Delhi District Court
State vs Satpal on 14 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI BHUPINDER SINGH:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: DELHI
State V/s Satpal
FIR No. 631/04
PS: Saraswati Vihar
U/s. 323/341 IPC.
JUDGMENT
A) Sr. No. of the Case : 574/2/04
B) The date of commission : 20.07.2004
of offence.
C) Name of the complainant : Kanhaiya Lal
S/o. Sh. Ganga Ram
D) Name of accused : Satpal
S/o Sh. Mool Chand
E) Offence complained of : U/s 323/341 IPC.
F) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
G) Final order : Convicted
H) The date of such order : 14/12/2011
Date of Institution : 17/11/2004
Judgment reserved on : Not reserved
Judgment announced on : 14/12/2011
FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 1/11
THE BRIEF REASON FOR THE JUDGMENT:-
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2004 at 05:00 pm near Atta Chaki shop, M Block, J.J. Colony, Shakurpur, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Saraswati Vihar, the accused wrongfully restrained the complainant Sh. Kanhiya Lal S/o. Ganga Ram from proceeding in a direction in which he had right to proceed and caused simple injuries on the person of complainant.
2. After completion of investigation challan was filed by the police U/s. 323/341 IPC of which cognizance was taken by the Ld. Predecessor of this court.
Compliance of Sec.207 was carried out and complete set of documents was supplied to the accused.
3. Vide order dated 09.02.2007 notice U/s 251 Cr.P.C was served upon the accused for trial of offence U/s 323/341 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. During the course of trial prosecution examined 5 witnesses to prove the guilt of accused.
A brief scrutiny of the examined witnesses is as below.
PW-1 is the complainant Sh. Kanhaiya Lal who deposed that on 20.04.2007 when he reached in front of chakki of Rohtash at M Block, FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 2/11 accused Satpal restrained him and hurt him with a saria. Further he deposed that he was again restrained and hurt while he was going towards PS. He further submitted that he sustained injuries on his knees and other parts of his body. He further stated that accused Satpal abused him and his wife. He proved statement recorded by the police as Ex. PW-1/A. He was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Kartar Singh. In his cross examination he deposed that he was having weak hearing power since last 20 to 25 years. Further that no family member of his was present at the time of the incident but Rohtash chakki wala was present there. He further deposed that he cannot delay if the police recorded the statement of Rohtas but that he was interrogated by the police. He further deposed that his statement was recorded at the PS after his medical examination but he could not recollect the exact time. He deposed that he did not give any writing to the police and that he was beaten by the accused with some article which was either saria or rod and also by leg kick. He further submitted that he had told the police that accused had abused his wife also. Further that he did not see the exact length of the saria/rod as his spectacles had fallen down. He deposed that he was conscious after the receiving of injuries and at that time his wife had come at the spot and several public persons were present there. Further he deposed that there are so many chaupal in his village but there is no chaupal of his caste and there is no association of the village biradari. He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case as he is secretary of Shakurpur, Jatav Samaj Samiti. He deposed that he had shown all his injuries to the police and that the police had also seen his blood which was scattered at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the accused did not cause any injury to him and that he was not present there. He denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in this case as he wanted to hold the post of the accused in that chaupal or that he is deposing falsely.
FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 3/11PW-2 is W ASI Sukhda who proved the FIR as Ex. PW-2/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW-2/B. She was cross examined by Ld. Defence Counsel wherein she deposed that she took 20 to 30 minutes for registering the FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to Ct. Suresh after 30 minutes of his arrival.
PW-3 is HC Suresh Chand who deposed that on 20.07.2004 he was on emergency duty with ASI Azad Singh and on receipt of DD No. 41 B by IO ASI Azad Singh he along with him went to Shakurpur Chaopal. In rest of of his deposition he has detailed about the steps taken during the course of investigation.
PW-4 ASI Azad Singh is the IO of the case. He has deposed about the steps taken by him during the course of investigation. He proved M.E as ex. PW-4/A, site plan as Ex. PW-4/C, arrest memo vide which accused was arrested as Ex. PW-4/D, personal search memo as Ex. PW-4/E. PW-5 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary proved the M.E. No. 48085 of patient Kanheya Lal (PW-1/complainant) prepared by Dr. Hari Prakash as Ex. PW-4/A.
5. Vide order dated 06.09.2011 P.E. was closed and Statement of the accused U/s. 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 14.09.2011 in which he pleaded innocence and preferred to lead D.E. In D.E. accused examined Ram Krishana as DW-1.
DW-1 Ram Krishna deposed that accused Stapal had not caused any FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 4/11 injury to Kanhaiya Lal and that this case is false and fabricated and the case was imposed upon the accused in order to take revenge.
He was cross examined by Ld. APP. In cross examination he denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of accused in order to save him being his niece (nephew).
6. D.E. was closed on 22.11.2011 and thereafter matter was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for the accused and have gone through the evidence and the material available on record.
8. It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to proved their case and keeping in view the inconsistencies in the testimony of the complainant who has been examined as PW-1, he cannot be relied upon.
Per contra Ld. APP submits that the minor discrepancies should not be given undue weightage and that the prosecution in light of the testimony of the complainant and other witnesses have been able to bring the guilt of the accused.
9. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been successfully able to prove their case.
FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 5/1110. Ld. Defence Counsel has contended that the testimony of the complainant suffers from several infirmities. He has submitted that as per testimony of the complainant when he reached in front of chaki of one Rohtash at M block, the accused restrained him and hurt him with a saria and he sustained injuries on his knee. Also in his chief he has leveled allegations of his wife being abused by the accused.
11. Ld. Counsel has submitted that despite being presence of the wife of the accused and one Rohtash they have not been made witnesses. Further that saria i.e. weapon of offence was not recovered and there is improvement in the version of the complainant from what he had stated to the police earlier in his statement Ex. PW-1/A.
12. The contentions of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding non recovery of the weapon of offence i.e saria/rod or non joining of the public witnesses especially wife of the complainant and Rohtash cannot be considered to be fatal to the case of the complaint. Lapses or negligence on the part of the IO in the investigation cannot be allowed to throw over board the claim of the complainant being beaten or wrongfully restrained. Though in the statement Ex. PW-1/A of the complainant the fact that saria/rod was used for beating him is not mentioned but the fact that the complainant did receive injuries cannot be over looked.
13. As far as the defence that no public person was made a witness is concerned, the answer lies in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 6/11 India in Appabhai v. State of Gujarat (1988 SC Cr R 559 9 : AIR 1988 SC
696) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has been pleased to observe:
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensible when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilant. They keep themselves away from the court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate but it is there, everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigation agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witnesses must consider the broad spectrum or the prosecution version and search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
14. Further, The Indian Evidence Act does not specify any particular number of witnesses required to prove a fact and a fact can be proved even by one witness whether he is official or independent public witness depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Law requires that evidence has to be weighed and not counted (Ambika Prasad and Ano. Vs State 2002 (2) FIR No. 130/99 16/22 CRIMES 63 (SC) . The Evidence Act does not lay down about any number of witnesses needed for proving a particular fact.
FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 7/1115. Reliance can be placed upon Chittar Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (SC) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3548 wherein it was held:
It is the quality of evidence of the single witness whose testimony has to be tested on the touchstone of credibility and reliability. If the testimony is found to be reliable, there is no legal impediment to convict the accused on such proof. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact.1996(1) RCR(Crl.) 308 (SC) relied on.
16. In my view an injured witness is least likely, unless injuries are self inflicted, to shield or screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. A conviction can be founded on the sole testimony of an injured person unless there are compelling reasons for seeking corroboration to satisfy the judicial conscience. In the present case, there is nothing in the testimony of injured Kanhaiya Lal, which may impel the court to ask for corroboration.
17. As held in catena of judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in a criminal case, the testimony of the injured witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence, by itself is a sufficient and sound basis, in fact the best basis, for convicting accused person because, injuries guarantee the presence of such witnesses on the place of incident and once that is ensured, the limited question which remains is whether they are credible or not. It is only where the testimony of such witnesses is found incredible and untrustworthy vis-a-vis the core of the prosecution case that it should be discarded. This norm of appreciation of the evidence of injured witnesses is based on the trite that injuries only guarantee their presence but, do not ensure their truthfulness and no Court ever convicts accused persons FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 8/11 unless the evidence of witnesses is truthful and inspires confidence, on the material aspects of the prosecution case.
18. Further, a witness cannot be expected to narrate the incident like a parrot. Some improvements/contradictions may creep in due to fading of memory with lapse of time. These minor contradictions should not be given undue importance unless they are so glaring so as to destroy the confidence in the witness. In the instant case I do not find any infirmity in the testimony of the injured that her testimony should be looked with suspicion.
19. As far as the evidentiary value of the injured witness is concerned, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has this to say in the case of State of Gujrat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and Others 1990 CrLJ 2531 "For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that :
(1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
(2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence.
(5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 9/11 spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation.
(6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version.
Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story."
20. The defence arguments that the weapon of offence i.e the saria/rod was neither recovered in the investigation nor proved in the court is not tenable because the non recovery of weapon is no ground to acquit the accused and if any accused is entitled to be acquitted on this ground then all the accused persons will arrange their acquittal after the commissioning the offence simply by destruction of the weapon of offence.
21. The M.E. No. 48085 of patient Kanheya Lal (PW-1/complainant) is quite explicit regarding the nature of injuries received by him. Though the doctor who prepared the MLC did not himself come to the witness box to prove the same but the fact that the complainant received injuries, which has been proved by testimonies of other witnesses squarely covers the same within the definition of hurt u/s 319 I.P.C
22. Section 319 IPC, defines the term hurt. Under section 319 IPC whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 10/11 cause hurt. In the present case from the ocular and medical evidence, it is clear that complainant has suffered simple injuries in this case and to that extent the charge stands proved.
23. The charge U/s. 341 IPC for wrongfully restraining the complainant is proved because the injured when reached M Block, near the chakki of Rohtash was wrongfully restrained and there is there is clear deposition to that extent.
24. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt against the accused beyond the shadow of doubt. Accordingly the accused is held guilty and convicted of charges in the present case.
25. A copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused free of cost and the matter be now listed for arguments on the point of sentence.
(Bhupinder Singh) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Courts : Delhi Announced in the open court on December 14, 2011.
FIR No. 631/04 Page No. 11/11