Delhi District Court
State vs Ravinder Etc. on 11 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF MS KIRAN BANSAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE III: SOUTH DISTT.
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :NEW DELHI
State v/s Ravinder Etc.
PS: Vasant Kunj
FIR No: 174/99
U/s: 186/ 353/332/ 34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Sr number of the case : 02403R0320942003
b) Date of commission of offence : 05.04.1999
c) Name of complainant , if any : Sh. Pat Ram Khinchi
S/o Sh. Puran Chand,
d) Name & address of accused : 1. Ravinder S/o SH. Dilip Singh R/o Village Ghitorni, New Delhi
2. Inderjeet S/o Sh. Dilip SIngh R/o Village Ghitorni, New Delhi
3. Brahm Pal S/o Dilip Singh R/o Village Ghitorni, New Delhi.
(Already expired and proceedings
abated)
e) The offence complained of : U/s 183/ 353/332 /34 IPC
f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
g) The date when reserved for orders : 23.02.2010
h) Final order : Convicted
i) The date of such order : 09.03.2010
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION:-
1. The brief facts of the present case are that on 05.04.1999, at about 2:30 PM at Senior Secondary School boys Ghitorni, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily obstructed Sh. Pat Ram Khinchi, Principal Govt. Senior Secondary School, Ghitorni and SH.S B Shukla and SH. B L Nagpal, 2 and other staff i.e. public servant in discharge of their public function as principal/ teacher and also all the accused persons with their common intention while the accused Ravinder, holding in his hands iron Saria along with other associates Voluntarily caused simple hurt to the complainant Pat Ram, and Simple hurt to Bhagwan Shukla, Bharat Lal, who were the public servant and were discharging their duties as such with intent or deter them in discharging of their duties, and also assaulted the complainant Pat Ram Khinchi and other staff as above, who were the public servants and were on duty, and thus. committed offence punishable U/s 186/353/332/ 34 IPC.
2. On his complaint FIR U/s 186/353/332/ 34 IPC. was registered against the accused persons, investigation were carried out and challan was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation.
3. Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken and the accused were summoned. The charge for the offence 186/353/332/ 34 IPC was framed on 04.12.2003 against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and hence the matter was thereafter listed for PE.
4. With a view to establish its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Bharat Lal, who deposed that on 05.04.1999, he was on duty and was present in Staff Room, and heard some noise of quarrel from the Principal Room, and thus went there and saw that the accused persons along with two police personal were there along with some staff members of the school, and some hot talk exchange between the police persons and the accused persons and they went away, however, after some time the accused persons again come in the principal room and they pounces upon the principal when he tried to caught hold one of them he received injuries on his teeth as a result of which his two upper teeth broken and thus he came out of the 3 principal room. He stated that thereafter, police persons also reached there and he along with other staff member of the school went to the PS and lodged their complaint and One Shukla Ji also a teacher, went to S J Hospital for medical examination and again changed his version and stated that they went to SJ Hospital on the next day. This witness was cross examined by the Ld. APP as he has not fully supported the case of the prosecution whereby he denied the incident as stated in his earlier statement to the police. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel, whereby he stated that he did not know the name of the accused. He admitted that nobody took him to the hospital on 05.04.1999 and that he himself went to the hospital on the next day i.e. on 06.04.1999..
5. PW-2 Rekha Bharti, Medical Officer, safdarjung Hospital who has duly proved on record the MLC of injured Bhagwan Shukla, conducted on 06.04.1999, and exhibited the same as ex. PW2./A.
6. PW-3, Sh. Patram Khinchi, who is the complainant in the present case, who deposed that on 05.04.1999, he was on duty and was at his office and at about 1:00 PM, one student Ashok studying in Class VIIth B, came with his mother Smt.Maya and stated that the school fee of Rs. 100/- was lost and asked him and other staff members to help her in tracing the same and he told them to come after some time as the prayer has finished just now but on this she agitated and started quarreling with the staff members and other teachers and went away and after some time she again came along with her father in law, Husband, brother inlaw and one Inder Pal, and they were armed with iron rods and dandas and started abusing them and also given beatings the complainant with the help of iron rod and dandas as well as by fists and kicks and one teacher S B Shukla, also received injury in the said fight when he tried to save him, and the accused Inder , brought one Dubba containing kerosene and poured the same on his body and threatened that he will set on fire and will falsely implicate the witness and the other teacher and in the 4 meantime one teacher B H Nagpal when tried to snatch kerosene box , the accused Brahmpal gave a blow on his face due to which teeth of B H Nagpal also broken and in the meantime the police came there and took the complainant to the hospital along with B S Shukla and B H Nagpal and police recorded his statement vide ex. PW3/A after his discharge from the hospital.
7. PW-4, SH. Prem Singh, DDE, who deposed that on 01.12.2000, he made complaint U/s 195 Cr. P C ex. PW4/A, regarding the fact that Principal Mr. Patram Khinchi, of Govt. Sr. Secondary School, Ghitorni, village was assaulted and obstructed along with some other employees while performing their government/official duty, by three persons Ravinder, Inderjeet & Brahampal, and a written complaint dated 06.04.1999, was made by then then Principal Patram Khinchi and an FIR NO. 174/99, U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC was also registered in this regard at PS Vasant Kunj.
8. PW-5, SH. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, who brought the attendance register of Class VIIth B of the year 1999, showing the attendance of student Ashok Roll Number, 32 on 05.04.1999, and exhibited the copy of the same as ex. PW5/A which has been signed by the then Principal Sh. Patram Khinchi and also exhibited the letter whereby it has been certified by the then Principal that Ashok Kumar was the student of Class VIIth B, on 05.04.1999, as ex. PW5/B.
9. PW-6 Sh. Bhagwan Shukla, who deposed that on 05.04.1999, in the evening shift after the prayer was over, one Smt. Maya who is the daughter-in-law of the then Security Guard (Chowkidar), came in school and started shouting that a sum of Rs. 100/- were lost which were with her son Ashok Student of Class VIIth and met with one Lecturer Sh. Shardanand Saini and asked him to get the said stolen amount searched and on this he stated that efforts will be made to search the same and sought some time from her and on this Smt. Maya had left the school premises and after some time, all the three accused persons who are the sons of Dilip Singh, 5 came along with Smt. Maya and some other villagers inside the school and were armed with Dandas and one of them took out an iron rod from the mike stand placed in the room of Shardanand and when he tried to intervene the said accused stated that to move on a side and not to intervene and when he was trying to take out the said iron rod his first finger of the left hand was broken and all the accused persons entered into the room of the Principal Sh. Patram Khinchi and bolted the door from inside and SH. Patram Khinchi was shouting for help and thereafter, they i.e. the staff member pushed the door and bolt was broken and principal was saved and found that left leg of the principal was injured and PCR was informed and in the meantime one of the accused, came in the school with a kerosene Cane and threatened that he would put himself on fire and will implicate the staff member in a false case and Sh. B L Nagpal, tried to snatch the cane from his hand and during this process he received injuries on his teeth and thereafter, PCR Van came and injured persons including himself, Patram Khinchi, and B L Nagpal, were taken to Hospital and FIR was registered on 06.04.1999, after obtaining permission from the department and his statement was recorded. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. APP with leave of the court, whereby he could not identify the accused Ravinder being the same who was having an iron rod with him . This witness was also confronted with her earlier statement to Police from Portion A to A, B to B , C to C and D to D, to which he denied the same. This witness was also cross examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel whereby he stated that the accused persons were accompanied by nearly 7-8 persons and that no student of the school had gathered near the room of the principal.
10. PW-7, HC Jawahar Singh, who has been examined being the duty officer and who had marked as Mark D the copy of DD NO. 19 A regarding an information that a mad person had entered in Ghitorni School Gurgaon Road. And sent the copy of the same to SI Dharam Dev through Ct. Hari Ram.
611. PW-8 Dr. Mukul Sinha, Specialist Radiologist, S J Hospital, who had proved on record the MLC NO. 44581/99, of injured Patram S/o SH. Puran Chand, and exhibited the copy of th same as ex. PW8/A .
12. PW-9 Dr. A K Jain, C M O , S J Hospital, who had proved on record the MLC NO. 45194/99, of injured Bharat Lal S/o SH. Sukh Dayal, and exhibited the copy of th same as ex. PW9/A .
13. PW-10 SI Dharam Dev, who deposed that on 05.04.1999, on receipt of DD NO. 19 A, he along with Ct. Hari Ram reached at Sr. Secondary School, Village Ghitorni, where Sh. Patram Khinchi, Principal met him and who after making inquiry sent to SJ Hospital for medical examination and in the hospital this witness stated that he would make statement on 06.04.1999, and he came to PS along with SH. S B Shukla, SH. B L Nagpal and other staff members and made his statement ex. PW3/A and he made endorsement as ex. PW10/A and got the case registered through Duty Officer and SH. S B Shukla and SH. B L Nagpal were sent toS J Hospital for their medical examination through Ct. Devender and thereafter, went to the spot along with the complainant and prepared the site pan ex. PW10/B and as the complainant in the complaint ex PW3/A regarding the accused Ravinder, Inderjeet and Bhrampal sons of Dilip Singh, he made efforts to search them and on 08.04.1999, the accused persons namely Ravinder and Inderjeet were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide ex. PW10/C & D and they were released on bail and on 12.08.1999, the accused Bharampal was arrested and his personal search is ex. PW10/E and he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected the MLC and X Ray Report of the injured during the investigation and complaint U/s 195 Cr.P.C was made in the court of Ld. ACMM, and thereafter, after completion of the investigation filed the challan through the SHO before the Court. This witness was also cross examined by the ld. Defence Counsel, whereby he stated that he had not made inquiries from the villagers who were residing near the school compound. He 7 also stated that the accused persons were arrested in the presence of the complainant and on his identification.
14. Thereafter, after completion of the prosecution evidence, the PE was closed, and the matter was taken up for the purpose of recording of the statement of the accused persons. Satement of the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded without oath and after putting all the incriminating evidence upon them to which they pleaded innocent and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused also preferred to lead defence evidence, and examined DW-1 Jitender, who deposed that on 05.04.1999, at about 1:30 Pm, he heard noise coming from Govt. School at Ghitorni, and he went there and saw that some quarrel had taken place between some children and some ladies and some teachers were also standing and that the accused persons were not present at that times. This witness was cross examined by Ld. APP whereby he admitted that he had also gone to his office on 05.04.1999.
15. Thereafter, after the defence evidence led, the matter is thus listed for the purpose of the final arguments. However, at the stage when the matter was listed for the purpose of final arguments, it was reported that the accused Bhram Singh was expired and thus the present proceedings against stands abated and the matter remains pending in respect of the remaining accused persons and thus listed for the purpose for final arguments on behalf of the accused Ravinder and Accused Inderjeet and the arguments heard and entire record have been perused.
16. I have heard the submission of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused persons. I have also carefully perused the record.
17. The court has carefully examined the entire material available on record including the testimony of the PWs recorded before the Court. There are in total ten 8 witnesses could have been examined before the court, out of which only PW-1 Bharat Lal, PW-3 Patram Khinchi, PW-4 Prem Singh, PW-5 Shashi Bhushan Kumar, and PW6 Shri Bhagwan Shukla Shyam Lal, are the public independent witnesses relied upon by the prosecution out of the PW-3 Patram Khinchi is the complainant and the most relevant witness examined on record and rest all the public witnesses are also the eye witnesses to the alleged incident being present at the spot at the time of the said incident.
18. PW-3 Sh. Patram Khinchi, who is the complainant in the present case , has specifically stated in his testimony that Maya Devi, along with her father in law, Husband, Brother in law and one Inder Pal came to the school. He also stated that accused Inder threatened them by pouring kerosene oil on his body, to falsely implicate them in the false case. He also specifically stated that accused Brahmpal gave a blow on the face of one teacher B H Nagpal, due to which B H Nagpal received injuries. PW-1 Bharat Lal, also stated that on 05.04.1999, he saw that the accused persons were present in the room of the principal, this witness identified the accused persons before the Court correctly and this fact of the presence of the accused persons at the spot has been dully corroborated by the PW-6 Bhagwan Shukla who also stated that all the three accused persons who are the sons of Dilip Singh, came along with Maya and some other villager inside the school. PW-1 Bharat, also stated in his testimony before the court that during the said scuffle he received injuriy on his teeth which fact is also duly corroborated with the testimony of the PW-6 Bhagwan who also stated that while Sh. B L Nagpal trying to snatch the can from the hand of the accused, he received injuries on his teeth and also as the MLC of Mr. Bharat Lal, which has been duly proved on record as ex. PW9/A by PW-9, patient was referred for Dental opinion which also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 and PW6 and thus support the case of the prosecution.
19. Perusal of the testimonies of all the two public witnesses reveals that all the 9 public witnesses have duly identified the accused persons before the court as the same persons who caused the injuries upon the complainant PW- 3 Pat Ram as well as to other staff members, who all are the government officials, and were on duty on the day of the incident and were discharging their official duties.
20. PW-1 while cross examined by the Ld. APP has admitted that Mr. Bhagwan Shukla also sustain injury on his finger which fact is also duly corroborated with the testimony of the PW 6 Bhagwan Shukla, who also stated that when he tried to intervene, he received injury in his first finger of left hand which fact has been duly proved on record vide the MLC of the injured Bhagwan Shukla, whereby it has been reported that there was swelling and redness in the left index finger and X ray of left hand was advised. Thus in the present case, the testimonies of all the public witnesses are corroborating to each other and no contradictions emerged from the same.
21. Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons has also argued that the accused persons have been falsely implicated as the FIR in the present case was not registered on the same day i.e. on 05.04.1999, but was recorded later on at the instance of the complainant. However, I am not in agreement with this submission of the Ld. Defence Counsel, as PW-10 SI Dharam Dev who is the IO of the present case has stated specifically that the complainant who was injured refused to give his statement on 05.04.1999, and later on on 06.04.1999, he got his statement recorded at the PS. There is no suggestion to any witness that the injuries were caused to the accused persons or complainant could have been due to any other reason or were self inflicted. The evidence and the testimony of the complainant Pat Ram as well as the other public witnesses are consistent, coherent without any contradiction. Moreover, it is a well settled law, if the testimony of the injured is consistent, coherent and without any contradiction then there is no requirement of any corroboration of the same by any other independent witness. In the present case testimony of the 10 complainant as well as the other Public witness are consistent and also supported by their MLCs, which is sufficient to convict the accused persons in the present case.
22. In view of the above detailed discussion, the testimonies of the Witnesses recorded before the court which are duly corroborated to each other and there is no contradiction emerged from the testimonies of the all the witnesses , the prosecution has successfully, proved it case against the accused persons beyond the reasonable doubts and has bring home the guilt of the accused.
23. Moreover, the accused persons have not been able to prove his defence in the present case despite examining the DW-1 who rather supported the case of the prosecution as he also stated that on 05.04.199, he heard some noise coming from the Govt. School at Ghitorny and saw that there was some quarrel between some chidren and some ladies and some teachers which proves that there was some quarrel going on 05.04.1999 at the said school. Also the accused persons failed to state any reasons to the present case FIR and have merely stated that they have been falsely implicated and has denied the said incident in the present case, however, had failed to depose as to how the complainant in the present case has received the said injuries.
24. Thus, in totality of the facts and circumstances, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused accordingly, accused persons stand convicted for the offence U/s 186/353/332/34 IPC. Sentence be announced separately. Case to come up for arguments on the point of sentence, on 11.03.2010.
Announced in the open court (KIRAN BANSAL) today i.e. 09th March, 2010 ACMM-03/SOuth Distt./ PHC/ New Delhi 11 State v/s Ravinder Etc. PS: Vasant Kunj FIR No: 174/99 U/s: 186/ 353/332/ 34 IPC 09.03.2010 Present: Ld.APP for the State. Both the Accused persons on bail present along with Ld. Counsel.
Vide separate judgment dictated and announced in the court today, the accused stand convicted for the offence U/s: 186/ 353/332/ 34 IPC. Case now to come up for arguments on sentence on 11.03.2010.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 09th March, 2010 (KIRAN BANSAL) ADDL.CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE III:
SOUTH DISTT. PHC, NEW DELHI 12 State v/s Ravinder Etc. PS: Vasant Kunj FIR No: 174/99 U/s: 186/ 353/332/ 34 IPC ORDER ON SENTENCE 11.03.2010 Present: Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
Both the Convict present along with Ld. Counsel.
Argument addressed by the Ld. Prosecutor on the point of the sentence as also the submissions on behalf of the convict also heard. Ld. Prosecutor for the State submits that the allegations against the convict have been duly proved by the prosecution and looking into the nature of allegations and the offence it is prayed that the convicts be admitted to maximum sentence.
Heard Ld. Counsel on behalf of the convict persons on the point of the Sentence. It is stated that the convict belongs to respectable family and have already lesson from their past mistakes and would not repeat this conduct in future and that there is no previous conviction on their part. Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused Ravinder submits that he has three children including a daughter of marriageable age and is the only earning member of his family. On behalf of the accused Inderjit it has been argued that he also has three daughters to look after being the only earning member of the family.
The court has also given due regard to the fact that the convict that the present case FIR is due to the family disputes, it is considered appropriate to observe that the court believes that the convict here in must have learnt a lesson from past mistakes and join the society to display good behavior and be a better asset for the society as a whole. Giving the due regard to the facts and circumstances observed by this court, the court considers it appropriate to invoke the provisions U/s 360 (1) Cr.P.C in the present case. In the interest of justice and expediency, the convict/offenders, be released on probation of good behavior and conduct for a period of two years whereby 13 they all shall be required to keep peace and be of good behavior. Both the Convict persons be released on their entering into a personal bond/probation bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of like amount, each. The convict shall be liable to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period for a failure to observe the conditions of the probation. Keeping in view that during the probation period, the offender/convict pray liberty to leave the jurisdiction of this court, the release of probation shall be subject to necessary intimation be given regarding the dates and period when the convict wish to visit any place outside the jurisdiction of this court. Copy of the order be given to the convict persons free of cost. Original documents of the surety , if any, be returned after cancellation of the endorsement, if any.
Probation bond furnished and accepted. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (KIRAN BANSAL)
today on 11.03.2010 ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
III South Distt. : PHC :DELHI