Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravi Etc. on 10 October, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH BHUPINDER SINGH : ACMM01(CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT: DELHI
State Vs. Ravi etc.
FIR N0. : 32/2014
U/S : 326/34 IPC
PS : Paharganj
JUDGMENT
a) Sl. No. of the case : 024148/2014
b) CNR no. : DLCT020014712014
c) Date of institution of the case : 21/05/2014
d) Date of commission of offence : 22/01/2014
e) Name of the complainant : Neeraj S/o Sh. Om Parkash
f) Name & address of the : 1. Ravi S/o Sh.Tilak Raj
accused persons R/o House no. 9733 Gali NO. 9
Multani Dhanda , Paharganj Delhi.
2. Arun @ Noti, S/o Sh. Tilak Raj
R/o H.No. 9733 Gali no. 9 Multani
Dhanda , Paharganj Delhi
3. Tilak Raj S/o Sh. Bigo Ram
R/o H.No. 9733 Gali no. 9 Multani
Dhanda , Paharganj Delhi.
g) Offence charged of : 341/326/34 IPC
h) Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
i) Arguments heard on : 01/10/2018
j) Final order : Accused Ravi and Arun @ Noti
convicted for offence U/s 324/34
IPC
Accused Tilak Raj acquitted
k) Date of Judgment : 10/10/2018
FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 1/12
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The chargesheet in the present case has been filed by prosecution with the allegations that on 22.1.2014 at around 10:30pm in front of Mta Manharni Temple, Street NO. 9 Multani Dhanda Paharganj, New Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS Paharganj , accused persons namely Ravi, Arun @ Noty and Tilak Raj in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained complainant Sh. Neera and caused grevious hurt on the person with a sharp edged weapon and thereby alleged to have committed offence U/sec.341/ 326 IPC r/w Sec. 34 IPC.
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet U/s 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on behalf of the IO and the accused persons were consequently summoned. A formal charge for commission of offence U/sec. 341/326/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to substantiate the allegations, (9) nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The relevant and material extract of their testimony is as under:
4. PW1 Sh. Ratan Lal deposed that on 23.01.2014 at about 10:30 PM he was present in his house his grandson Neeraj in injured son alongwith one unknown person was coming towards his house and his grandson Neeraj told him that he had been beaten by Noti, that the blood was oozing from his right ear,that he was got admitted in the hospital, that SI Vinod recorded the statement of his grandson in the P.S. Wearing clothes of Neeraj stained with blood seized by IO vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Somebody informed him grand grandson Neeraj was beaten by Noty, Arun and Tilak Raj in front of Mata Maharani Mandir. He was cross examined by ld APP for State with the permission of court. During his cross examination by ld APP for State,he deposed that on 22.1.2014 ata bout 10:45pm, somebody informed me FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 2/12 that Noti alongwith his brother and father were beating his grandson in front of mata Maharani Mandir and after receiving information, he immediately reached there and saw his grandson Neeraj in injured condition and blood was oozing from his face and he immediately took him to LHMC hospital , that IO reached in the hospital and recorded statement of Neeraj, that he left the hospital for his house to bring the wearing clothes of the neeraj having blood stands and thereafter he brought the clothes of Neeraj in front of the above said Mandir and handed over same to IO and IO took the same into possession vide seizure memo. He further deposed that he alongwith IO and Neeraj left in search of accused persons Noti , Ravi and Tilak Raj but their clues was no found. He denied the suggestion that he was not identify the wearing clothes intentionally and deliberately being won over by the accused persons.
During his crossexamination by ld defence counsel, he denied the suggestion he was not taken Neeraj to hospital or that statement was not recorded in his presence or that above said wearing clothes were not seized in his presence by the IO and he had signed the said seizure memo at the instance of IO .
5. PW2 Neeraj deposed that on 22.01.2014 at about 10:30 PM he was going to call his 'Mausa' when he reached in front of Mata Maharani Mandir. In the meantime, accused Noty came and hit him with his shoulder from his back side. He immediately turned back and saw Noty was present over there with whom there was a previous enmity. Accused Noty said to him that he informed the police about him. In the meantime, accused Noty caught hold him and took out ustara and gave the blow of knife on his face and left jaw under the left ear. You were also present over there and caught hold him at the time of causing injury to him. Blood started oozing from his face and his Tshirt drenched with the blood. His wearing pant was also drenched with the blood. Both of you ran away from the spot.
His grandfather Ratan Lal took him in the hospital. His statement was recorded by police official Ex.PW2/A. His clothes were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He identified his clothes in the court. You alongwith accused Arun @ FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 3/12 Noty were surrounded him and caught hold him. Accused Noty gave the blow with some pointed object on his face.
6. PW3 Ct. Hazari Lal deposed that on 22.01.2014 IO received DD no. 80B and thereafter he alongwith reached at Gali no. 9 Multani Dhanda , where he came to know that the injured Neeraj has already been taken to LHMC hospital , they both went to hospital where IO recorded statement of injured and prepared rukka and he took the same rukka to PS and got FIR registered. After registration of FIR, he brought copy of FIR and original rukka to the spot and handed over same to IO, that complainant handed over one sweater and one pant having blood stains to the IO, IO prepared pullanda of the same and sealed with seal of 'VN' and seized the same vide memo Ex. OW 1/A , IO recorded his statement. He correctly identified case property i.e P1 and P2. During his cross examination, he deposed that he handed over the abovesaid copy of FIR at the spot, that public persons gathered at the spot . He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot or that all writings works were done in the PS.
7. PW 4 HC Satish Chand Tyagi deposed that on 22.01.2014 he was duty officer at P.S. Paharganj, he recorded the DD no. 80B Ex.PW4/A. He also registered the FIR Ex.PW4/A and made the endorsement Ex.PW2/A. He was not cross examined by ld APP despite opportunity given.
8. PW5 Ct. Kuldeep deposed that on 22.02.2014 he alongwith IO/SI Vinod joined the investigation, that accused Ravi were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW5/A, and his disclosure statement Ex. PW 5/B , that the accused led them to Gali no. 9 Multani Dhanda in front of Mata Maharani and accused pointed them the spot.
9. PW6 Cont. Dharampal deposed that on 24/02/2014 he along with IO and accused Ravi joined investigation and reached at Sadar Bazar Road, Multani FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 4/12 Dhanda and at the instance of accused Ravi, arrested accused Arun @ Noti. The arrest memo being Ex. PW6/A and personal search memo being Ex. PW6/B. He further deposed that despite best efforts surgical blade could not recovered. He further deposed about preparation of pointing out memo Ex. PW6/D, non recovery memo Ex. PW6/E. He was not crossexamined by accused persons.
10. PW7 Roop Singh, Medical Record Clerk, LHMC hospital have brought the medical record of patient Neeraj and deposed that injured was examined by Dr. Neel Kamal who prepared MLC Ex. PW7/A and identified his signature at point A. He further deposed that final opinion on MLC was given by Dr. Ravinder Chauhan Ex. PW78/B and identified his signature at point A. He further deposed that ENT notes of patient were prepared by Dr. Ravinder Chauhan Ex. PW7/C and identified his signature at point A.
11. PW8 Minder has deposed that on 22/01/2014 when he was standing near Mata Rani Temple in front of his gali, he saw blood was oozing out from jaw of Neeraj. He further deposed that he accompanied Neeraj to his house and informed Dada Pahalwan. He further deposed that he had not seen the assailants who inflicted injury upon Neeraj. He was crossexamined by Ld. APP with the permission of the court. During crossexamination he denied that on 15/04/2014 police recorded his statement. He further denied the suggestion that he told to the police that accused Notty, Ravi and their father gave beatings to Neeraj.
12. PW9 SI Vinod Nain is the IO and deposed about the investigation conducted by him. He deposed that on 22/01/2014 on receiving DD no. 80B Ex. PW9/A regarding a quarrel at Gali no. 9, Multani Dhanda, Paharganj, he along with Cont. Hazari reached at the spot where they came to know that the injured had been taken to LHMC Hospital. He further deposed that he went to hospital and recorded statement of injured Ex. PW2/A and collected MLC of injured. He further deposed about preparation of rukka Ex. PW9/B, registration of FIR through Const. Hazari, FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 5/12 preparation of site plan Ex. PW2/B, preparation of pulanda of wearing clothes of injured vide memo Ex. PW1/A. He further deposed that on 21/02/2014 accused Ravi got arrested in case FIR no. 84/14 PS Paharganj and disclosed about his involvement in the present case FIR.
He further deposed that on 22/02/2014 he arrested accused Ravi vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A, prepared pointing out memo Ex. PW5/C. He further deposed that on 24/02/2014 at the instance of accused Ravi, accused Arun @ Notty was also got arrested vide memo Ex. PW6/A and prepared personal search memo Ex. PW6/B, pointing out memo Ex. PW6/D and non recovery memo Ex. PW6/E. He further deposed that on 25/03/2014 blood sample of complainant was obtained from hospital and seized vide memo Ex. PW9/B1.
He further deposed that on 18/04/2014 he formally arrested accused Tilak Raj vide memo Ex. PW9/C. He further deposed that all exhibits were sent to FSL and subsequently FSL report was obtained and filed before the court. During crossexamination, he denied the suggestion that he had not properly investigated the case and accused persons have been falsely implicated the accused persons at the instance of complainant and is grandfather.
13. On conclusion of PE, statement of accused persons were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to them. Accused persons claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated. Accused chose not to lead any defence evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for State and Ld counsel for accused persons. I have also perused the record carefully.
15. It is fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and therefore, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The general burden of establishing the guilt of accused is always on the prosecution and it never shifts.
FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 6/12
16. In the present case, as per the prosecution, the accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused grievous hurt on his person by using a sharp edged weapon.
17. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses to prove the allegations. PW1/grandfather of the complainant had only deposed about seeing the complainant in an injured condition with blood oozing out from the injuries received by him near his right ear. He deposed that the complainant told him that he has been beaten by accused Noti. PW8 Sh. Minder deposed that on 22/01/2014 at about 10:30 p.m. while standing near Mata Rani Madir in front of his gali he saw blood oozing out from the jaw line of the complainant, who is his relative and deposed that he did not see the assailants who had inflicted injuries upon the complainant. On being crossexamined by ld. APP, he denied the suggestion that he had stated to the police that accused persons Noti, Ravi and their father Tilak Raj had given beatings to the complainant. As such they did not depose about the accused persons inflicting injuries upon the person of the complainant.
18. PW2/complainant Neeraj deposed about the factum of the accused Noti catching hold of him and giving a blow of knife on his face at left jaw under the left ear. He also depose about the accused Ravi being present with the accused Noti and also catching hold of him at the time of causing the said injury to him. In his examinationinchief he did not deposed about the presence/any act of accused Tilak Raj. Even on being crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State he denied the suggestion that accused Tilak Raj was also present at the spot and he along with accused Noti and Ravi had surrounded him, abused him and had caught hold of him. Thus, from the testimonies of PW1, PW2/complainant and PW3, the presence of only accused Ravi and Noti has been proved, on the spot and not of accused Tilak Raj.
19. The accused Ravi was arrested by the IO on 21/02/2014 when he FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 7/12 disclosed about his involvement in the present case while he was arrested in case FIR no. 84/14 PS Paharganj and on his instance accused Arun @ Noti was arrested on 24/02/2014.
20. It is not disputed that the accused persons were previously known to the complainant and as such their identification by the complainant during the scuffle and in the court cannot be doubted. The enimity between the complainant and accused persons has also been established during trial as the said fact was deposed by PW2/complainant Neeraj in his testimony. Suggestion was also given to him by ld. Defence counsel that due to their previous enemity only, they have been falsely implicated.
21. Thus, the motive of the accused persons inflicting injuries upon the complainant stands established. The reason for inflicting injuries has also been deposed by the complainant to be that the accused Noti was saying to him that "tu police ko mere baare mai batata hai ki mai Delhi aagaya hu. Kyoki mujhe Delhi se bahar rehne ka order mila hai". The testimony of the complainant was not shattered despite sustained crossexamination by ld. Defence counsel. If as per ld. Defence counsel, the complainant was to falsely implicate the accused persons, he could have also deposed about the presence of accused Tilak Raj, the father of other accused persons but he deposed that accused Tilak Raj was not on the spot which adds to the credibility of his testimony.
22. The incident is stated to have happened about 10:30 p.m. on 22/01/2014, DD no. 80B pertaining to PCR call received at about 11:06 p.m., the FIR being registered at 12:40 a.m. On 23/01/2014, completes the chain of events that occurred after the accused persons inflicted injuries upon the complainant/PW2.
23. The testimony of the complainant is found to be trustworthy and is natural. The veracity of the version of PW2/complainant can be adjudged from the FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 8/12 fact that he was seriously injured in the incident. A stamped / injured witness is more likely to say the truth since he would not want the actual perpetrator of the crime to go Scotfree. I am fortified in my opinion by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case titled 'Abdul Sayed v. State of M.P (2010) 10 SCC 259' wherein it was held that "where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is genuinely considered to be very reliable as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone". It is not the case of the defence that the injuries are self inflicted. In view of this fact, the accused persons can be convicted on the basis of sole testimony of PW2 only.
24. The factum of injury received by the complainant has not been disputed. He was taken by PW1 Sh. Rattan Lal, his grandfather to Lady Harding Hospital where MLC Ex. PW7/A was prepared. The incident had occurred on 22/01/2014 at 10:30 p.m. and the MLC was prepared on the same day at about 11:00 p.m. which proves that the injury had occurred as a result of the injuries received by the complainant in the incident in question. As per the MLC, CLW on left side of cheek and neck was observed and the probable weapon was opined to be 'sharp'. After investigation the nature of injury was opined to be grievous. However, the concerned doctor i.e. Dr. Ravinder Chauhan who had given the opinion was never examined so as to prove as to how he had opined the same to be grievous. Even otherwise if his opinion that the injury 'appears' to be grievous as it was severe enough to cause a permanent scar over face is considered, the same is not sufficient to bring the nature of injury in the kinds of hurt designated as grievous U/s 320 IPC. Clause sixthly of Section 320 IPC provides that permanent disfiguration of the head or face shall be designated as grievous. But the said factum has not been deposed by the complainant that due to said injury he had received a scar on his face of a permanent nature. Neither there is any observation of the court to this effect that any FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 9/12 such scar of this nature has been observed on the face of the complainant.
25. Though the MLC of the complainant has not been proved by the concerned doctor but the factum of the complainant having received injuries by way of a sharp edged weapon has been established from the testimonies of PWs, in particular the PW2/complainant, PW1/ Sh. Rattan Lal and PW8 Minder. No cross examination of the complainant was conducted on the aspect that no injury was received by him. In his crossexamination, the complainant examined as PW2 has admitted that at the time of recording of his statement, he was not fully sure about the weapon of offence but was sure that it was some sharp pointed object. Though in absence of the testimony of the concerned doctor, the injury received by the complainant has not been proved to be grievous but it has been established that injuries were received by him after use of a sharp edged object which squarely covers the act under section 324 IPC.
26. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution are supporting the case of the prosecution and their statements on record is found to be cogent and inspires confidence. Minor discrepancies or procedural lapse, if any has to be ignored as criminal justice system should not be made casualty of wrong committed by the IO or any other related official. Non recovery of weapon of offence is also not fatal to the case of prosecution.
27. Now adjudicating upon whether all the accused persons had common intention to inflict injuries upon the complainant and that if Sec34I.P.C can be attracted to fix their liability.
28. In Virender Pal @ Neelu v. State (Delhi)(D.B.) 2011 CriLJ 3082Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed :
" Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence. It simply states that if two or more persons intentionally do a thing FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 10/12 jointly, it is just the same as if each of them has done it intentionally. The constructive liability under this Section would arise if following two conditions are fulfilled : (i) there must be a common intention to commit a criminal act and (ii) there must be participation of all the persons in doing of such act in furtherance of that intention . Common intention requires a prior concert or preplanning. Common intention to commit a crime should be anterior in point of time to the commission of the crime, but may also develop at the instant when such crime is committed. It is difficult, if not impossible, to procure direct evidence of common intention . In most cases it has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused persons and other relevant circumstances of the case. This inference can be gathered by the manner in which the accused arrived on the scene and mounted the attack, the determination with which the injury was inflicted, the concerted conduct of the accused persons during the commission of the offence and subsequent to the commission of the offence. In other words, intention has to be gathered from the acts of the accused persons and the attendant relevant circumstances enwombing the act. The totality of the circumstances must be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusion whether the accused had a common intention to commit an offence with which he could be convicted."
29. Since both the accused persons namely Arun @ Noti and Ravi had actively participated in the commission of the offence it can be safely concluded that both of them were having common intention to inflict injuries to the complainant.
30. Nothing has come in evidence of any PWs that the accused persons wrongfully restrained the complainant. As such accused persons cannot be held guilty for commission of offence U/s 341 IPC but in view of the above observations, there remains no doubt that the accused Arun @ Noti and Ravi in furtherance of their FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 11/12 common intentions inflicted injuries upon the complainant/PW2 using a sharp edged weapon.
31. In view of the abovesaid discussions, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused persons namely Arun @ Noti and Ravi who are accordingly convicted for offence u/s 324/34 IPC. Accused Tilak Raj stands acquitted for the charges against him.
32. Let they be heard on the point of sentence.
Digitally signed by BHUPINDER BHUPINDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2018.10.11
16:54:17 +0530
Announced and dictated in (Bhupinder Singh)
the open Court on 10/10/2018 ACMM(01)/Central THC
10/10/2018
FIR no. 32/14 State Vs Ravi 12/12