Delhi District Court
State vs . Kirpal & Ors. on 18 November, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. HARVINDER SINGH,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE - 03 (WEST),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI - 110 054.
FIR No.826/2002
PS - Nangloi
State Vs. Kirpal & Ors.
Unique Case ID No.02401R1019362003
JUDGMENT
(a) Sr. No. of the case 4401/1/08
(b) Date of offence 27.09.2002
(c) Complainant Gulshan S/o Sh. Satpal R/o B - 267, Nihal
Vihar, Delhi.
(d) Accused Kirpal S/o Sh. Jagjeet R/o E - 233, Nihal
Vihar, Delhi.
(e) Offence Under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code,
1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
(f) Plea of accused Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final Order Conviction
(h) Date of institution 06.01.2003
(i) Date when judgment was Not Reserved
reserved
(j) Date of judgment 18.11.2013
1. The brief facts of this case are that the accused has been charge sheeted for committing offence punishable under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The allegations against the accused are that on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm in front of H. No.B - 267, Nihal Vihar, Delhi, accused Kirpal along-with co-accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple injury on the person of FIR No.826/2002 Page No.1 to 8 Gulshan Kumar with sharp edged object. According to the prosecution, accused has committed offence punishable under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. Copy of the challan was supplied to the accused in compliance of Section 207 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide order dated 13.02.2004 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. In order to prove the guilt of accused, prosecution has examined five witnesses. PW1 ASI Rattan Singh has proved and exhibited the carbon copy of formal FIR Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on Rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW1 was examined, not cross- examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
4. PW2 Gulshan Kumar has deposed that on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm when he was present at his house, accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) was passing by their house and since, he owed money to him, so he demanded the same from Pardeep Singh on which he started abusing him and in the meantime, accused Kirpal also came there. Accused Pardeep caught hold of him from his throat by caughting hold his vest and accused Kirpal gave injuries with 'kirpan' on his shoulder and on his back. He was rescued by his brother and his wife who came after hearing the noise and took him to the hospital. He correctly identified accused Kirpal and accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) in the Court and further identified his statement Ex.PW2/A, 'kirpan' Ex.P1, cover of 'kirpan' Ex.P2 and his vest sealed in the hospital as Ex.P3 in his evidence. PW2 was FIR No.826/2002 Page No.2 to 8 examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
5. PW3 Kamlesh has deposed that on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm, she was at her house and on hearing noise/cries of her husband, she along-with her brother- in-law Ravinder Kumar came out of their house and saw that accused Pardeep (since PO) had caught hold of her husband and the accused Kirpal gave 'kirpan' blows to her husband from the back. They both rescued her husband from the accused persons and they took her husband to the hospital. She identified the accused persons in the Court and identified the kirpan, cover of kirpan and blood stained baniyan as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively. PW3 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
6. PW4 Dr. Munish Wadhawan has proved and exhibited MLC Ex.PW4/A. PW4 was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged.
7. PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh and PW5 SI Harpal Singh have deposed that on 27.09.2002, on receipt of D.D.No.16 from SGM Hospital, they went to SGM Hospital where they met with injured Gulshan who was under treatment. PW5 recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A and prepared Rukka on the same and handed over the same to PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh to get the FIR registered. PW2 went to PS to get the FIR registered. PW5 seized sealed pullanda handed over by SGM Hospital vide Ex.PW2/B. PW5 thereafter along-with brother of the injured namely Ravinder went to the spot and prepared site plan Ex.PW5/A at the instance of Ravinder. PW2 in the meantime came at the spot along-with copy of FIR and original Rukka and handed over the same to FIR No.826/2002 Page No.3 to 8 PW5. Thereafter, on the identification of Ravinder, accused Kirpal was arrested vide Ex.PW2/C and was personally searched vide Ex.PW2/E and accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) was arrested vide Ex.PW2/D and was personally searched vide Ex.PW2/F by PW5. PW5 recovered the weapon of offence i.e. 'kirpan' from possession of accused Kirpal vide Ex.PW2/A. PW5 recorded the statements of other witnesses and filed challan in this matter. PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh was examined, not cross-examined by the accused despite opportunity given and was discharged. PW5 was examined, cross-examined and was discharged.
8. The witness namely Ravinder remained untraceable in this matter despite being summoned through all possible means and his name was deleted from list of witnesses and prosecution evidence was closed on 18.07.2013 after examination of PW5.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of accused person was recorded under Section 313 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 281 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Incriminating evidence was put to him. Accused person denied all the allegations and stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further stated that his brother Pardeep has sold his house in those days. The complainant Gulshan and some other neighbours demanded money from them qua commission which they refused and on this complainant Gulshan along-with other persons and his wife put up a fight with them, however, they had not inflicted any injury to Gulshan Kumar. He further stated that the FIR No.826/2002 Page No.4 to 8 complainant took away Rs.50,000/- from them. Accused opted not to lead evidence in his defence.
10. Final arguments heard. Record is perused.
APPRECIATION OF FACTS/CONTENTIONS/ANALYSIS & FINDINGS
11. In this matter, the Ld. LAC for the accused has raised contentions that the PW5 has deposed that the doctors of the hospital handed over to him one sealed pullanda sealed with seal of 'SGM Hospital', therefore, the PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh could not have identified the vest of the injured in the Court. It is further contended that since, the other eye-witness Ravinder was not examined, therefore, the site plan and the arrest memos have not been proved on record. It is further contended that PW5 was not able to tell about the surroundings of the spot, therefore, it lends support to the case of the accused that all the proceedings were done at the police station. It is further contended that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter.
12. This Court has considered the contentions raised by the Ld. LAC for the accused. The accused has submitted in his statement under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. read with Section 281 of Cr. P.C. that the complainant Gulshan and his wife along-with some other persons put up a fight with them for commission. In these circumstances, it is admitted fact that the incident took place as alleged. The PW2 Gulshan Kumar has deposed that on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm when he was present at his house, accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) was passing by their house and since, he owed money to him, so he demanded the same from Pardeep Singh on which he started abusing him and in the meantime, accused Kirpal also came there. Accused Pardeep caught hold of him from his throat by caughting hold his vest and accused Kirpal gave FIR No.826/2002 Page No.5 to 8 injuries with 'kirpan' on his shoulder and on his back. He was rescued by his brother and his wife who came after hearing the noise and took him to the hospital. He correctly identified accused Kirpal and accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) in the Court and further identified his statement Ex.PW2/A, 'kirpan' Ex.P1, cover of 'kirpan' Ex.P2 and his vest sealed in the hospital as Ex.P3 in his evidence. The PW3 has also deposed on the same lines. The MLC of the PW2 Gulshan Kumar Ex.PW4/A has also been proved on record by PW4. The injuries mentioned in the MLC Ex.PW4/A corroborates the version of the PW2 Gulshan Kumar and PW3 Kamlesh. No plausible explanation has come forward from defence as to why the complainant would falsely implicate the accused persons in this case. The evidence of PW2 Gulshan Kumar and PW3 Kamlesh appears to be truthful and inspires the confidence of this Court. The discrepancies pointed by the Ld. LAC for the accused are minor one which do not go to the roots of the present matter and can be ignored in the present circumstances. The prosecution witnesses are consistent qua main incident and the other major proceedings done in the investigation of the present matter. Now, as far as the non-examination of alleged Ravinder is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the evidence of alleged Ravinder would have only corroborated the evidence already on record, but, since the evidence already on record is sufficient in itself qua the main incident, therefore, the non- examination of alleged Ravinder is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The IO PW5 has sufficiently proved the arrest memos of the accused persons. The non-proving of the site plan as per requirements of law has no consequences as the injured and the eye-witness have sufficiently proved the place and manner of incident in their deposition. In these circumstances, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the FIR No.826/2002 Page No.6 to 8 accused Kirpal along-with co-accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries on the person of the complainant Gulshan Kumar with 'kirpan'.
13. In this matter, PW2 has deposed that on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm when he was present his house, accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) was passing by their house and since, he owed money to him, so he demanded the same from Pardeep Singh on which he started abusing him and in the meantime, accused Kirpal also came there. Accused Pardeep caught hold of him from his throat by caughting hold his vest and accused Kirpal gave injuries with 'kirpan' on his shoulder and on his back. He was rescued by his brother and his wife who came after hearing the noise and took him to the hospital. He correctly identified accused Kirpal and accused Pardeep Singh (since PO) in the Court and further identified his statement Ex.PW2/A, 'kirpan' Ex.P1, cover of 'kirpan' Ex.P2 and his vest sealed in the hospital as Ex.P3 in his deposition. PW3 has also deposed on same lines except for minor variations. PW1 has proved and exhibited the formal FIR Ex.PW1/A and endorsement on the Rukka Ex.PW1/B. PW4 has proved and exhibited the MLC of Gulshan Kumar as Ex.PW4/A in his evidence. PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh and PW5 SI Harpal Singh have deposed regarding the proceedings done in the investigation and have exhibited the recovery memo of 'kirpan' Ex.PW2/A, arrest memos of both accused persons Ex.PW2/C and Ex.PW2/D, their personal search memos Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F. PW5 has further exhibited the site plan as Ex.PW5/A in his evidence. Both PW2 Ct. Pratap Singh and PW5 SI Harpal Singh have further identified and exhibited the 'kirpan' recovered from the possession of accused Kirpal as Ex.P1.
FIR No.826/2002 Page No.7 to 8
The prosecution witnesses appear to be truthful and all of them are consistent in their depositions qua main incident and main proceedings of the investigation of this matter. Their depositions inspire the confidence of this Court. In these circumstances, it has been brought on record that the accused Kirpal along-with co-accused Pardeep (since PO) in furtherance of their common intention inflicted simple injuries on the person of the complainant Gulshan Kumar with a sharp cutting object i.e. 'kirpan' on 27.09.2002 at about 05:15 pm at in front of house of complainant Gulshan Kumar. So, ingredients of commission of offence under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been brought on record by the prosecution against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be convicted for the same.
14. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that prosecution has duly proved its case against the accused person for offence punishable under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused person namely Kirpal stands convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860.
16. Copy of judgment be supplied to the convict free of cost.
Announced in the open Court on November 18, 2013.
(HARVINDER SINGH) M.M.-03/THC (West), Delhi/18.11.2013 FIR No.826/2002 Page No.8 to 8