Delhi District Court
State vs . Kallu Ram & Ors on 29 January, 2011
State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors
FIR No.514/98
PS Adarsh Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 514/98
PS Adarsh Nagar
U/S 324/34 IPC
State V/S Kallu Ram and Ors
Date of Institution: 07.09.1999
Name of the Complainant Chaman Singh
Name and address of accused 1. Kallu Ram S/o Sh. Kanchan
R/o H. No. 435, Gali No. 9,
Mukundpur Part-I, Delhi.
2. Jaswant S/o Sh. Kanchan
R/o H. No. 435, Gali No. 9,
Mukundpur Part-I, Delhi.
3. Kanchan Singh S/o Nannu
Singh R/o H. No. 435, Gali No.
9, Mukundpur Part-I, Delhi.
Offence complained of U/S 324/34 IPC
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Convicted
Date of reserve for orders 29.01.2011
C/N No. 285/99
Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 1
State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors
FIR No.514/98
PS Adarsh Nagar
Date for announcing the orders 29.01.2011
Brief reasons for the judgment:
Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off the case FIR No. 514/98
1.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that the complainant Sh. Chaman Singh alleged in his complaint Ex. PW 2/A that on 02.10.1998, he was present at his house along with his brother Tej Singh. It was raining and accused Kanchan Singh along with his sons i.e. accused Kallu Ram and Jaswant Singh started digging a pit in front of house of complainant. When complainant objected to it then accused inflicted an injury on the nose of complainant with a Fawda. The brother of complainant i.e. Tej Singh tried to rescue the complainant but he was also beaten up by the accused persons.
2. On completion of investigation, all the accused persons were sent up for trial and after necessary compliances, charges U/S 324/34 were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution examined all the witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6.
Statement of accused persons U/S 313 CrPC were thereafter recorded wherein accused persons pleaded their innocence. Final C/N No. 285/99 Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 2 State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors FIR No.514/98 PS Adarsh Nagar arguments have been heard. Record has been carefully perused.
4. PW-1 is ASI Dhani Ram who was the Duty Officer and he proved the instant FIR as Ex. PW 1/A.
5. PW-2 Sh. Chaman Singh and PW-5 Sh. Tej Singh supported the prosecution case and deposed in consonance with the complaint Ex. PW 2/A. They categorically narrated the incident and further categorically stated that accused Kanchan gave a blow with a Fawda and all the accused persons gave beatings to them. They further stated that accused Kallu and Jaswant gave lathi blows to Tej Singh. The site plan is marked as Ex. PW 2/B. The Fawda is marked as Ex. P-1.
6. PW-3 SI Kartar Singh supported the prosecution case qua investigation part.
7. PW-4 Dr. G.V.S. Kohli deposed that he prepared the MLC of injured Tej Singh which is marked as Ex. PW 4/A. According to which, the injuries were simple. PW-6 Sh. Dinesh Kumar Record Clerk from Hindu Rao hospital stated that the MLC of injured Tej Singh and Chaman Singh were in the handwriting of Dr. Archana Thakur.
8. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the incident occurred on the spur of moment without accused persons having C/N No. 285/99 Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 3 State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors FIR No.514/98 PS Adarsh Nagar any intention to cause injury. The accused persons in their statement U/S 313 CrPC stated that when they were removing garbage the complainant and his brother started a quarrel and due to the scuffle, the complainant and his brother sustained injuries. They further stated that they did not attack them intentionally or deliberately. The incident of causing injury is duly proved from the statement of PW-2 and PW-5. All of them categorically stated that on account of objection raised by the complainant, the accused persons attacked the complainant but not voluntarily or intentionally.
9. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the element of common intention can be gathered.
10. To record a conviction U/S 324 IPC, it must be established that the accused persons did an act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby cause hurt to that person by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish that the injury was inflicted with a sharp weapon, hence, no conviction can be recorded u/s 324 IPC. Section 324 IPC does not contemplate that the weapon of offence should necessarily C/N No. 285/99 Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 4 State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors FIR No.514/98 PS Adarsh Nagar be a sharp object. In Part-II of Section 324 IPC the injury may be caused by any instrument which , used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death. As per Part-I, the instrument used for committing the offence should be an instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting. Section 324 accordingly qualifies the quality of the instrument used. In the instant case, a Fawra was used which certainly is an instrument of cutting and is also an instrument which, if used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death. In this regard, Ld. APP for the State has placed further reliance on Judgment cited as 2008 Crl.J. 1448 in case titled as Brij Kishore Mandal Vs. State of Bihar in which conviction u/s 324 IPC was recorded despite the fact that weapon of offence was a Danda.
11. Ld. defence Counsel further submitted that for proving the guilt U/S 324 IPC, it must be further established that injury was caused with the intention of causing death. Ld. APP for the State has controverted this submission stating that if this be the case then it would rather fall U/S 307/308 IPC. Reliance is being placed by Ld. defence counsel on the Judgment cited as 78(1999) DLT II in case titled as Mam Chand and Ors. Vs. State. To rebut this contention, Ld. APP for the State has placed reliance on the Judgment cited as 1995 CrLJ 2630(SC) in case titled as Babu C/N No. 285/99 Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 5 State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors FIR No.514/98 PS Adarsh Nagar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana.
12. In Mam Chand's case (supra) the Hon'ble Delhi High Court observed in para No. (8) that one of the essential ingredients to attract Section 324 IPC is that the act must be shown to have committed with the intention and knowledge that it is likely to cause death. In Babu Singh's case (supra) three appellants along with one Leela Singh were tried u/s 307/34 IPC and trial court convicted u/s 324/34 IPC. In appeal, Hon'ble High Court altered the conviction to one u/s 307/34 IPC except Leela Singh. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the injury from which murderous assault could be spelt out was attributed to Leela Singh. The other injuries were simple in nature. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the common intention of murderous assault could not be gathered. It was spelt out in other words that the appellants had common intention but of a lesser offence i.e. U/S 324 IPC. Ld. APP for the State submitted that a conviction u/s 324 IPC was recorded by the Apex Court holding that the appellants had no intention of murderous assault. It implies that even in absence of intention of causing death, conviction was recorded u/s 324 IPC.
13. The ratio laid down in Babu Singh's case is that the intention of murderous assault is not necessary to record a guilt u/s C/N No. 285/99 Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 6 State Vs. Kallu Ram & Ors FIR No.514/98 PS Adarsh Nagar 324 IPC. The law laid down in Babu Singh's case is the law of the land and has to be followed.
14. PW-2 and PW-5 have categorically deposed that the accused persons gave a Fawra blow on PW-2. The MLC Ex.PW4/A proves that the injury caused to the complainant was simple in nature. Although, the MLC is silent as to the fact if the weapon was sharp or not but I have already discussed that the weapon should not be necessarily sharp for offence u/s 324 IPC. Ocular evidence of PW-2 and PW-5 as to the use of a Fawra shall prevail over the MLC. From the facts and circumstances of the case it can be inferred that all the accused persons have a prior meeting of mind when the fight started, hence, it can safely be inferred that the accused persons had a common intention to commit the offence.
15. All the necessary ingredients of Section 324 IPC have been proved against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts.
16. Accordingly, the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC.
17. Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
Dated 29.01.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C/N No. 285/99
Unique ID No. 02401R0061021999 7