Delhi District Court
State vs . Ravinder Pal on 12 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS TANYA BAMNIYAL METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02 (SOUTH DISTRICT), SAKET COURTS COMPLEX,
NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. RAVINDER PAL
FIR No. 242/17
U/s : 289 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of Institution : 06.09.2017
Date on which case reserved for Judgment : 05.09.2019
Date of judgment : 12.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 242/17
2.Date of the Commission : 25.06.2017
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Ravinder Pal,
: S/o Sh. Ishwar Singh,
: R/o S6A,Adhchini,
: New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Smt. Reena Sejwal,
: W/o Sh. Naresh Sejwal,
: R/o H. No. 3, Adhchini,
: Malviya Nagar,
: New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : U/s 289 IPC.
6.Plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty.
7.Final order : Convicted for the offence U/s 289 IPC
FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 1/6
BRIEF FACTS:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 25.06.2017 at about 10:30 pm near Chopal, H. No.3, Adhchini Village, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar, accused Ravinder Pal knowingly or negligently omitted to take such order with the animal in your possession i.e. dog as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal due to which the dog attacked the complainant Ms Reena Sejwal and her daughter resulting in simple injuries to them and thus committed offence punishable U/s 289 of IPC.
2. On the basis of the said facts FIR bearing number 242/17, U/s 289 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, chargesheet under section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on against the accused on 06.09.2017.
4. A charge for the offences punishable under section U/s 289 IPC was framed against the accused on 24.02.2018 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS :
5. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
a). PW1 was the complainant Ms. Reena Sejwal. She deposed about the incident. She exhibited her complaint/statement as Ex. PW1/A, Four photographs regarding the injuries sustained by the daughter of complainant as Ex. P1 and two photographs of spot and dog as Ex. 2 and Ex. P3. She was duly cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 2/6
b). PW2, PW3 were the brother in laws of complainant namely Sh. Ashu
Sejwal and Sh. Sandeep Sejwal. They also deposed about the incident. They were duly crossexamined by ld. defence counsel.
c). PW4 was the husband of complainant namely Sh. Naresh Sejwal.
He exhibited the seizure memo of CD of CCTV footage of another incident as Ex. PW4/A, certificate U/s 65B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW4/B and CD is Ex. C1.
d). PW5 was Dr. Ankur Sharma who examined patients namely Reena and Kashika and exhibited the MLC of patients prepared by him as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B.
e) PW6 was the Investigating Officer (IO) of the case namely ASI Kailash Chand. He exhibited the DD No.56A as Ex. PW6/B, rukka as Ex. PW6/A and site plan as Ex. PW6/C.
e). PW7 was the victim and she deposed about the incident.
6. Prosecution evidence was closed on 23.03.2019. After conclusion of prosecution evidence the statement of accused (SA) under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded on 05.07.2019 wherein the accused sought to lead defence witnesses.
7. Accused examined himself as DW1 U/s 315 Cr.PC and Sh. Ram Kumar as DW2. Thereafter, vide separate statement of accused, DE was closed on 21.08.2019.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
8. Thereafter final arguments were advanced by Ld. APP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused. It was argued by ld APP for the State that there is no document and witness which can prove the malafide intention of the complainant to falsely implicate the accused and the prosecution witnesses have FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 3/6 also identified the accused and the dog belonging to the accused. Hence accused should be convicted for the offence U/s 289 IPC.
Per contra it is argued by ld. Counsel for the accused that there are contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the body part on which the child suffered injury and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence it is prayed that the accused be acquitted for the offence U/s 289 IPC.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
REASONS FOR DECISION:
9. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4 and the child witness deposed about the incident. It is correctly pointed out by the ld counsel for the accused that there are some contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses with respect to body part on which injuries were sustained by the child. It is deposed by PW1 Smt Reena Sejwal i.e. mother of the victim that her daughter was bitten on her right hand, thigh and chest whereas PW2 Ashu Sejwal who is the uncle of the victim deposed that the dog had bitten the child miserably on the left arm, thigh and stomach whereas PW3 Sh. Sandeep Sejwal deposed that the dog had bitten the victim on the arms, stomach and thigh. It is a settled law that minor contradictions in the evidence cannot be fatal to the prosecution case unless the same goes to the root of the case and minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. There are bound to be some discrepancies between the narration of different witnesses when they speak in detail and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension the same should not be used to discard the evidence in its entirety. The Court shall have to bear in FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 4/6 mind that different witnesses react differently under different situations and such discrepancies are due to normal error of observations, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of incident. Corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases.
10. In the present case in hand also PW1 i.e. the mother of the child reacted in a way expected of a prudent person specially a mother who would first try to save her child and as a result of which any minor contradictions in the testimony does not discredit the case of prosecution. Thus this court does not find any merit in the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for accused.
11. It is admitted by the accused in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC that a dog had bitten the victim but that was not his dog. With this admission it is clear that incident of dog biting the child had taken place on the date of incident. It is now to be seen whether the dog who had bitten the child belongs to the accused. The accused examined himself as DW2 U/s 315 Cr.PC and Sh. Ram Kumar as DW1.
12. It was deposed by DW1 Sh. Ram Kumar that no such incident as complained by the complainant took place and since the time the accused has purchased his house there is always dispute between the accused. Thus, DW1 has denied the occurrence of the incident in toto. Whereas it is admitted by DW2/accused that one dog had bitten the daughter of the complainant in his testimony as well as in his statement U/s 313 Cr.PC. It is clear from the above that there is major contradiction between the version of DW1 and DW2. Therefore the credibility of the version of the defence is doubtful.
13. Coming to the identity of dog who had bitten the child and also FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 5/6 whether the same belong to the accused. It is pertinent to note that the complainant Reena Sejwal, PW2 Ashu Sejwal, PW4 Naresh Sejwal have correctly identified the dog namely LEO through the Pet ID tag shown to the witnesses i.e. Mark A.
14. The ld counsel for the accused raised objection qua the mode of proof of the ID tag Mark A during examination in chief of PW1 and the same was to be decided at the final stage.
15. In order to decide the above objection, it is imperative to note that DW2/accused has himself identified his dog namely LEO through the pet ID tag which is mark A during his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State on 21.08.2019. It is the settled principle that the facts which have been admitted need not be proved and thus the identity of the dog namely LEO stands proved through the pet ID tag Mark A. It is also proved that the said dog belong to the accused. The prosecution version further get strength from the admission of the defence witness Ram Kumar that on the date of the incident when he was present out side of the house of accused he did not see the dog of the accused during the aforesaid time. This further corroborates the fact that the dog who had bitten the child and her mother belonged to the accused. Moreover, the child witness/victim has also been consistent in her testimony before this Court and nothing could be elicited from her through cross examination which could discredit the case of the prosecution. The prosecution is further successful in proving its case by getting the cogent evidence on record to bring home the guilt of the accused i.e. photograph showing the injuries sustained by the complainant and victim Ex. P1 (colly), photograph of dog Ex. P2, seizure memo of CCTV footage Ex. PW4/A, certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW4/B, CD Ex. C1, MLC reports FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 6/6 Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B, Pet ID tag Mark A.
16. In view of the above discussion and considering the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Ravinder Pal. Hence, accused Ravinder Pal is convicted for the offence U/s 289 IPC.
17. Put up for order on sentence on 16.09.2019 at 02:00 pm. Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date: BAMNIYAL 2019.09.13 13:09:08 +0530 Announced in the Court (TANYA BAMNIYAL) on 12.09.2019 MM02(SD)/12.09.2019 Certified that this judgment contains 7 pages and each page bears my signatures. Digitally signed by TANYA BAMNIYAL TANYA Date:
BAMNIYAL 2019.09.13 13:09:15 +0530 (TANYA BAMNIYAL) MM02(SD)/12.09.2019 FIR No. 242/17 State Vs. Ravinder Pal 7/6