Delhi District Court
State vs . : Raman Oberoi Etc. on 25 April, 2019
IN THE COURT OF AASHISH GUPTA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE07, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
FIR No. : 60/12
P.S. : Kotla Mubarakpur
u/s : 325/34 IPC
State Vs. : Raman Oberoi Etc.
a. The Sl. No. of the case : 94474/16
b. The date of commission of offence : 14.03.2012
c. The date of Institution of the case : 30.11.2012
d. The name of complainant : Rachit Murarka @ Hemu
Murarka
e. The name of accused : 1. Raman Oberoi
s/o Late Santosh Oberoi
R/o H. No. J 93, South Ex.
Part1, New Delhi
2. Ghanshyam
s/o Norang Lal
R/o H. No. J 93, South Ex.
Part1, New Delhi
3. Babu Lal
s/o Jai Ram
R/o H. No. J 93, South Ex.
Part1, New Delhi
f. The offence complained of : 325/34 IPC
g. Charges framed under sections : 325/34 IPC
h. The plea of accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
i. Arguments heard on : 01.04.2019
j. The final order qua all accused : Convicted u/s. 323/34 IPC
Acquitted u/s. 325/34 IPC
k. The date of judgment : 25.04.2019
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 1 of 12
JUDGMENT
1. All accused Raman Oberoi, Ghanshyam and Babu Lal have been sent for trial on the allegations that on 14.03.2012 at about 12:30 PM in front of house no. J - 95, South Extension Part - 1, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of P.S. Kotla Mubarakpur, they all in furtherance of their common intention, had voluntarily caused grievous injuries (fracture in left ring finger) to the complainant namely Rachit Murarka @ Hemu Murarka by beating him with fist and kicks. Thus, as per the prosecution, they all thus committed offence(s) made punishable u/s. 325/34 IPC.
2. The IO, after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet before this court for said offences. It may be noted that after the initial chargesheet was filed, further investigation was ordered in this case which led to filing of a supplementary chargesheet also wherein no fresh section of offence or any other accused was added.
3. Charges for offences made punishable u/s. 325/34 IPC were framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 2 of 12 Sr. Witness Nature of deposition / documents produced / No. Description proved i PW1 Documents produced/proved:
Hemu Murarka @ A. Complaint Ex. PW1/A. Rachit B. Protest petition (running into 10 pages) Ex.PW1/DA He is the complainant in this case and deposed that on 14.03.2012 at about 12:30 pm, accused Raman Oberoi had parked his vehicle in front of his house and upon raising an objection to remove the same, some verbal altercations took place and eventually accused persons namely Raman Oberoi, Ghanshyam and Babu Press Wala started beating the witness with fists and leg blows. Due to the said beatings, witness sustained injuries purportedly on his face. He also claims that accused Raman Oberoi had threatened to kill him. As per him, he also took a brick and tried to kill the witness.
As per him, his mother Mrs. Nirmala Murarka reached there and she saved his life. Thereafter, he made a call to the police at 100 number and thereafter, he made a complaint to the police.
This witness had correctly identified the accused persons who were present in the court as the persons responsible for the said incident.
ii PW2 Documents produced/proved:
Nirmala
Murarka A. Statement of witness u/s. 161 CrPC Mark X
PW2 is the mother of the complainant / PW1. She FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 3 of 12 also deposed on the same lines as PW1.
This witness had correctly identified the accused persons who were present in the court as the persons responsible for the said incident.
iii PW3 Documents produced/proved:
HC Kamlesh
Kumar A. Arrest and personal search memos of accused
persons Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/F
PW3 deposed that he joined the investigation with SI Anand Jha and was witness to the aforesaid documents.
iv PW4 PW4 deposed that he had also joined the PSI Tanish investigation after the incident on 14.03.2012 with SI Anand Jha who recorded his statement u/s. 161 CrPC.
v PW5 Documents produced/proved:
SI Anand
Jha A. Rukka Ex.PW5/A
B. Site plan Ex.PW5/B
This witness is the 1st IO of this case who carried out initial investigation in this case and filed the main chargesheet.
vi PW6 Documents produced/proved:
SI Deepak
Kumar A. Letter Ex.PW6/A (colly.).
This witness is the 2nd IO of this case who carried out further investigation in this case which FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 4 of 12 eventually led to the filing of supplementary chargesheet.
Documents admitted by the accused:
A. FIR (without contents) registered in the present case Ex.PA1 B. MLC bearing no. 300439 dated 14.03.2012 of Hemu Murarka Ex.PA2 C. Final opinion of said MLC dated 19.10.2013 Ex.PA3
5. All the said witnesses were duly examined on behalf of the State and crossexamined [by the Ld. APP for State, where necessary and also by the counsel for the accused person(s)].
6. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.P.C in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. He did not avail the opportunity to lead defence evidence. Hence matter reached the stage of final arguments.
7. Final arguments heard. Record perused.
8. Prosecution herein is alleged that all the accused herein had with the common intention, beaten up the complainant which led to various injuries on his body including a fracture to his ring finger. Thus, prosecution alleges that all the accused herein had committed offences made punishable u/s. 325/34 IPC.
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 5 of 12
9. Now, before proceeding further, it may be noted that there is a delay of 06 days in the registration of the present FIR. While, the complainant claimed that incident took place on 14.03.2012, the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A was given on 20.03.2012 only which led to registration of FIR on the said date. Counsel for the accused persons had vehemently argued that this unexplained delay of 06 days is fatal to the case of the prosecution and thus all his clients should be acquitted on this ground itself.
10. It is settled law that delay in each and every case in the reporting of the incident and registration of FIR is not always fatal to the prosecution's case. The delay has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence should be weighed to rule out the possibility of after thought in the narration of sequence of events qua a given incident. In the present case, as per the complaint Ex.PW1/A, complainant claims that accused Raman Oberoi had parked his vehicle in front of his gate. This led to an altercation between the complainant and accused Raman Oberoi and eventually all the three accused came together to beat up the complainant resulting in some injury to the complainant. This complaint is dated 20.03.2012 but, it refers to the medical being conducted of the complainant on 14.03.2012 itself. Now, a perusal of the MLC of the complainant Ex.PA2 shows that at about 1:30 PM complainant reported at AIIMS Trauma Centre alongwith one police Ct. Sandeep for his medical checkup. As per the complaint Ex.PW1/A, the incident FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 6 of 12 is reported to have occurred at 12:30 PM. If I take the said narration of facts contained in Ex.PW1/A read with the MLC Ex.PA2, it appears that some injury was suffered by the complainant and he reported at the hospital within 01 hour of the incident. Thus, even though the incident was reported in writing on 20.03.2012, there is some record qua the said incident which was reported to the concerned authorities and thus only because there was a delay in the registration of FIR, the same by itself cannot be treated as fatal to the prosecution's case. Needless to say that the evidence before this court has to be read on its own merit including the point of delay being considered while appreciating evidence.
11.Now, as far as the offence made punishable u/s. 325/34 is concerned, complainant / PW1 and his mother / PW2 have stepped in the witness box to claim that on 14.03.2012 at about 12:30 PM accused Raman Oberoi has parked his vehicle in front of the house of the complainant and was unloading some drums from the said vehicle. When an objection was raised by the complainant, some altercation took place between them and thereafter accused Raman Oberoi alongwith accused Ghanshyam and Babu started hitting the complainant. This led to some injury to the complainant. Now, as far as the testimony of the complainant / PW1 and his mother / PW2 is concerned till this point, the same is consonance with his written complaint Ex.PW1/A. These are the exact facts narrated by the complainant in his complaint Ex.PW1/A and both the said witnesses have reiterated them again FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 7 of 12 before this court. On these facts, there is neither any contradiction nor anything otherwise has been brought in the crossexamination to disbelieve them. Infact, as already noted, at about 1:30 PM, complainant reported at AIIMS Trauma Centre alongwith one Ct. Sandeep for his medical examination. The MLC Ex.PA2 (admitted document) shows that the complainant had suffered some injuries on his face, left knee and left ring finger. History of assault is also recorded in the said MLC.
12.Thus, if I see the testimony of PW1 / complainant / Hemu Murarka @ Rachit and PW2 / mother of complainant / Nirmala Murarka in the light of his initial complaint Ex.PW1/A alongwith the MLC, it appears that all the accused herein had beaten up the complainant resulting in injuries on his body. It is nobody's case that the complainant had any motive or illwill against either of the accused herein to falsely implicate them in the present case. Nothing of the sort has been alleged by either of the accused herein while recording their statement u/s. 313 CrPC. The date, time and place of alleged assault are the same in the testimony of PW1 and PW2 which corroborates with the facts recorded in the MLC as well as in the initial complaint Ex.PW1/A. Thus, the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are, in my opinion, sufficient to show that all the three accused herein had acted in tandem and voluntarily caused injuries on the body of the complainant.
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 8 of 12
13.Now a question arises as to whether the said injuries were grievous within the meaning of section 320 IPC or not. This is because, only if it is shown from the record that complainant herein had suffered injury(ies) of the nature defined u/s. 320 IPC, can the accused herein be said to have violated section 322 IPC read with section 325 IPC (for which accused herein have faced trail).
14.Now, it may be noted that in the MLC of the complainant Ex.PA2 has no mention of any injury of the nature defined u/s. 320 IPC. It simply states that there are certain abrasions on the "left cheek" and "left knee" of the complainant. It further records that there was "swelling of the left ring finger" of the complainant. Thus, none of the said injuries are of the nature described u/s. 320 IPC. It may be noted that on the said MLC Ex.PA2 the treating doctor at AIIMS on 14.03.2012 had opined that the injury suffered by the complainant was "grievous" and caused by "a blunt weapon". But with the absence of any particulars of injury as defined u/s. 320 IPC missing on the said MLC, on what basis such opinion has been given is anybody's guess. There is nothing on record in support of the said MLC (issued by AIIMS) to show as to what injury was suffered by the complainant and the nature / particulars of the injury as mentioned in his MLC Ex.PA2 does not make out a case of grievous injury.
15.At this stage, it may be noted that a subsequent opinion was also sought by the police from the various medical documents of the FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 9 of 12 complainant and in the said subsequent opinion Ex.PA3, the concerned doctor has reported a fracture to the left ring finger of the complainant. Now, in the same opinion, he has reported that certain documents of Safdarjung hospital were also shown to the said doctor and in the said documents "alleged h/o trauma due to fall on stairs (C/42771, and FC4670/12) dated 18.03.2012" is also written. Now, the documents of Safdarjung hospital were not produced before this court in evidence or any explanation given by the prosecution qua the said documents. It appears that a second opinion was taken by the complainant at Safdarjung hospital on 18.03.2012 and while such second opinion was sought by the complainant, he had reported history of fall on stairs on 18.03.2012. This is based on the fact that certain documents from Safdarjung hospital were filed by the complainant with his protest petition in this court and on the basis of the same further investigation was ordered in the present case. But, as already noted, the said documents of Safdarjung hospital were not led in evidence. But, one of the medical reports Ex.PA3 (noted above) was placed on record by the prosecution as per which the history of fall on stairs was reported and medical examination in that regard of the complainant was done on 18.03.2012. Now, there are two possibilities : firstly, the fracture in the left ring finger of the complainant was a result of the incident dated 14.03.2012; secondly, the fracture in the left ring finger of the complainant was a result of his fall on stairs on or after 14.03.2012 qua which he visited Safdarjung hospital on 18.03.2012.
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 10 of 12
16.Now, it is settled law that where two views are possible on certain facts, the view which favours the accused shall have to be taken in a criminal case. If I consider the facts narrated above in light of the aforesaid law, it is possible that complainant went to Safdarjung hospital on 18.03.2012 and reported injury to his left ring finger and the subsequent prognosis of fracture to his left ring finger was a direct result of his fall on stairs and the same had nothing to do with the incident dated 14.03.2012. If that be the case, the accused herein cannot be said to be responsible for the fracture to the finger of the complainant. Simply put, benefit of doubt in this regard shall have to be given to the accused persons. At this stage, it may be recalled that even the MLC Ex.PA2 of the complainant is silent qua the particulars of the injury which could be said to be "grievous" within the meaning of section 320 IPC.
17.If that be the case, there is nothing on record to show that the complainant actually suffered grievous injury on 14.03.2012 to his left ring finger. If that be the case, the entire prosecution built around the MLC of the complainant Ex.PA2 to the effect that the accused herein were responsible for the fracture to the finger of the complainant falls.
18.But, at the same time, it is to be recalled that this court has found the testimony of PW1 and PW2 credible and trustworthy qua the incident of assault and resulting injuries which are simple in nature (see Ex.PA2). Thus, all the accused herein are convicted for offence made FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 11 of 12 punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC. They all are acquitted for offence made punishable u/s. 325/34 IPC.
19.Before parting with the judgment, I may record that subsequently, complainant had tried to claim that he was actually threatened to be killed by the accused persons and an attempt to murder him was also made by accused Raman Oberoi during the incident as he was tried to be hit by a brick. Suffice is to say that the initial complaint dated 20.03.2012 does not contain any such facts and thereafter, neither of the accused were put to trial for the said offences. Thus, this court did not find any ground to commit the present case to the Ld. Sessions Court or re - frame the charges. The said contention made by the counsel for the complainant is nothing but appears to be a late attempt to somehow keep the case dragging. Be that as it may, all the accused herein have been found guilty for offence made punishable u/s. 323/34 IPC. They have been convicted.
20.Now, to come up for arguments on the point of sentence.
Announced in the Open AASHISH Aashish Gupta
Court on 25th day of April, 2019 GUPTA MM(South East)07
Saket, New Delhi
Digitally signed
by AASHISH
GUPTA
Date: 2019.04.25
16:52:38 +0700
FIR No. 60/12 State V/s. Raman Oberoi Etc. 12 of 12