Delhi District Court
State vs . Joginder Maan @ Tintu on 3 May, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SANDEEP GARG ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH), NEW DELHI F.I.R. No: 303/13 U/s 324 & 341 r/w 34 IPC P.S. Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu Date of Institution of Case : 16.11.2013 Judgment Reserved on : 30.04.2016 Date of Judgment : 03.05.2016 JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 497/2/13 (02406R0315672013)
(b) The date of commission of offence : 27.07.2013
(c) The name of complainant : Sh. Gagan Deep : S/o Sh. Amarjeet Singh : R/o H. No. 2B/9, : Kishangargh Village, Vasant : Kunj, New Delhi
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : Joginder Maan @ Tintu : S/o Sh. Raj Singh Maan, : R/o H. No. 134/09, : Kishangargh Village, Vasant : Kunj, New Delhi Permanent Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 324/341/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Convicted FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 1 of 35
(h) The date of such order : 03.05.2016 Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. The present case arose out of a PCR call made at 7:02 p.m, recorded vide DD No. 36A dated 27.07.2013, PS Saket. In response to the PCR call, SI Manoj Kumar and Ct. Gajraj went to the spot i.e. near Garbage dumping site / near Sheraton Hotel, Mandir Marg, New Delhi where they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center by PCR. IO SI Manoj Kumar and Ct. Gajraj went to AIIMS Trauma Center where the complainant Sh. Gagan Deep was found to be hospitalized. The doctor opined that complainant is fit for giving his statement. Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded by IO which is Ex. PW 1/A.
2. In his complaint, the complainant alleged that on 27.07.2013 at about 6:45 p.m, near garbage dumping site / near Sheraton Hotel, Mandir Marg, Saket, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu alongwith his associate Ravinder @ Ravi (juvenile in conflict with law), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained him so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction and attacked him with a sharp edged object which caused simple sharp injuries on his person.
3. IO SI Manoj Kumar made an endorsement on the complaint which is Ex. PW 4/A and got the FIR Ex. A1 registered through Ct. Gajraj. The FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 2 of 35 complainant handed over his blood stained shirt to the IO which was kept in a white cloth, pullanda was prepared which was sealed with the seal of MK. It was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 4/B. The IO prepared a site plan at the instance of complainant which is Ex. PW 4/C. On 31.07.2013, accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW 4/D and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW 4/F. Pointing out memo was prepared at the instance of accused which is Ex. PW 4/H.
4. During investigation, search of weapon used in commission of crime was made, but to no avail. At the pointing out of the accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu, coaccused (juvenile) Ravi @ Ravinder was apprehended vide memo, Ex. PW 4/G. Accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu was released on police bail. The date of birth of accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu was found to be 16.12.1994. In MLC bearing no. 380018, the doctor opined the nature of injuries sustained by the complainant to be simple, sharp. After conclusion of investigation, chargesheet was filed in the court on 16.11.2013.
5. Accused was summoned to undergo trial and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, copy of chargesheet and its annexures was supplied to him.
Thereafter, vide order dated 02.05.2014, charge U/s 324/341/34 IPC was framed upon the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined six FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 3 of 35 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he claimed himself to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case. He preferred to adduce evidence in support of his defence and examined two witnesses namely Sh. Kishan Singh and Smt. Pushpa as DW01 and DW02 respectively.
Brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
7. PW01 Sh. Gagan Deep Singh deposed that on 27.07.2013, he went to Select City Walk Mall at about 04:00 p.m. and about 06:45 p.m, when he was leaving for his home and waiting for hiring an Auto Rickshaw near Garbage container lying near Sheraton Hotel, Mandir Marg, Saket, accused Joginder Maan @ Tinku (whom he knew prior to the incident as accused Joginder Maan used to come to the Gym situated at Kishangarh where he also used to go) and Ravinder came and started abusing him. His associate Ravinder caught hold of him and accused Joginder Maan took out one sharp edged knife like weapon and stabbed him on his stomach and his back as a result of which his stomach started bleeding.
8. PW01 Sh. Gagan Deep Singh further deposed that he raised an alarm after which public persons gathered there. Accused and his associate fled from the spot. He made a call on 100 number and PCR Van took him to AIIMS Trauma Center and where he was medically examined. His statement was FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 4 of 35 recorded by the IO which is Ex. PW 1/A. IO seized his blood stained shirt which was seized vide seizure memo, Ex. PW 1/B. He sustained five stitches on his stomach and seven stitches on his back. Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital. He alongwith one policeman namely Manoj went to PS and he recorded his supplementary statement. His shirt was seized at PS and he was relieved. He correctly identified accused Joginder Maan in the court. At the time of incident, accused was drunk. He identified his blood stained shirt which was worn by him on the day of incident which is Ex. P1.
9. During his crossexamination, PW01 denied that he had falsely deposed against accused Joginder Maan at the instance of Ashok Maan, cousin brother of accused for exerting pressure upon the family of accused to compromise in State case bearing FIR No. 83/10, PS Vasant Kunj, U/s 307 IPC. There was sufficient light at the time of incident. However, no public person was present at the spot at that time. He volunteered that the auto driver whom he had stopped for going home also fled from the spot upon seeing the incident. He admitted that he had not mentioned about auto driver having fled away from the spot after seeing the incident, in his complaint to police or in his supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC.
10. PW01 denied that he had not mentioned about fleeing of auto driver in his complaint and in his supplementary statement as no offence as claimed by him was committed by the accused. He was called at PS Saket on FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 5 of 35 the next day where SI Manoj met him and showed him a site plan drawn by him which he approved as correct on the basis of his statement (complaint) made to the police. He was shown the site plan and pointed out the spot of incident and the place from where the accused and his associate had fled away. He had approved the site plan prepared by IO as correct after being shown those spots. He denied that no offence was committed by accused and false site plan was prepared by SI Manoj Kumar (IO) as he was in connivance with him.
11. PW01 stated that no employee of Sheraton Hotel was joined in investigation by IO in his presence. He admitted that MBlock, Saket is a residential area. He admitted that the alleged incident took place at point A shown in the site plan. He admitted that there is a road in between point A and MBlock, Saket. He also admitted that no resident of MBlock, Saket was joined by IO during investigation in his presence. He denied that the alleged offence never took place and since SI Manoj Kumar (IO) was in connivance with him, he did not join any person from MBlock, Saket to verify the occurrence.
12. PW01 admitted that no person as an occular witness of the incident was joined by IO at MBlock, Saket in his presence. There is a narrow street in between MBlock, Saket and Sports Complex, Saket. He admitted that security guards / staff were present on duty at Sports Complex, Saket. He has no knowledge as to whether any such staff was joined during investigation by IO. However, no such staff was joined by IO in his presence. He denied that he had FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 6 of 35 falsely deposed against accused at the behest of Ashok and Mangeram and no incident, as alleged, had taken place and therefore, no staff of Sports Complex was joined by IO.
13. PW01 stated that he does not know the names of any two public persons of the locality where the incident took place who might have witnessed the occurrence. He volunteered that public persons had gathered after the incident upon his raising alarm and since he was injured, he was more concerned about his injuries rather than knowing names of such public persons. After being discharged from hospital and during the course of investigation, he had not gone to the spot to inquire from any person regarding the incident. No weapon of offence was recovered in his presence either upon the pointing out by the accused or from his possession. He had disclosed about some sharp, pointed weapon used by accused for inflicting injury upon his person in his complaint, recorded by IO SI Manoj Kumar at Trauma Center. He denied that he had not given the description of weapon of offence either in his complaint or in his statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC as no such incident took place.
14. PW01 stated that he had mentioned the motive behind commission of offence in his complaint, Ex. PW 1/A i.e. quarrel with accused in a gym around 15 days prior to the date of incident. He admitted that he had not mentioned the date of alleged quarrel either in his complaint or in his supplementary statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. He admitted that no quarrel had taken place between FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 7 of 35 him and the accused after the date of quarrel and till the date of commission of offence. He volunteered that he had stopped visiting the gym after quarrel with the accused. He also admitted that accused Joginder Maan did not visit his house after the date of quarrel at gym till 27.07.2013. He volunteered that accused Joginder Maan, Smt. Pushpa and brother namely Bunty Pehlwan (real name Ravinder) had come to his house on 01.08.2013 and threatened him to withdraw his case, failing which they will kill him.
15. PW01 stated that he had lodged a complaint regarding the threats given by accused to Commissioner of Police which is Ex. PW 1/D1. He admitted that statement of none of his family member was recorded by IO during investigation. He denied that since he had sustained injuries upon his person on account of accident, none of his family members supported him for falsely implicating the accused. One police personnel namely Kulvinder from PS Vasant Kunj had visited his office to confirm about the complaint addressed to the Commissioner of Police regarding threats given by accused. He gave his written statement upon which police official namely Kulvinder assured him to conduct necessary inquiry.
16. PW01 stated that he did not contact SHO / IO of PS Saket for seeking protection for himself and action against accused in context of the threats given by the accused on 01.08.2013. He had sustained injuries on his stomach and back which were inflicted by some sharp weapon, but he cannot tell FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 8 of 35 the description of that weapon. He denied that he was not able to give description of the weapon because the accused had not inflicted any injury with any weapon. He was wearing a white shirt with red square box / checks at the time of incident. His shirt was seized by police with cut marks over stomach and back being caused due to assault with weapon. He was not wearing any vest. He does not remember about blood stains being there upon his trouser, but his white shirt had blood stains. He does not remember as to whether blood had trickled down / fallen upon the ground at the spot.
17. PW01 stated that his hand had got red when he held his stomach as the bleeding was continuous. He had also checked blood coming out from his back. The distance between his home and spot is around 810 K.m. He was taken to Trauma Center from the spot in a PCR van. He was taken from Trauma center to PS Saket by police in his car and thereafter, he reached his home in his car. He denied that he had not mentioned these facts in his complaint and statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. He denied that no such incident took place in the manner as deposed by him, nor was he taken by PCR to Trauma Center, taken to PS in his car by police or thereafter, he went to his house in his car and that is why these facts were not mentioned in his complaint. His complaint was recorded at Trauma Center, AIIMS at around 7:30 PM. He might have reached Trauma Center at around 7:15 PM. Call at 100 number (PCR) was made at around 6:45 PM. He cannot say as to whether the blood drops had trickled down / fallen in the PCR Vehicle or not.
FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 9 of 35
18. PW01 stated that he does not remember as to whether blood drops had trickled down / fallen in his car. His car was not inspected by the IO for checking blood stains in his presence or in the presence of his family member. He denied that he had sustained injuries in an accident, but have falsely implicated / framed accused Joginder Maan in this case at the behest of his cousin Ashok Maan who is his friend. Upon being shown two photographs mark A and B by ld. defence counsel, he admitted to be standing with Ashok Maan, cousin brother of accused Joginder Maan, in the said photographs.
19. PW01 stated that he does not know as to whether Mange Ram, Raj Singh, Aman Singh and Kishan Singh are real brothers. He had no knowledge whether any proceedings for partition of property amongst them were pending. He had no knowledge of case FIR No. 83/10, U/s 307, 147, 148, 149, 232, 324, 427, 506 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj (North) against Mange Ram and his sons namely Ashok Maan, Suresh Maan, Bimlesh Maan, Harender Maan and Puneet Maan which was pending trial before the Court of Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. ASJ (South), Saket, New Delhi. He does not know as to whether Mange Ram and Ashok Maan exerted pressure upon Kishan Singh and other injured to compromise the case U/s 307 IPC and not to give true statement before court so as to save them from punishment for offence U/s 307 IPC which was declined by the family of accused.
20. PW01 denied that he had lodged this false case against the FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 10 of 35 accused at the behest of Ashok Maan as Ashok Maan and his entire family is inimical towards the family of accused. He denied that the present case was lodged with ulterior motive to exert pressure upon the accused and his family. He denied that he had intimate relations with the family of Ashok Maan and he is on frequent visiting terms with them. He denied that he had lodged the present false complaint against the accused owing to his family relations with the family of Ashok Maan. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
21. PW02 Ct. Pramod deposed that on 27.07.2013, he was on motorcycle area patrolling duty from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. alongwith Ct. Dholu Ram. At around 7:00 p.m, when they reached near Seikh Sarai, he received an information that one person had sustained injuries with a knife at Mandir Marg, near garbage dumping site, Saket. He alongwith Ct. Dholu Ram reached at the spot where upon inquiry, it was revealed that injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center by PCR van. IO SI Manoj Kumar met them at the spot. They went to AIIMS Trauma Center. IO also went to AIIMS Trauma Center alongwith Ct. Gajraj.
22. PW02 Ct. Pramod further deposed that injured Gagan Deep was admitted in the hospital. IO prepared a pullanda of the white shirt of injured having blood stains which was sealed with the seal of 'MK' and which was seized vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 1/B. IO recorded his statement at PS. He correctly identified the shirt in court which was seized in his presence as FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 11 of 35 Ex. P1.
23. During his crossexamination, PW02 denied that he being a police official was supporting the false prosecution case at the behest of IO. He admitted that the DD number regarding departure while leaving PS for patrolling duty was not mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He denied that he was not on patrolling duty on the relevant date and time and therefore, the departure entry was not mentioned in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He admitted that he had not placed any copy of duty register / roaster to show that he was present on duty on 27.07.2013. He does not remember as to whether his arrival entry was recorded in roznamcha register at PS before recording his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He could not tell the DD number of arrival entry at PS on 27.07.2013.
24. PW02 denied that purposely he was suppressing the truth before the court as no arrival entry was recorded at PS on 27.07.2013. He denied that he did not join investigation as stated in his examinationinchief and the seizure memo of shirt was signed at PS Saket. IO did not collect any blood sample from spot in his presence. He did not notice any blood at the spot where incident took place. IO did not inquire for ascertaining the place of incident in his presence. He volunteered that IO was already present at the spot before he reached there.
25. PW02 admitted that the place of incident viz. MBlock is residential area and publicpersons had gathered at the spot when he reached there. He FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 12 of 35 admitted that no publicperson stated about occurrence / incident of stabbing. Medical examination of injured was conducted in his presence. He volunteered that MLC was prepared and typed in his presence. However, he does not know its contents. He denied that at the time of medical examination, it was disclosed that injuries were caused due to road traffic accident. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
26. PW03 Sh. Rakesh deposed that in the year 2013, he was running a Gym in the name of "Personality Point" at Village Kishangarh. Complainant Gagan Deep had joined the said gym during the period 06.06.2013 to 27.07.2013 and accused Joginder had also joined the said gym during the period 31.05.2013 to 27.07.2013. No quarrel took place in his gym during the said period in his presence. IO had recorded his statement.
27. PW04 SI Manoj deposed that on 27.07.2013, at around 07:05 p.m, he received DD No. 36A regarding stabbing with a knife near Sheraton Hotel, Saket. He alongwith Ct. Gajraj went to the spot and upon inquiry, it was revealed that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS, Trauma Center. They went to AIIMS, Trauma Center and he collected the MLC of the injured Gagandeep Singh. The concerned Doctor made endorsement on the MLC that the patient was fit for statement. He met the complainant who narrated the incident to him. He recorded statement of complainant in the hospital which is Ex. PW 1/A. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 13 of 35
28. PW04 SI Manoj further deposed that he attested signatures of complainant at point 'A' and made endorsement on the same which is Ex. PW 4/A. He got case registered through Ct. Gajraj and in the meantime, Ct. Pramod reached AIIMS Trauma Centre. The complainant had produced his shirt having blood stains before him. He prepared a Pullanda of the said shirt, sealed it with the seal of 'MK' and seized it vide seizure memo which is already Ex. PW 4/B. Ct. Gajraj returned at AIIMS, Trauma Center with original Rukka and copy of the FIR which were handed over to him. He alongwith Ct. Gajraj and the complainant went to the spot where he prepared a site plan at the instance of the complainant which is Ex. PW 4/C. They searched for the accused as well as the case property i.e weapon used by the accused, but no clue was found. They returned to the Police Station and he recorded supplementary statement of the complainant. He recorded the statements of Ct. Pramod and Ct. Gajraj. Case property i.e sealed pullanda was deposited in the Malkhana.
29. PW04 SI Manoj further deposed that on 31.07.2013, he alongwith Ct. Gajraj went to the house of accused Joginder Maan situated at 34/9, Kishan Garh, New Delhi where accused Joginder was present (correctly identified in court). He interrogated the accused and arrested him, carried out his personal search vide memos which are Ex. PW 4/D and Ex. PW 4/E. He recorded disclosure statement of accused which is Ex. PW 4/F. They alongwith accused Joginder Maan went to the house of coaccused Ravi @ Ravinder situated at House No. 95/9, Kishan Garh, New Delhi where coaccused Ravi was present FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 14 of 35 there. Upon inquiry, it was revealed that coaccused Ravi was aged around 15 years old. He called JWO/SI Rajender. He carried out the proceedings against coaccused Ravi in the presence of JWO. He prepared apprehension memo Ex. PW 4/G and other documents. Custody of coaccused Ravi was handed over to his family members and case file was forwarded to Juvenile Justice Board.
30. PW04 SI Manoj further deposed that they alongwith accused Joginder Maan went to the spot where accused pointed out the place of incident. He prepared a pointing out memo which is Ex. PW 4/H. They alongwith the accused returned to the Police Station where accused was released on bail after furnishing bail bonds. He recorded the statement of Ct. Gajraj and obtained the opinion of the concerned Doctor on the MLC. On 06.09.2013, he visited the Gym situated near the house of accused Joginder, interrogated the owner of Gym namely Rakesh and recorded his statement. He prepared the Challan and filed in the court through concerned SHO.
31. During his crossexamination, PW04 stated that he went to the spot alongwith Ct. Gajraj on motorcycle. He admitted that he went to AIIMS, Trauma Center on the same motorcycle and reached there at about 8:20 p.m. Ct. Parmod reached at AIIMS, Trauma Center at around 9:00 p.m. and left from there at around 10:30 p.m on his motorcycle. Ct. Gajraj reached AIIMS, Trauma Center alongwith a copy of FIR at around 10:15 p.m. They returned to the spot from AIIMS, Trauma Center on motorcycle and complainant also accompanied FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 15 of 35 them at that time. Complainant came at the spot from AIIMS, Trauma Center on other motorcycle. He did not seize the clothes of complainant except his shirt and did not send the said shirt to FSL for comparison of blood stains. He did not take the IMEI details of the complainant's phone. He denied that the complainant never visited Saket City Mall on the day of the incident. He had prepared the site plan on the day of the incident itself.
32. PW04 stated that complainant left the PS at around 12:00 midnight. He does not know as to which mode of transport was used by the complainant to go to his house. Family members of the complainant did not meet him on the day of incident. After making the site plan, he went to the house of accused. He visited the house of accused Joginder Maan two or three times. He inquired about the accused from his father. He denied that accused was falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity between the father of accused, uncle Mange Ram and cousins namely Ashok and Puneet.
33. PW04 stated that he did not take the IMEI details of the accused's phone regarding his presence at Select City Walk Mall, Saket. Someone brought another shirt of the complainant at AIIMS Trauma Center, but he did not interrogate the said person. He denied that nobody came at AIIMS Trauma Center to deliver the said shirt to the complainant. He denied that all the proceedings were carried out at PS or that he never visited the spot. He denied that he recorded the disclosure statement of the accused on his own. He denied FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 16 of 35 that he was deposing falsely or that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case.
34. PW05 Sh. Rajender Singh, Record Clerk, AIIMS, Trauma Center, produced the attested copy of MLC bearing no. 380018 dated 27.07.2103 of Gagandeep which was prepared by Dr. Arvind Dixit who had left the services of hospital and his whereabouts was not known to the hospital. He identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Arvind Dixit as he had seen the same while discharging his official duties. The said MLC is Ex. PW 5/A bearing signatures of Dr. Arvind Dixit at points A and A1. He also produced the certified copy of discharge summary of patient Gagandeep which is Ex. PW 5/B.
35. PW06 Ct. Gajraj Singh deposed that on 27.07.2013, he was on emergency duty from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. On that day SI Manoj Kumar (IO) received a DD No. 36A regarding a quarrel which took place at Mandir Marg, Sheraton Hotel, near garbage dumping site after which he alongwith IO went to the spot where they came to know that the injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Center by PCR van. They went to AIIMS Trauma Center and IO collected the MLC of injured namely Gagandeep who was present there. IO interrogated injured, recorded his statement which is already Ex. PW 1/A and made endorsement on the same. The rukka was handed over to him for registration of FIR and he got the FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he returned back to AIIMS Trauma Center alongwith original rukka and copy of FIR FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 17 of 35 which were handed over to IO. He alongwith IO and the complainant went to the spot where IO prepared site plan at the instance of complainant which is already Ex. PW 4/C. They returned back to PS and searched for accused person, but no clue was found. IO recorded his statement.
36. PW06 Ct. Gajraj Singh further deposed that on 31.07.2013, he alongwith IO went to the house of accused Joginder @ Tinku i.e. H.No. 134/09, Village Kishangarh, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi where accused was present. He correctly identified accused in court. IO interrogated accused, arrested him and carried out his personal search vide memos which are already Ex. PW 4/D and Ex. PW 4/E. IO recorded disclosure statement of accused which is already Ex. PW 4/F. He alongwith IO and accused reached at the spot where accused pointed out the place of incident. IO prepared a pointing out memo at the instance of the accused which is already Ex. PW 4/H. They searched for the weapon i.e. the blade which was used by the accused in the incident here and there, but no clue was found. IO recorded his statement. The accused was released on police bail after furnishing of bail bond.
37. During his crossexamination, PW06 denied that disclosure statement and pointing out memos were prepared at PS. He denied that he alongwith IO did not visit the house of accused or that the accused came at PS on his own alongwith his uncle. He denied that he was deposing falsely. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 18 of 35
38. Accused admitted documents i.e. Copy of FIR, copy of register no. 19 and School Records regarding age proof filed by prosecution in terms of Section 294 Cr.P.C. which were exhibited as Ex. A1, Ex. A2 & Ex. A3.
39. DW01 Sh. Kishan Singh deposed that on 27.07.2013, accused was present in his house. Daughterinlaw of his brother Raj Singh called him and told that police officials have taken Raj Singh to the police station. He went to PS Saket and asked the IO as to why he had taken his brother. IO revealed that his nephew had engaged in some quarrel and that is why he had taken the father of the accused. Then, he brought his brother home from the PS. After 23 days, IO came at the house of accused and accused was released on bail by the IO.
40. DW01 Sh. Kishan Singh further deposed that he had a property dispute with his elder brother namely Mange Ram and Mange Ram and his sons had attacked him with a sword and also injured Raj Singh, the father of accused, Aman Singh, uncle of accused, Smt. Pushpa, sisterinlaw (bhabhi) of the accused and Ravinder Mann, the elder brother of the accused. Complainant Gagan Deep is a property dealer and has relations with Ashok Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Puneet Mann, all sons of Mange Ram. At the behest of said Ashok Kumar, Suresh Kumar and Puneet Mann, complainant got the present false case registered against the accused so that they may effect a compromise with his brother Mange Ram and his sons in case FIR no. 83/10 P.S. Vasant Kunj (N) FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 19 of 35 registered U/s 307/147/148/149 IPC and other sections which is pending before the court of Sh. Vimal Kumar Yadav, Ld. ASJ, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi. Accused was never taken to the PS by the IO for interrogation purposes and was falsely implicated in this case. Whenever, he visited his house at Kishangarh, complainant along with his goon friends threatened him and say that they will see him.
41. During his crossexamination by ld. APP for the State, DW01 admitted that he was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. On 27.07.2013 at about 06.45 p.m., he was present at his house and not at Sheraton Hotel. He admitted that he had not lodged any complaint till date against the complainant in respect of his alleged threats. He admitted that complainant is not a witness in case FIR No. 83/10, PS Vasant Kunj (N). He admitted that complainant is not relative of any of the accused persons involved in case FIR No. 83/10. He admitted that he was not present at the spot and he was not aware as to whether the incident of assault as alleged by the prosecution took place or not. He volunteered that accused was falsely implicated. He admitted that till date, they had not lodged any complaint with higher authorities regarding false implication of the accused. He denied that he was deposing falsely to save the accused who is his nephew.
42. DW02 Smt. Pushpa deposed that complainant Gagandeep was friend of Ashok Mann S/o Mange Ram on whose direction, the complainant had FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 20 of 35 implicated the accused who is her younger brotherinlaw. Ashok Mann, his father and brothers are accused in a criminal case registered U/s 307 IPC and other relevant sections. She had also got injured in the incident regarding which the said case was registered. IO had taken father of accused Raj Singh to the PS and she made a call to her elder uncleinlaw Sh. Kishan Mann. She along with her uncleinlaw went to PS and brought back Raj Singh. The complainant used to threaten her while going to Mehrauli market from his office. Police had never taken the accused for any interrogation purposes to the PS.
43. During her crossexamination by ld. APP for the State, DW02 admitted that she was not present at the spot at the time of alleged incident. On 27.07.2013, at about 06.45 p.m, she was present at her house and not at Sheraton Hotel. She had lodged complaint against the complainant in respect of his alleged threats. The threats were extended after the present FIR was registered against the accused who is her Devar (brotherinlaw). No complaint was lodged by her against the complainant prior to registration of the present case against her Devar. She admitted that complainant was not a witness in case FIR no. 83/10, PS Vasant Kunj (N). She admitted that complainant was not relative of any of the accused persons in FIR no. 83/10. She admitted that since she was not present at the spot, she was not aware as to whether the incident of assault, as alleged by the prosecution, took place or not. She volunteered that accused was falsely implicated. She admitted that till date, they had not lodged any complaint with higher authorities regarding false implication of the accused. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 21 of 35 She denied that she was deposing falsely to save the accused who is her Devar.
44. The court has heard the arguments advanced by Ld. defence counsel, ld. counsel for complainant as well as Ld. APP appearing on behalf of the State and has perused the record with their able assistance.
45. It has been emphatically contended by Ld. defence counsel that as per the version of the complainant disclosed in complaint, Ex. PW 1/A, accused and his associate were known to him. However, a perusal of DD No. 36A dated 27.07.2013, PS Saket shows that a call regarding stabbing of a person with a knife was made. No name of the assailant was disclosed in the call. MLC of complainant was prepared at 7:46 p.m. Even in the MLC, no name of assailant is mentioned despite the fact that the complainant was very well acquainted with the accused and his associate. Failure on the part of complainant to disclose name of accused and his associate, both while making PCR call and while getting his MLC prepared, exposes falsity of the complainant's story and it establishes that the accused was falsely implicated in the present case. Reliance is placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rehmat Vs. State of Haryana 1996 LawSuit (SC) 1343 wherein it was observed that ordinarily in a medico legal case, the doctor is supposed to write down history of injured and absence of disclosing name of assailant before the doctor raises doubts on veracity of complainant's version. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 22 of 35
46. Secondly, it is contended on behalf of the accused that PW03 Sh. Rakesh, who was running the Gym where complainant claimed that he had a fight with the accused prior to the date of incident, did not support the prosecution case. He has deposed that no quarrel had taken place in his Gym, between complainant and the accused, in his presence. Therefore, the alleged motive of attacking the complainant has also not been proved, rather it has been disproved.
47. Thirdly, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that it is not the case of the complainant that the accused had accosted him between the date of alleged quarrel at Gym and the date of alleged incident. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the accused was harbouring any grudge against the complainant and he was desperate to harm the complainant.
48. Fourthly, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that the complainant has given contradictory versions at various steps. As per DD No. 36 A dated 27.07.2013, PS Saket, information regarding stabbing of a person with knife was given. In his complaint, Ex. PW 1/A, the complainant had alleged that he was attacked with some sharp edged weapon. However, when he deposed as PW01, he stated that the accused had attacked him with a sharp knife like weapon and stabbed him on his stomach and back. A perusal of the nature of injuries allegedly sustained by the complainant, as recorded in the MLC, Ex. PW FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 23 of 35 5/A shows that both the wounds were not deep. Therefore, those wounds could not have been caused by stabbing. These contradictions expose falsity of the prosecution case and establish that accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case.
49. Fifthly, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that no independent public witness was joined by the IO during investigation despite the fact that security guards are available at the entry of Saket Sports Complex which is situated just opposite to the spot where the alleged incident is claimed to have taken place. Moreover, MBlock, Saket, which is a residential area, is also situated across the road, opposite to the alleged spot of incident. The Auto Rickshaw driver, whom the complainant had stopped for going to his home and who had allegedly witnessed the incident, has also not examined. Even as per the admission of complainant, public had gathered at the spot immediately after he raised an alarm. However, those persons have also not been examined. Non examination of independent public persons despite their availability calls for drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution case.
50. Sixthly, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that the complainant has stated that the accused was drunk at the time of alleged incident. If a drunk person attacks with his right hand, in all probability, injuries will be caused on the left side. However, as per MLC, injuries have been caused on right side of abdomen of the complainant. Moreover, if the complainant was FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 24 of 35 caught hold by associate Ravinder from behind, no injuries could have been caused on back side of the complainant.
51. Lastly, it has been contended on behalf of the accused that the associate Ravinder has already been acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board which substantiates the defence of the accused that he and his associate were falsely implicated in the present case. The accused deserves to be acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
52. Per contra, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that it is very well appreciable that if a person has sustained injuries with a sharp edged object on his person and he is bleeding profusely, he is unlikely to give a detailed account of the incident while making PCR call. Therefore, it is inconsequential, if names of the accused and his associate were not disclosed by the complainant when he made a call to the PCR. It is not incumbent upon a patient to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor as an ordinary citizen does not understand the significance and relevance of these legal intricacies. He is more concerned and focused on his own treatment at that time. Reliance is placed upon judgment delivered by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Udai Singh Vs. State, Criminal Appeal No. 496/2003, decided on 02.12.2008 wherein it has been held that whenever a patient having injuries is brought to the hospital, the primary concern of the doctor is to inquire as to how injuries were sustained and not as to who caused those injuries. However, if the FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 25 of 35 doctor specifically asks the patient as to who was responsible for causing injuries, only then, it is expected that the patient will name the assailant. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that failure on the part of complainant to disclose names of the assailants while making PCR call and while his MLC was prepared establishes that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
53. Secondly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that Sh. Rakesh, who was running the Gym was examined during investigation as well as during trial as the complainant had attributed motive of quarrel having taken place with the accused in his Gym. However, PW03 Sh. Rakesh has not turned hostile as is being projected by ld. defence counsel. He has simply stated that no quarrel had taken place between complainant and the accused in his presence. PW03 Sh. Rakesh has not stated that he used to remain present at the Gym at all times. It is probable that the quarrel might have taken place in the absence of Sh. Rakesh. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that the motive behind commission of the offences has been disproved.
54. Thirdly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that it is not essential that every accused would accost the complainant. The prosecution has been successful in establishing the motive behind commission of the offence i.e. a quarrel having taken place between FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 26 of 35 complainant and the accused in a Gym situated at Kishangarh. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel.
55. Fourthly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that there are no contradictions in the version of the complainant. Admittedly, in his complaint, Ex. PW 1/A, the complainant had categorically stated that he was attacked with some sharp edged weapon. During trial, the complainant / PW01 has deposed that the accused had attacked him with a sharp knife like weapon and stabbed him on his stomach and back. Therefore, he has specifically mentioned that he was attacked with some sharp edged object / weapon. Even if the complainant may not have used the most appropriate word, nevertheless, use of the word 'stabbing' also does not have any bearing on the veracity of prosecution case as what matters is substratum of the evidence and not its form.
56. Moreover, when a person is all of a sudden attacked with a sharp edged object, many a times, it is difficult to make out as to with what object / weapon he has been attacked. Therefore, the fact that while lodging the complaint with PCR, the caller had disclosed that a person was stabbed with a knife, is not of much significance. As per the MLC, the complainant had disclosed that he was assaulted. The nature of injuries sustained by the complainant i.e. two incised wounds, one on the right side of abdomen and another on the back right side corroborates the version of the complainant that he was attacked with a FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 27 of 35 sharp edged object. It has been established on record that PCR call was made at 7:02 p.m. and MLC was prepared at AIIMS Trauma Center at 7:46 p.m. Therefore, no extra time was consumed between the time of commission of offence and preparation of MLC. It is evident from the MLC itself that a police official namely Jagdish Chand had taken him to AIIMS Trauma Center. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that the injuries were either self inflicted or were caused in a road traffic accident and the accused was falsely implicated by the complainant.
57. Fifthly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that there is no evidence on record to indicate or establish that security guards were available at the entry of Saket Sports Complex, which is situated on the opposite side of the spot where the offence was committed, at that time. During his crossexamination, PW01 / complainant had merely admitted that usually security guards are present on duty at Saket Sports Complex. Since, except the Auto Rickshaw driver who had witnessed the incident, no other eyewitness was available, no other independent public witness could have been examined. Even the identity of Auto Rickshaw driver who had witnessed the incident was not known as he immediately fled away after the incident occurred. Neither the registration number of his Auto Rickshaw could be noted down, nor his identity could be ascertained. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that no independent public witness has been examined despite availability.
FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 28 of 35
58. Sixthly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused was drunk at the time of commission of offfence. Moreover, no generalized conclusions can be drawn only on the basis of probabilities. It is very much possible that even a drunk person may cause injuries on any part of the body. There is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant was held from behind by associate Ravinder during the entire incident. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel.
59. Lastly, it is contended by Ld. APP for the State and ld. counsel for complainant that it is immaterial that associate Ravinder was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. There is nothing on record to determine as to under what circumstances and due to what reasons associate Ravinder was acquitted. What is material is appreciation of the evidence available on record in the present case. There is no merit in the contention of the ld. defence counsel that accused deserves to be acquitted on the ground of parity.
60. The court is of the considered view that the prosecution has proved DD No. 36A, Ex. A2. The complainant has proved that on the day of the incident, the accused and his associate started abusing him. Associate Ravinder caught hold of him and accused Joginder Maan took out a sharp edged knife like object and stabbed him on his stomach and back. Blood came out from his stomach. He raised an alarm after which public persons gathered. He knew the FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 29 of 35 accused and his associate prior to the date of incident. He had some quarrel with accused Joginder, in a Gym, about 15 days prior to the incident after which he had stopped going there. The prosecution has proved FIR, Ex. A1; rukka; endorsement made on rukka, Ex. PW 4/A; Site plan, Ex. PW 4/C; pointing out memo, Ex. PW 4/H; Disclosure statement of accused, Ex. PW 4/F, Seizure memo of Shirt, Ex. PW 4/B; Arrest memo of accused, Ex. PW 4/D; personal search memo of accused, Ex. PW 4/E; MLC of complainant / injured, Ex. PW 5/A; discharge summary of complainant, Ex. PW 5/B. Therefore, it has been able to establish the complete chain of events.
61. In the normal course of human conduct, if a person has sustained injuries with a sharp edged object on his person and he / she is bleeding profusely, he / she is unlikely to give a detailed account of the incident while making PCR call. Therefore, it is not of much significance, if names of the accused and his associate were not disclosed by the complainant when he made a call to the PCR. It is desirable, but not mandatory for a patient to disclose the name of the assailant to the doctor. A patient is more concerned and focused on his / her treatment at that time. However, if the doctor specifically asks the patient as to who was responsible for causing injuries, then, it is expected that the patient should name the assailant. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that the doctor had asked about the person responsible for causing injuries on the person of the complainant. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that failure on the part of complainant to FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 30 of 35 disclose names of the assailants while making PCR call and while his MLC was prepared establishes that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
62. The complainant had attributed motive of quarrel having taken place with the accused in his Gym. Therefore, Sh. Rakesh, who was running the Gym was examined during investigation by the IO and his statement, U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded. During trial, PW03 Sh. Rakesh did not turn hostile. He simply deposed that no quarrel had taken place between complainant and the accused in his presence. There is nothing on record to indicate that Sh. Rakesh used to remain present at the Gym at all times. It is probable that the quarrel might have taken place in the absence of Sh. Rakesh. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that the motive behind commission of the offences has been disproved.
63. It is not essential that every accused would accost the complainant. The prosecution has been successful in establishing the motive behind commission of the offence i.e. a quarrel having taken place between complainant and the accused in a Gym situated at Kishangarh. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that since it is not the case of prosecution that accused had been accosting the complainant, it has failed to establish that the accused was harbouring any grudge against the complainant. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 31 of 35
64. In his complaint, Ex. PW 1/A, the complainant had categorically stated that he was attacked with some sharp edged weapon. During trial, the complainant / PW01 has deposed that the accused had attacked him with a sharp knife like weapon and stabbed him on his stomach and back. Therefore, he has specifically mentioned that he was attacked with some sharp edged object / weapon. When a person is all of a sudden attacked with a sharp edged object, many a times, it is difficult to make out as to with what object / weapon he has been attacked. As per the MLC, the complainant had disclosed that he was assaulted. The nature of injuries sustained by the complainant i.e. two incised wounds, one on the right side of abdomen and another on the back right side corroborates the version of the complainant that he was attacked with a sharp edged object. It has been established on record that PCR call was made at 7:02 p.m. and MLC was prepared at AIIMS Trauma Center at 7:46 p.m. Therefore, no extra time was consumed between the time of commission of offence and preparation of MLC. It is evident from the MLC that a police official namely Jagdish Chand had taken him to AIIMS Trauma Center. Even if the complainant has not used the most appropriate word to describe the manner in which he was attacked by the accused, but that is immaterial as what matters is substratum of the evidence and not its form. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the ld. defence counsel that the complainant has made contradictory statements at various stages; the injuries were either self inflicted or were caused in a road traffic accident and the accused was falsely implicated by the complainant. FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 32 of 35
65. There is no evidence on record to indicate or establish that security guards were available at the entry of Saket Sports Complex, which is situated on the opposite side of the spot where the offence was committed, at that time. During his crossexamination, PW01 / complainant had merely admitted that usually security guards are present on duty at Saket Sports Complex. He had not stated that security guards were indeed present on duty at Saket Sports Complex at the time of commission of offence and that they had witnessed the incident. The identity of Auto Rickshaw driver who had witnessed the incident could not known as he immediately fled away after the incident occurred. Neither the registration number of his Auto Rickshaw could be noted down, nor his identity could be ascertained. Moreover, there is no requirement of law that everyone who has witnessed the occurrence, whatever there number be, must be examined as a witness. (Amar Singh V. Balwinder Singh (SC) 2003 (1) RCR Criminal 701). In Jawahar v. State, (Delhi) 2007(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 336 it was observed that it is hard these days to get association of public witnesses in criminal investigation and nobody from public is prepared to suffer any inconvenience for the sake of society.
66. In Ram Karan Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1997 (2) FAC 131, it was held as under:
"In our system of administration of justice no particular number of witnesses is necessary to prove or disprove a fact. If the testimony of a single witness is found worth reliance, conviction of FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 33 of 35 an accused may safely be based on such testimony. In our system we follow the maxim that evidence is to be weighed and not counted. It is the "quality" and not the "quantity" of the evidence which matters in our system. This cardinal principle of appreciation of evidence in a case has been given a statutory recognition in Section 134 of the Evidence Act of 1872.".
There is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that no independent public witness has been examined despite availability.
67. There is no evidence on record to establish that the accused was drunk at the time of commission of offfence. Moreover, no generalized conclusions can be drawn only on the basis of probabilities. It is very much possible that even a drunk person may cause injuries on any part of the body. There is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant was held from behind by associate Ravinder during the entire incident. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of ld. defence counsel that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts.
68. There is nothing on record to make out as to under what circumstances and due to what reasons associate Ravinder was acquitted by the Juvenile Justice Board. Each court / forum has to adjudicate the case on the basis of material available on record before it. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the ld. defence counsel that accused deserves to be acquitted on FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 34 of 35 the ground of parity.
69. In view of the above discussion, the court holds that the prosecution has been successful in establishing that on 27.07.2013 at about 6:45 p.m, near garbage dumping site / near Sheraton Hotel, Mandir Marg, Saket, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Saket, accused Joginder Maan @ Tintu alongwith his associate Ravinder @ Ravi (juvenile in conflict with law), in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant so as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction and attacked him with a sharp edged object which caused simple sharp injuries on his person and thereby committed offences punishable U/s 324/341/34 IPC. Therefore, accused is held guilty for commission of offences punishable U/s 324/341/34 IPC.
Copy of the judgment be given to the accused free of charge.
Announced in the open (Sandeep Garg)
Court on 03.05.2016 ACMM (South),
New Delhi.
FIR No. 303/13, PS Saket State Vs. Joginder Maan @ Tintu 35 of 35