Delhi District Court
Fir No: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , State vs Bhagwat Kishore 1/13 on 17 September, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Sessions Case No. 91/14
FIR No. 49/13
PS : Lahori Gate
Under Section: 308 IPC
Unique ID No. 0240IR0183432014
State
Versus
Bhagwat Kishore @ Dabbu
S/o Bhup Singh
R/o H.No. B-116, Nabi Kareem Bagri Basti
Pharganj, New Delhi.
Date of institution : 11.04.2014
Date of committal : 10.05.2014
Date for reservation of judgment
conclusion of final arguments : 06.09.2014
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 15.09.2014
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Bhagwat Kishore @ Dabbu S/o Bhup Singh was committed to the Court of Sessions by Learned MM (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi to stand trial Under Section 308/323 IPC for attempt to commit culpable homicide of his mother-in-law Smt. Nanhi Devi by inflicting injuries on her head with an iron rod and for causing hurt to his wife Smt. Santosh at about 11:15 am on 20.03.2013 at H.No. 238, Gali Kandle Kashan, Fateh Puri, Delhi.
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 1/13 2 CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. The facts of prosecution case as per the FIR and the first information statement of the complainant Smt. Nanhi Devi are that on receipt of DD No.16 A on 20.03.2013, ASI Sohanvir Singh along with Const.Hari Shankar reached the spot i.e. House No.238, Gali Kandle Kasan where they came to know that the injured had already been removed to JPN Hospital. No eye witness was found at the spot. Thereafter, ASI Sohanvir Singh and Const. Hari Shankar reached JPN hospital where they obtained MLCs No. 53724, 53725 of both the injured namely Smt. Nanhi Devi and Smt. Santosh and they were both declared fit for statement. ASI Sohanvir Singh recorded the first information statement (Ex.PW1/A) of injured Nanhi Devi wherein she stated that she is a housewife and resides at H.No.BB-116, Nabi Karim, Bagari Basi, Paharganj, New Delhi. Her daughter Smt. Santosh was residing at her matrimonial home i.e. H.No.238, Gali Kangle Kasan. On 20.03.2013 she received a telephone call from her daughter Santosh that her husband/accused Bhagwat Kishore was quarreling with her. In pursuance of the said telephone call, she reached the matrimonial house of her daughter Santosh and inquired about the cause of the quarrel from her son-in-law/accused Bhagwat Kishore. Accused Bhagwat Kishore informed her that he did not want to reside with her daughter Santosh and started giving beatings to her daughter in her presence. When she objected to the beatings given to her daughter, the accused picked one saria (iron rod) and hit her on her head. While proclaiming that today the accused Bhagwat Kishore will eliminate the complainant.
3. It is the further case of the prosecution that ASI Sohanvir on the basis of the first information statement of the complainant, prepared a rukka and sent Const. Hari Shankar to the PS for getting the case FIR FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 2/13 3 (Ex.PW4/A) registered U/s 308 IPC. During investigation SI Sohanvir Singh got the site plan (Ex.PW2/A) prepared and arrested the accused vide arrest memo (Ex.PW2/B) at the instance of the injured Smt. Santosh. His personal search was conducted vide personal search memo (Ex.PW3/A). Accused also pointed out the place of occurrence and got recovered the weapon of offence i.e iron rod (saria) which was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW3/B). ASI Sohanvir Singh also recorded the disclosure statement (Ex.PW5/B) of accused and after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet U/s 308 IPC against the accused Bhagwat Kishore.
CHARGE
4. Charge under Section 308 IPC was framed on 06.06.2014 against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Subsequently, on 02.09.2014, the charge was amended and accused was also charged for the commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION WITNESSES
5. In order to establish its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Nanhi Devi (Complainant/ Injured), PW2 Smt. Santosh Devi (second injured),PW4 HC Pushpender (Duty Officer), PW3 Const. H.S.Chaturvedi and PW5 ASI Sohanvir (witnesses of investigation), PW6 Doctor Ritu Saxena and PW7 Sh. B.S. Bhati, Medical Record Clerk, LNJP Hospital.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 3/13 4
6. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein the accused denied the allegations against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. Accused also did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
7. I have heard the Learned Addl. PP for State and the learned counsel for the accused and have perused the entire record with utmost care.
MATERIAL WITNESSES
8. Smt. Nanhi Devi (complainant/ injured) was examined as PW 1.
She testified that 3-4 days prior to Holi in March 2013, she received a telephone call from her daughter Santosh that she has had a quarrel with her husband/accused Bagwat Kishore in pursuance of which, she reached the matrimonial house of her daughter where she found her daughter Santosh and son-in-law i.e accused quarreling with each other. Accused was beating her daughter and stating that he did not want to keep her daughter. When she tried to intervene, the accused hit her with an iron rod on her head due to which she became unconscious. When she regained her consciousness, she found herself in the hospital where her first information statement (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded by the police.
9. In the cross examination of PW-1, she testified that on the date of the incident, she had received a call in the morning from her daughter and the accused. She was told by her daughter on phone that her daughter had gone to collect her clothes from the house of the accused i.e. the matrimonial home. She reached the matrimonial house of her daughter at about 10/10.30 AM along with her daughter in law/ Babita. When she reached the house of her daughter, she found her daughter and accused involved in an altercation. Ever FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 4/13 5 since the incident, her daughter Santosh has been residing with her.In her further cross examination, she denied having falsely implicated the accused as she was the mother of Santosh/wife of the accused who did not want to live with her husband/accused. She also denied having not been assaulted by the accused with an iron rod and sustaining injuries on her head.
10. Santosh Devi (Wife of the accused and daughter of PW1) was examined as PW2. She testified that the accused was her husband and she had been married to him for about 17 years. Out of the wedlock, she had two daughters and one son. She further testified that on 20.3.2013, she was at her parental house, when she received a call from accused. On receipt of the call, she reached her matrimonial home. At about 11.00pm (wrongly recorded as 11:00 pm for 11:00 am) an altercation took place between her and the accused husband. When the accused was giving beatings to her, her mother (PW-1) tried to intervene during which her mother (PW1) sustained injuries on her head with an iron rod. Thereafter, her mother (PW1) fell down and became unconscious. Her mother(PW1) was immediately rushed to the hospital. She also made a call by dialing 100 number. The police reached the hospital and recorded the statement of her mother (PW1) whereafter the case FIR was registered. Thereafter, she alongwith the police reached the spot and pointed the place of occurrence, on the basis of which site plan (Ex.PW2/A) was prepared by the police. Accused Bhagwat Kishore was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW2/B) and he got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. the iron rod which was seized by the police. PW2 also identified the iron rod Ex.P1 produced by the MHCM being the same which was used by the accused to hit her mother on her head at the time of the incident. Her statement was recorded by the IO.
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 5/13 6
11. PW 2 in her cross examination testified that just before the incident, the accused Bhagwat Kishore had called her to the matrimonial home. Her mother Nanhi Devi and Babita (brother's wife) had reached five minutes after she had reached the matrimonial home. She also deposed that as soon as she reached the matrimonial home, accused started abusing her and a quarrel took place between them. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicaed the accused due to her matrimonial disputes with the accused. She also refuted the suggestion that no such incident had taken place or that no injury was caused to her mother by the accused.
FORMAL WITNESSES
12. HC Pushpender was the Duty Officer on the date of the incident i.e 20.3.2013 at PS Lahori Gate and was examined as PW4. He deposed that his duty hours were from 8.00 AM to 4.00 PM and at about 1.40 PM, on 20.03.2014 he received a ruqqa brought by Const. Hari Shankar and sent by ASI Sohanvir Singh, on the basis of which, he recorded FIR (Ex.PW 4/A) and made endorsement (Ex.PW4/B) on rukka (Ex.PW4/A). After registration of the case FIR, investigation was handed over to ASI Sohanvir Singh.
MEDICO WITNESSES
13. PW6 Dr. Ritu Saxena, CMO, LNJP Hospital testified that on the date of the incident i.e. 20.03.2013 she was working as CMO, LNJP Hospital. The injured Santosh and Nanhi Devi were brought to the hospital with alleged history of physical assault and they were examined by Doctor Owais under her supervision. She proved the MLCs of injured Santosh and Nanhi Devi as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively wherein the nature of injuries on the persons of both the FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 6/13 7 injured were opined as "Simple Blunt". She also testified that after examination, Smt. Nanhi Devi (PW1) was referred to Neuro Surgery (Emergency).
14. PW7 Sh.B.S.Bhati, Medical Record Clerk proved the handwriting, signature and nature of injury as "Simple" opined by Doctor Yogesh on MLC Ex.PW6/B. WITNESSES OF THE INVESTIGATION
15. ASI Sohanvir Singh, who is the Investigating Officer was examined as PW-5. He testified that on 20.03.2013, he was posted at P.S. Lahori Gate and was on emergency duty. On receipt of DD No.16A regarding quarrel at House No. 238, Gali Kangle Kasan, Fatehpuri, he alongwith Const. Hari Shankar (PW-3) reached the spot where they came to know that the injured had already been removed to JPN Hospital in a PCR. He left Const. Hari Shanker (PW-3) at the spot and went to JPN Hospital where he collected the MLCs of injured Nanhi Devi and Santosh Devi. The First Information Statement (Ex.PW-1/A) of Nanhi Devi was recorded. Thereafter, he returned to the spot and prepared Rukka (Ex.PW-5/A) and handed over the same to Const.Hari Shanker (PW-3) for getting the case FIR registered. Const.Hari Shankar after registration of the case FIR to the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. In the meantime, injured Santosh Devi (PW-2) also reached the spot, at whose instance the Site Plan (Ex.PW-2/A) was prepared. Thereafter, on the pointing out of injured Santosh Devi (PW-2), accused Bhagwat Kishore @ Dabbu was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.PW-2/B) and his personal search conducted vide Personal Search Memo (Ex.PW-3/A). The accused was interrogated and in pursuance to his disclosure statement (Ex.PW-5/B), he got recovered the Iron Saria which he had used to FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 7/13 8 assault the injured Nanhi Devi on her head. The Iron Saria (Ex.P1) was converted into a sealed parcel and sealed with a seal of SST and seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW-3/B). PW-5 further testified that he also recorded the statements of the witnesses and deposited the Case Property with MHCM.He also correctly identified Ex.P1 (iron sariya) which was recovered at the instance of the accused.
16. Const. H.S.Chaturvedi who joined the investigation with IO (PW-5) was examined as PW3. He corroborated the statement of the IO (PW5) on all material particulars and also identified the accused Bhagwat Kishore and the iron rod (Ex.P1) to be the same as recovered at the instance of accused.
FINDINGS
17. From the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2, it emerges that there is no variance in the statements of PW1 and PW2 regarding the incident and the role of the accused Bhagwat Kishore in assaulting both PW-1 and PW2. It is evident that PW-1 who was the mother in law of the accused was hit by the accused on her head by an iron rod, when she had intervened in the altercation between her daughter Santosh (PW2) and her husband, accused Bhagwat Kishore.
18. Their testimonies also reveal that it was not suggested either to PW 1 or to PW2 that PW1 had sustained injuries by falling on her own, and hitting her head with a water tap located inside the house, whereas in the cross examination of PW-5 ASI Sohanvir Singh, Investigating Officer, he was suggested that the injured persons (PW1 and PW2) sustained injuries by falling on a water tap inside the house, which was refuted by him. This defence was also not taken by the accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The incident FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 8/13 9 had taken place at the matrimonial house of PW-2 is also fortified by the MLC of PW1. The MLC of PW-1 Smt. Nanhi Devi reveals that as per the alleged history mentioned in the MLC (Ex.PW6/B), she was assaulted at House No.238, Kandle Kasan, Fatehpuri, Delhi at about 11.00 AM on 20.03.2013. It is also worthwhile to mention here that when Dr. Ritu Saxena (PW6),CMO, LNJP was examined, no questions were put to her in the cross examination. She was explicitly not questioned if the injury sustained by PW-1 could have been caused by falling on a water tap. This only corroborates the version of the injured PW-1 and PW-2, that PW1 was assaulted with an iron rod by the accused and she did not sustain any injury due to falling on a water tap.
19. Regarding the injuries which were received by the injured PW1and PW 2, it can be seen from the MLCs on the record , proved by PW 6 Dr. Ritu Saxena, CMO, LNJP Hospital that the injured persons received simple injuries only. According to the MLC of Smt.Nanhi Devi (Ex.PW6/B), she sustained a lacerated wound on occipital area of 2 cms whereas as per the MLC of Smt.Santosh (Ex.PW6/A), she only received one punctured wound on the left leg with tenderness. The injuries were opined to be simple and caused by a blunt object.
20. In the cross examination of PW1, she had categorically admitted that after she sustained injuries, she had remained in the hospital till about 3-4 PM and was discharged on the same day. The MLC Ex.PW6/B indicates that PW-1 was brought by PW-2 at about 11.47 am on 20.03.2013 meaning thereby that PW 1 stayed in the hospital for her treatment only for few hours.
21. In view of the fact that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 is supported by medical evidence, there is no reason to disbelieve them FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 9/13 10 even though they are closely related. I found their testimonies as truthful and reliable.
22. In view of the above discussion, it can be safely held that it was the accused Bhagwat Kishore who had assaulted his mother in law Smt. Nanhi Devi with an iron rod on her head and had also assaulted his wife Santosh Devi. The prosecution has therefore, successfully proved the guilt of accused Bhagwat Kishore regarding the injury caused to the injured Santosh Devi and Nanhi Devi. However, since, the injuries sustained by the injured Nanhi Devi and Santosh were be simple in nature and in view of the fact that the injured Santosh and Nanhi Devi were discharged within few hours, I am of the opinion that accused can be held guilty only u/s 323 & 324 IPC.
23. Accordingly I have no hesitation to hold the accused Bhagwant Kishore guilty for the offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt to Santosh Devi punishable U/s 323 IPC and voluntarily causing simple hurt on the head of Smt. Nanhi Devi with an iron rod which is a dangerous weapon punishable u/s 324 IPC and convict him accordingly.
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on: 15.09.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 10/13
11
IN THE COURT OF MS. HEMANI MALHOTRA, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-05 (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Sessions Case No. 91/14 FIR No. 49/13 PS : Lahori Gate Under Section: 308 IPC Unique ID No. 0240IR0183432014 State Versus Bhagwat Kishore @ Dabbu S/o Bhup Singh R/o H.No. B-116, Nabi Kareem Bagri Basti Pharganj, New Delhi. .......... Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Accused Bhagwat Kishore @ Dabbu S/o Bhup Singh was found guilty for commission of offences punishable U/s 323/324 IPC as he had caused injuries to his wife Smt. Santosh and his mother in law Smt. Nanhi Devi and accordingly convicted vide judgment dated 15.09.2014.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Ms. Rama Jain for convict and Sh.V.K.Negi , Learned Addl. PP for State . I have also carefully perused the entire record with utmost care.
3. It is submitted by learned Counsel for convict that lenient view be taken as the incident was a result of family dispute and convict had no intention to assault his wife Smt. Santosh and his mother in law Smt. Nanhi Devi. It is further pleaded that convict has apologised for his conduct to his wife several times.
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 11/13 12
4. Per contra it is argued by Learned Addl. PP that convict does not deserve any leniency as he was in habit to pick quarrel with one of the injured who is his wife and he used to give beatings to her under the influence of alcohol.
5. In a case titled as Mohd. Giasuddin Vs. State of AP AIR 1977 SC 198, Hon'ble Supreme Court while emphasising the reformative angle of sentencing policy observed:
" a holistic view of sentencing and a final perception of the effect of imprisonment give short shrift to draconian severity as self defeating the fillips meditational relaxional, psychic meditation and like exercises as apt to be more rewarding. Therefore, emphasis has to be as much as on men as on the system, on the inner imbalance as on the outer tensions. Perhaps, the time has come for Indian Criminologist to rely more on Patanjali Sutra as a scientific curative for crimogenic factors that on the blind jail term set out in the Penal Code and that may be why western researchers are seeking Indian Yogic Ways of normalizing the individual and the group........................ incidentally, we may glance at the present system which leaves much to be desired in the sense of humanizing and reforming, the man we call criminal................. we have dealt with the subject sufficiently to set the humanitarian tone that must inform the sentencing judge, the Karuna that must line his verdict. The same compassionate outlook is reflected in some of the decisions of this Court and of the High Court indicating the distance between current penal strategy and Hammurabi's Code, which, in about 1975 BC, insisted on "an eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth" ................... A proper sentence is the amalgam of many factors such as the nature of the offence, the circumstances- extenuating or aggravating - of the offence, the prior criminal record if any , of the offender , the age of the offender , the record of the offender as to employment , the background of the offender with reference to education, home life sobriety and social adjustment, the emotional and mental condition of the offender, the prospects for the rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community, the possibility of treatment or training of the offender, the possibility that the sentence may serve as a deterrent to crime by the offender or by others and the current community need, if any for such a deterrent in respect of the particular type of offence. These factors have to be taken in to account by the Court in deciding upon the appropriate sentence..... The judge must exercise this discretionary power, drawing his inspiration from the humanitarian spirit of the law."
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 12/13 13
6. Considering the aforementioned observation, nature of offence coupled with the fact that injured Smt. Santosh is wife of the convict who also had stood surety for convict at the time of furnishing bond before the Court during trial of the case and that the incident in question is result of some family altercation, the Court is of the view that convict deserves benefit of Probation Offenders Act.
7. Accordingly Convict is ordered to be released on furnishing Probation Bond for the sum of Rs.15000/- for a period of one year with direction to maintain peace and good behaviour in the society for the said period. Convict is also directed to appear as and when summon in this case to receive the sentence in accordance with law. So far as grievances and welfare of injured Smt. Santosh and Smt. Nanhi Devi are concerned, in term of case titled as Harikishan & State of Haryana Vs. Sukhbir Singh" AIR 1988 SC 2127 , convict Bhagwat Kishore is further directed to compensate both the injured by giving them Rs.20,000/- in total i.e. Rs.5000/- to the injured Smt. Santosh and Rs.15,000/- to the injured/complainant Smt. Nanhi Devi within 3 months from the date of order failing which both the injured shall be at liberty to move appropriate application for recovery of the compensation amount .
Dictated and Announced in open (Hemani Malhotra)
Court on: 17.09.2014 Addl. Sessions Judge-05
(Central) Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
FIR NO: 25/12 P.S Lahori Gate , STATE VERSUS Bhagwat Kishore 13/13