Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Raj Etc. on 30 March, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR NO. 187/01
U/S 341/323/34 IPC
PS:Bawana
State Vs Ram Raj etc.
Date of Institution of case : 18/10/2001
Date of Judgment reserved:30/03/2009
Date of which Judgment pronounced:30/03/2009
JUDGMENT
Sl. No of case :1512/2
Date of commission of offence :24/05/01
Name of the complainant :Smt. RitaDevi
Name and address of accused :1. Ram Raj
S/o Ram Saroop
R/o Jhuggi No. 80,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
2. Goodna
W/o Mewa ram
R/o Jhuggi A-Block,
Shahbad Dairy, Delhi.
Offence complained of :341/323/34 IPC
Plea of accused :Pleaded not guilty
Date of order :30/03/09
Final order :Convicted
Date of Final Order :31/03/09
BRIEF REASONS
1. By this judgment I shall dispose off the challan as has been sent by SHO, PS Bawana against both the accused persons namely Ram Raj & Goodna on the fact that they both on 24/05/01 at about 7:15 p.m in furtherance of pg no. 1 their common intention have wrongfully restrained and caused simple injuries on the persons of Smt. RitaDevi and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 341/323/34 IPC and it is further stated that after completing investigation, the same has been forwarded by the SHO with a prayer to dispose of the same in accordance with law.
2. After filing the challan, accused persons were summoned and after supplying the copies to them the notice U/S 251 Cr.P.C was framed against the accused on 12/11/03 to which both the accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter, an opportunity was given to the prosecution to prove accusation against both the accused persons. Accordingly, prosecution examined PW1 Medical Record Clerk, BJRM Hospital, who proved the MLC of injured, PW2 HC Ombir Singh, the Duty Officer, who proved the FIR, PW3 RitaDevi, the complainant & PW4 ASI Om Prakash.
4. It is a matter of record that prosecution has referred as many as 5 witnesses but examined 4 material witnesses but Ct. Surender Kumar has not been examined, who had accompanied the IO.
5. In nutshell, the evidence which has come against accused persons is based on ther testimony of PW3, the complainant, who has deposed that she does not know the exact date of incident but it was about six years prior from the date of her deposition and she deposed that she knew the accused Ram Raj, present in the court as he was residing in her locality and accused Ram Raj has quarreled with her but she did not recollect the date. One day, when she reached Budh Mandir near Shahbad then both the accused pg no. 2 persons used filthy language and both of them caught hold her and meanwhile accused Ram Raj had brought one iron rod and hit on her head. Both of them severely beaten her and blood started oozing from her head and nose. She was admitted to the hospital, where police had recorded her statement, which is Ex. PW3/A, bears her signature. She was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
6. Her testimony is being corroborated by PW1, who has proved the MLC of injured. MLC of injured was prepared byDr. Amjad, who has opined that injuries are simple in nature and same is Ex. PW1/A.
7. Further, the IO confirms the fact when he deposes on the same line and he has deposed that on 24/25.05.01, he was posted at PP Shahbad Dairy, Delhi and on that day he received DD No. 25 PP, which was handed over to him by Ct. Surender and thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Surender reached near Budh Mandir, Shahbad Dairy, Delhi, where he came to know that injured had already been taken to BJRM Hospital by PCR Van. No eye witness was present there. Thereafter, he went to BJRM Hospital, where he obtained the MLC of injured Rita Devi and one Sunita but both the injured person were not present in the hospital and it was told to him that Rita Devi has been referred to Sushrut Trauma Centre. He reached there and recorded her statement, same is Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW4/A and handed over the same to Ct. Surender for registeration of the FIR and he himself left for the spot and Ct. Surender returned back at the spot after registeration of the FIR. Thereafter, on 26/05/01, site plan was prepared by him on the instance of complainant pg no. 3 Rita Devi and the same is Ex. PW4/B. He traced out the accused persons and arrested them in due course of investigation on which he completed formalities to arrest them and thereafter, he obtained MLC of injured Rita Devi about the nature of injuries and after completing the investigation, filed the challan before the through SHO.
8. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused persons and in his cross examination, he has deposed that Rita Devi told about the residences of accused persons and complainant had disclosed the names of accused persons and not the relation with each other and the same was not revealed during investigation also. No other eye witness was found on the spot. He denied the suggestion that accused persons have been falsely implicated at the instance of complainant because there were strained relations between accused persons and complainant. He also deposed that he was not aware that accused Ram Raj is devar of the complainant. He further deposed that Sunita was referred to Hindu Rao Hospital from BJRM Hospital but she never met him thereafter. He did not remember whether he had obtained signatures of complainant on Site Plan or not. He also denied the suggestion that site plan was not prepared at the instance of complainant. He also deposed that weapon of offence i.e. Saria was not recovered. He denied the suggestion that he has not investigated the matter or he is deposing falsely.
9. After the testimony of IO, P.E was closed and statement of accused persons were recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C in which both of them stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated but simultaneously pg no. 4 stated that they would not lead evidence in defence.
10. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
11. There is only one witness with respect to the incident i.e. injured, who has deposed with respect to her injury. There is no corroboration of this fact from any other public witness but since she has not been cross examined by the accused persons & her evidence is being corroborated with the medical record, it has to be relied upon. Although, this witness does not remember the date but IO has mentioned the date and time of incident, which was intervening night of 24/25.05.01 and this fact is getting corroboration with MLC Ex. PW2/A prepared by hospital, which also bears the date of 24/05/01. It is also coming in the cross examination of the IO by Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant and accused persons are related. Therefore, there could not be any doubt with respect to identification of the accused persons and the date with respect to the incident. However, the only allegations which has come against accused Goodna is that she has abused her and caught hold her. The evidence against Ram Raj is specific that he has brought an iron rod and hit her. Admittedly, iron rod has been recovered & blood stained clothes have been recovered/seized by IO. Therefore, the nature of injury, which has come on record is simple has to be believed as such, in absence of any defence evidence and in view the corroboration of fact of suffering injuries by complainant at the hands of accused persons after restraining her from the way, she had right to go.
12. The allegations against accused persons which has come on record that pg no. 5 they were together at the time of causing injury to the complainant and as such Section 34 IPC was incorporated which denotes the common intention. The common intention can only be inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case and in present case, since, the accused persons have been together at the time of commission of offence and they are in relation also & since they have not denied that they were not together, the court is of the opinion that in the present case the common intention of both the accused persons can be inferred.
13. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has been able to prove that the accused persons Ram Raj & Goodna, both have wrongfully restrained the complainant and caused simple injuries to Smt Rita Devi in furtherance of their common intention and as such they both are convicted They be heard on the point of sentence on 31/03/09.
(SUKHVIR SINGH MALHOTRA) Metropolitan Magistrate Rohini Court, Delhi.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY i.e on 30th March, 2009 pg no. 6 pg no. 7