be almost flawless, and free from suspicion, it may accept it, without seeking corroboration from any other source. Since perfection in this imperfect world is seldom to be found, and the evidence of a witness, more so of an interested witness, is generally fringed with embellishment and exaggerations, however true in the main, the court may look for some assurance, the nature and extent of which will vary according to the circumstances of the particular case, from independent evidence, circumstantial or direct, before finding the accused guilty on the basis of the interested testimony ."FIR no.183/12
State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
17
1. Ld. APP further submitted that there is a well settled principle of law that conviction can be made on the sole testimony if it is corroborated with medical evidence as it has been held in Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1989 SC 236 :-
"It is not right to say that an accused cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of a sole witness as the same was not corroborated by the evidence of any other witness. The contention is unsustainable as there is no role of law that the testimony of a single witness cannot be accepted and the conviction cannot be based on such evidence, if believed. The testimony of a single witness if it is straight- forward, cogent and if believed is sufficient to prove the prosecution case, the conviction can be made on the testimony of such a single witness, more particularly where the evidence of such a witness is corroborated by the medical evidence."
2. Having gone through the whole case and material available on record. It can easily be inferred from the depositions of prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Rakesh; PW2 Ravinder; PW4 Nand Ram; and PW5 Kailash that on 03.08.2012 at about 4:30 p.m. at Sub- way, Dhaula Kuan accused persons in furtherance of their common intention caused grievous head injury to Ravinder vide MLC Ex.PW12/A with Lathi and Danda on his head with such knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act they cause the death of victim Ravinder they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Besides, during the course of scuffle accused persons in furtherance of their common intention also caused simple injuries on the persons of Rakesh (simple head injury), Nand Ram (simple injuries on right side of face near eye brow) and Kailash (simple injuries on both legs) with lathi and danda FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
18vide MLC Ex. PW9/A; MLC PW3/A; and MLC Ex.PW3/B respectively vide depositions of PW3 Dr. Shikha Chaddha; PW9 Dr. Loveneesh; and PW12 Dr. Manoj Kumar. Moreover, the weapon of offence i.e. 4 danda were recovered at the instance of accused persons vide seizure memos Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/D. Accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide arrest memos and personal search memos Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/E1, Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/F1, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/G1, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/H1. The Site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW1/J and the site plan Ex.PW1/K showing the place of recovery of dandas was also prepared at the pointing out of Rakesh Kumar. The dandas were also identified by Rakesh Kumar and were Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. PW1 has categorically stated that accused Jabir had given danda blow on the head of Nand Ram and when Kailash tried to apprehend accused Jabir then accused Nafis gave danda blow on the person of Kailash and when Ravinder tried to save Kailash and Nand Ram then accused Afsar tried to catch hold of Ravinder and accused Babu gave danda blows on the head of Ravinder and all accused persons had run away from the spot after giving beatings. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons wherein ld. Counsel has drew the attention of the court towards contradictions like : PW2 Ravinder in cross-examination stated that he had not seen blood on his pant and shirt; he does not remember where he put his thumb impression on the statement. PW4 FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
19Nandram has stated in cross-examination that he does not remember what clothes were being worn by Rakesh. PW4 has also stated that he had seen all the accused persons but he does not know their names. PW5 Kailash has stated in cross-examination that he does not remember whether Nadram and Ravinder had become unconscious or not. He cannot say that there was assault upon two brothers namely Rakesh and Ravinder and when he was along with Nandram intervened them, they also sustained injuries. He does not remember whether his signatures were obtained on Ex.PW1/E, F G and H in the hospital or not. Though, I found some minor type of contradictions in the depositions of material witnesses but these are attributable due to the long duration of time and memory of a human being. The contention of ld. Counsel that witnesses are interested witnesses is also not sustainable precisely for the reasons that other corroborative piece of evidence i.e. recovery of danda at the instance of accused persons Afsar; Babu; Nafis Khan; and Jabir Ali vide Ex.PW1/A; PW1/B; PW1/C and PW1/D directly indicates that accused persons assaulted upon the victims with lathi and dandas and caused injuries to them.
3. In light of these facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons that in furtherance of their common intention and knowledge u/s 308/34 IPC they caused grievous head injury to victim / PW2 Ravinder and simple head FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
20injuries to PW1 Rakesh vide MLC Ex.PW12/A & PW9/A respectively and further causing simple injuries on the persons of PW4 Nand Ram (simple injuries on right side of face near eye brow) and PW5 Kailash (simple injuries on both legs) vide MLC Ex.PW3/A and PW3/B respectively.
Accordingly, in view of the above discussed facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the observations made in judgments : Vahula Bhusan @ Vahuna Krishna Vs. State of Tamil Nadu ; Hari Obula Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1981 SC 82 and Tameshwar Sahi v. State of Uttar Pradesh ; and 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP, referred (supra) I convict the accused persons for the offences u/s 308/ 34 and 323/ 34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28.02.2015 (Raj Kapoor) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03 PATIALA HOUSE COURTS NEW DELHI FIR no.183/12 State Vs Afsar etc PS Delhi Cantt.
21