Delhi District Court
State vs . Yakub Etc. on 29 April, 2014
Page 1
IN THE COURT OF MS. SWATI KATIYAR: MM, NEW DELHI
State Vs. Yakub Etc.
FIR No. : 134/04
P.S. : Tilak Marg
U/Sec. :324/34 IPC
JUDGMENT :
a) Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution 82/2 & 26.05.2004
b) Date of commission of offence 19.03.2004
c) Name of the complainant State through Ct. Narottam
d) Name of the accused 1. Yakub @ Muslim S/o Sh. Hafizulla, R/o H. No.125, Surdas Clony, Saidpur, Tilpat, Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Yamin @Farooq S/o Sh. Mangta, R/o H. No.125, Surdas Clony, Saidpur, Tilpat, Faridabad, Haryana.
(accused no. 2 already stand convicted vide order dated 04.03.2009)
e) Nature of offence complained of U/Sec.324/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused person Accused Yakub pleaded not guilty
g) Date of reserving order 27.03.2014
g) Final Order Convicted
h) Date of order 29.04.2014 State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 2 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 19.03.2004 at about 5 pm near Patiala House lock up within the jurisdiction of PS Tilak Marg, bothe the accused in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Manoj by broken pieces of glass, a cutting instrument and thus, committed offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. Copies were supplied to the accused persons and charge was framed upon them on 07.07.2004 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accused Yameen pleaded guilty before the Court and he was convicted vide order dated 04.03.2009.
3. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW1 is Constable Narottam who deposed that on 19.03.2004, he was working at New Delhi Judicial Lock up and was present on the Kharja of the lockup. He deposed that Manoj Bihari, Yakoob, Yamin and Farooq were got seated in the Jail Van and they all started quarreling with each other and started abusing. He deposed that they broke the glass of the Jail Van and assaulted each other and quarreling with each other came out from the van. PW1 deposed that Manoj had sustained injuries in the quarrel and all were sent to RML hospital. PW1 stated that Yameen and Yakub had assaulted Manoj with pieces of glass. His statement was recorded by IO Ex. PW1/A bearing his signature at point A. During crossexamination, PW1 admitted that both the accused also sustained injuries in the incident. PW1 was not able to state as to whether the broken piece of glass which were used in assaulting were taken into possession by the IO. He deposed that State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 3 blood was stained on the clothes of accused as well as of Manoj. He deposed that he did not know whether the IO had seized the clothing or not. He deposed that there were 30/40 UTPs present but quarrel had taken place between the accused and Manoj. PW1 stated that accused Yameen had sustained injuries on his hand. He deposed that IO had come to record his statement at the hospital and he was enquired into by HC also. He deposed that he had not noticed whether pieces of glass were having blood stain or not. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely. He further deposed that quarrel started when Manoj got into Jail van but he did not know as to who picked the quarrel. He deposed that his statement was recorded at the RML hospital by the IO SI, name of whom he could not remember. He deposed that he recorded his statement in his own handwriting. He denied the suggestion that accused Manoj had assaulted the accused persons and he was not beaten up by the accused persons and he got himself injured by breaking the glass in order to save his skin from the prosecution.
4. PW2 is Ct. Roop Chand who deposed that on 20.03.2004 at about 07:00 am, he had taken nine photographs at the spot at New Delhi judicial lockup Patiala House at the instance of IO and prepared the positives, given the same to the IO which are placed on the file. He deposed that he had brought the negatives of the photographs. Negatives were seen and returned. Photographs were exhibited as Ex. PW2/A1 to A9.
5. PW3 is HC Sheel Kumar who deposed that on 19.03.2004 on receipt of DD no. 13A, he had gone to RML hospital with Ct. Balwant at about 06:15 pm and he received the MLC of Manoj Bihari, Yameen and Yakoob. He deposed that doctor had declared all of them fit for statement. He deposed that IO had recorded statement of Ct. Narottam of State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 4 third batallion, DAP and sent Ct. Balwant to the PS for registration of FIR. He deposed that IO had interrogated the injured and his statement was also recorded. During cross examination, PW3 stated that DD no. 13 A was received at the PS at about 05:45 pm and IO had recorded the statement of Ct. Narottam. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
6. PW4 is Ct. Balwant who deposed that on 19.03.2004 he was posted at PS Tilak Marg and on that day, on receipt of copy of DD no. 13A, he alongwith HC Sheel Kumar had gone to RML hospital at about 06:15 pm. He deposed that HC Sheel collected MLC of three injured Yakoob, Yameen and Manoj and in the meantime, SI DD Meena also reached there whom MLCs were handed over. He deposed that IO recorded the statement of Ct. Narottam, made endorsement and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. He left the hospital with rukka at about 08:05 pm went to the PS, got the FIR registered and after registration of FIR, returned to the hospital at about 9 pm. During crossexamination, PW4 deposed that DD no. 13A was received at about 05:30 pm. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7. PW5 is HC Kuldeep Singh who deposed that on 19.03.2004 he was present at Patiala House Judicial lockup and was incharge of jail van. He deposed that accused Yameen and Yakoob were sitting in the jail van alongwith another UTP Manoj Bihari, all these three persons started quarreling with each other and abusing each other. He deposed that accused persons broke the glasses of jail van and assaulted each other. PW5 further deposed that accused persons alongwith Manoj came out from the jail van quarreling with each other. He deposed that accused Yakoob and Yameen had State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 5 assaulted UTP Manoj and all three were removed to RML hospital and his statement was recorded by IO SI DD Meena. During crossexamination, PW5 stated that he had seen the accused quarreling with Manoj. He admitted that all three had sustained injuries. He deposed that he had taken the injured persons to the RML hospital with guard. He deposed that they had reached at the hospital at about 05:30 pm. He deposed that IO had recorded his statement. He deposed that he remained in the hospital for about one and a half hour and thereafter, he left the hospital. PW5 further stated that he did not meet any official of Tilak Marg as he had gone inside the hospital. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of IO.
8. PW6 is Dr. Surender Kumar, RML Hospital who deposed that on 19.03.2004 at about 06:05 pm injured Yakoob, Yamin @ Farukh and Manoj were brought by HC V. K Bhardwaj (Manoj by HC Kailash Babu) with request for medical examination. He deposed that he had examined the injured vide MLC no. 31699, 98 and 93 respectively which are in his handwriting and after examination the injured were referred to surgical emergency for further management. He deposed that injuries found of the person of the injured have been mentioned in MLC which are in his handwriting and are Ex. PW6/A to C all bearing his signatures at point A respectively.
9. PW7 is SI Jaipal Singh who deposed that on 19.03.2004 he was working as second incharge of judicial lockup Patiala House Courts and at about 5 pm on the same day, the last jail van no. DL 1PA 0303 receiving by UTPs Yakub and Yamin were sitting in the van. He deposed that UTP Manoj Bihari was also taken in the same van. PW7 stated that he was aware of the rivalry between Manoj and Yakoob hence he State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 6 wanted to shift Manoj Bihari in the cabin of van and in this regard directions were issued to IC jail van HC Kuldeep Singh. He deposed that when Manoj Bihari was taken into the driver's cabin of the jail van, Yakub and Yamin suddenly broke the glass panes of the window of the jail van and attacked Manoj Bihari. He deposed that all three came out from the jail van and were assaulting Manoj Bihari, however, they were separated with the help of officials and as all three were injured were removed to RML hospital. He deposed that IO prepared site plan at his instance on the next day and recorded his statement. During crossexamination, PW7 deposed that on the date/ time of incident, he was present in the lockup and he had himself seen the occurrence by his own eyes. He deposed that UTP Manoj Bihari was taken to driver's cabin for sitting and he was about to occupy the seat. PW7 stated that he was standing near the jail van and at the time of incident, the UTP's cabin was not locked at that time. He deposed that the cabin which separate the DAP guard and staff with UTPs cabin was not locked. PW7 deposed that as far as he remembers UTP Manoj is accused in 9 cases. He deposed that they had moved application to use handcuffs and fetters against the UTP Manoj Bihari who is a desparate criminal. He denied the suggestiont that it was UTP Manoj who picked up the quarrel and gave beating to accused or that UTP Manoj had inflicted injuries on his person in order to save his skin from prosecution or that he was deposing falsely.
10. PW8 is SI Satyapal who deposed that on 19.03.2004 he was posted as duty officer at PS Tilak Marg and had registered FIR Ex. PW8/A.
11. PW9 is Ms. Lakshmi, Record clerk, RML Hospital who proved on record X ray State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 7 reports Ex. PW9/A to Ex. PW9/C.
12. PW10 is SI Devi Dayal Meena who deposed that on 19.03.2004 he was posted as SI at PS Tilak Marg and on that day, on receipt of DD no. 13A regarding quarrel he went to RML hospital, there he met HC Sheel Kumar and Ct. Balwant Singh. He deposed that HC Sheel Kumar handed over to him 3 MLCs of Manoj Bihari, Yakub and Yaseen. He deposed that in the hospital Ct. Narottam, who was the eye witness of the incident met him and he recorded his complaint i.e. Ex. PW10/A. He deposed that he converted the complaint into rukka Ex. PW10/B and handed over the same to Ct. Balwant Singh and sent him to PS Tilak Marg for registration of the case. PW10 further stated that after registration of the case, Ct. Balwant came back to hospital alongwith rukka and copy of FIR Ex. PW8/A and handed over to him. PW10 stated that he recorded the statement of the witnesses and inspected the site and prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Narottam i.e. Ex. PW10/C. PW10 further deposed that accused persons were arrested by producing the production warrants and were formally arrested vide arrest memos Ex. PW10/D and Ex. PW10/E. Their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW10/F and Ex. PW10/G. He deposed that thereafter he prepared the challan.
13. Statement of accused Yakoob was recorded on 05.09.2011 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him which he denied and pleaded innocence. However, accused declined to lead any evidence in his defence.
14. Final arguments were advanced at length by Sh. Honey Goel, Ld. APP for State State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg Page 8 and Sh. Fahim Alam, Ld. Counsel for accused. I have considered the submissions and perused the record carefully.
15. In the present case, the entire testimony of prosecution witnesses has gone unrebutted. Their is no challenge to the testimony of material witnesses by the accused. PW7 has categorically deposed that he had seen the incident with his eyes and that it was accused persons who had assaulted Manoj Bihari by broken pieces of glass. PW1 and PW5 had corroborated the version of the PW7. They being the police officials were natural witness to be present at the spot and neither there is any imputation of motive upon the witnesses nor the accused had furnished any explanation qua the incident. The MLCs placed on record also support the case of prosecution. Ld. Counsel for accused has raised a defence that UTP Manoj has not been examined by the prosecution. Perusal of the record shows that several efforts were made by the prosecution to bring Manoj on record, however, he could not be produced. Be that as it may, there were other eyewitness to the incident such as PW1, PW5 and PW7 and in view of their unrebutted testimony, absence of testimony of Manoj from record would not be of much consequence. The entire testimony of prosecution witnesses is without any contradictions and has been corroborated by the evidence. Accordingly, since the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and accused has not been able to punch any hole in the same, therefore, the accused Yakub is convicted of the offence punishable u/s. 324/34 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in open
Court on 29.04.2014) (Swati Katiyar)
MM, New Delhi
State Vs.Yakub
FIR No. 134/2004
P.S. Tilak Marg
Page 9
FIR No. 134/2004
P.S. Tilak marg
29.04.2014
Present: APP for State.
Accused Yakub in person.
Vide separate judgment accused Yakub stands convicted of the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.
On the point of sentence, Ld. APP for state submits that convict be given suitable punishment in accordance with law. Convict submits that he is sole bread earner of the family and has already spent 1 year in JC. It is prayed that lenient view be taken against him.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 6 months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C be given to the convict.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Swati Katiyar) MM/ND/29.04.2014 State Vs.Yakub FIR No. 134/2004 P.S. Tilak Marg