Delhi District Court
St. vs . Sanni on 23 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SUNENA SHARMA, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-03, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
SC No.7355/16 (Old No.42/15)
ID No. 02406R0119332015
FIR No.64/14
U/s: 308 IPC
Police Station : Malviya Nagar
State
Vs.
Sanni s/o Sh. Ramesh
R/o US-8/12, Valmiki
Camp, Malviya Nagar
New Delhi .... Accused
Date of Committal : 18.05.2015
Final arguments concluded on :23.01.2020
Judgment pronounced on :23.01.2020
JUDGMENT
Prosecution case as per chargesheet
1. As per chargesheet, the case of the prosecution is that on 16.01.2014, pursuant to receipt of DD no. 40A, dated 16.01.2014 from ASI Kishore regarding an incident of quarrel, IO ASI Ved Prakash with Ct. Kamlesh visited the spot at Balmiki Camp, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi where they came to know that injured had already been shifted to hospital by a PCR van. No eye witness of the incident was present on the spot. In the meanwhile, IO received another DD no.122B from AIIMS Trauma Centre regarding admission of the injured. Pursuant to said DD, ASI Kishore went to AIIMS Trauma Centre and collected the MLC no.408059/14 of injured Ramveer s/o Sohan Lal who was found admitted in the hospital.
1.1 The injured was declared fit for statement and got his FIR No.64/14 Page No.1/16 St. Vs. Sanni statement recorded with the IO to the effect that he was working as a sweeper in Tatha Haleen Touch Hospital, Sarvpriya VIhar and was living with his family at Jhuggie no.8/52, Balmiki Camp, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On 16.04.2014 at about 10:30 pm, after he got the information regarding quarrel of his son, he was making inquiry from his neighbour Sanni s/o Ramesh i.e. the accused herein to know who had assaulted his (complainant's) son. Upon this, accused got annoyed and said him that his (complainant's) son was beaten up by his (accused's) associate but now he would finish the complainant and then, he threw a stone upon the complainant while standing on the roof of his house and said stone hit the complainant on his forehead and he became unconscious. Thereafter, somebody called police at 100 number. PCR van came and took him to AIIMS Trauma Centre. On the aforementioned statement of the complainant, IO prepared the rukka and got the FIR registered and the investigation was taken up by SI Rampal Singh.
1.2 During investigation, IO with HC Sukhpal Singh visited the house of injured from where he came to know that injured had been referred to some other hospital. On 19.01.2014, at the instance of complainant, IO prepared the site plan of the place of incident, recovered the stone allegedly used in the commission of the offence from the place of occurrence and took the same in police possession. IO also recorded the supplementary statement of the complainant and obtained the opinion of the doctor regarding the nature of injuries on the MLC wherein the injuries were opined to be grievous with blunt object. On 20.02.2014, accused was arrested by the IO on the identification of the complainant and was produced before the court.
FIR No.64/14 Page No.2/16St. Vs. Sanni
2. After completing the investigation, IO filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence of Section 308 IPC before the court of Ld. Magistrate on 07.04.2015, upon which cognizance was taken and accused was summoned. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. Ld. MM committed the case to the Court of Session on 02.12.2015. After committal, the case came to be assigned to this court on 18.05.2015.
3. Vide order dated 01.06.2015, the charge for the offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was framed against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During trial, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely PW1 HC Raj Kumar, PW2 Rambir, PW3 HC Parmanand, PW4 ASI Kishore Kumar, PW5 W/HC Anita, PW6 W/HC Shobha, PW7/Ms. Dolly, PW8 ASI Sukhpal Singh, PW9 HC Kanwar Singh, PW10 ASI Jogender Singh, PW11 SI Ved Prakash, PW12 SI Ram Pal Singh and PW13 Dr. Abhishek Kothari.
Prosecution evidence
5. PW1/HC Raj Kumar is the duty officer. He deposed that on on 16/17.01.2014 he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as duty officer from 12 midnight to 8am. On that day, at about 4.50 am, on receipt of rukka from HC Sukhpal, which was sent by ASI Kishore for registration of FIR, he got registered the FIR No.64/14 vide Ex. PW1/A through computer operator. Further that, he also made endorsement on the original rukka vide Ex.PW1/B. He further deposed that after FIR No.64/14 Page No.3/16 St. Vs. Sanni registration of FIR, he handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Ram Pal Singh for investigation.
6. PW2/Rambir is the complainant/injured/victim of the offence. He deposed that he did not remember the date, month of the incident however, about one year back, he returned home from his office at about 9pm. He further deposed that his wife told him that Govinda, Gundu, Sivi, relatives of accused Sanni had forcibly taken his son Sheru and upon knowing about this, he went to the house of accused Sanni, who used to live in the same locality and when, he reached there, accused was standing on the roof of his house. PW2 deposed further that he inquired from accused as to why his son had been taken away by his brothers/relatives to which, accused Sanni told him that "they have taught a lesson to his (PW2's) son and they will also teach him a lesson". Further that, accused thereafter, pelted stone which hit on his (PW2's) forehead due to which he sustained injuries and he fell down on the ground and became unconscious. Further that, when he regained his consciousness, he found himself in the hospital. Further as per PW2, police met him in the hospital and he narrated the aforesaid facts to the police. His statement was recorded by the police vide Ex. PW2/A and he put his thumb impression on the same. Further that, he left his blood stained clothes in the hospital. Further that, he had also pointed out the place of incident and the stone which was thrown at him by the accused and same was lifted by the police and taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Further as per PW2, accused was arrested by the police after about 3-4 months of the incident. PW2 correctly identified the case property i.e. the stone as Ex.P1 and said that it FIR No.64/14 Page No.4/16 St. Vs. Sanni was a big stone but, in the process, it broke into pieces.
7. PW3/HC Parmanand is a formal witness. As per his version, on the intervening night of 16/17.01.2014, he was posted as duty officer at PS Malviya Nagar and on that day, at about 10.36 pm, he received information regarding quarrel through PCR and he recorded said information vide DD no.40A EX. PW3/A and said DD was marked to ASI Kishore Kumar through telephone.
8. PW4/ASI Kishore Kumar is the member of investigating team. As per his version on the intervening night of 16/17.01.2014, he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar and he was on night emergency duty. He further deposed that on receipt of DD no.40A, he alongwith Ct. Kamlesh reached at Valmik Camp, Begumpur where they came to know that a quarrel had taken place and injured had already been taken to hospital by PCR. No eye witness met them at the spot. PW4 further deposed that in the meanwhile, he received another DD no.122B from Trauma Centre, AIIMS hosptial. He further deposed that after attending another DD no.4A dated 17.01.2014 related to Safdarjung hospital, he reached at Trauma Centre AIIMS where he collected MLC of injured Rambir who was under treatment and was declared fit for statement. Further as per version of PW4, he made inquiries from injured Rambir about the incident and recorded his statement vide Ex. PW2/A and on said statement, PW4 prepared rukka vide Ex. PW4/A. Further as per PW4, he called HC Sukhpal to the hospital and handed over rukka to him for registration of FIR, who took the same to PS Malviya Nagar. He further deposed that after registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Ram Pal FIR No.64/14 Page No.5/16 St. Vs. Sanni Singh who conducted further investigation in this case.
9. PW5/WHC Anita is a formal witness who was posted as constable at PCR on 16.01.2014 and her duty hours were from 8:00pm to 8:00 am. She deposed that at about 10:32 pm, she received information from mobile phone no.8587943398 regarding a quarrel at Begumpur Balmiki Camp, H. No. US/209, Malviya Nagar and said information was filled up in a PCR form vide Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW6/W/HC Shobha is also a formal witness who was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as DD writer on 16.01.2014 and her duty hours were from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. She has deposed that at about 11:22 pm, she received information from AIIMS, Trauma Centre through Ct. Jasbir regarding admission of injured Rambir s/o Sh. Sohan Lal and said information was recorded vide DD no. 122B Ex. PW6/A and it was assigned to ASI Kishore.
11. PW7/Ms. Dolly deposes that on 16.01.2014, at about 9- 9.30pm, she returned home from her place of work. When she reached in the street outside her house, she saw that there was a quarrel and gathering of public persons. PW7 further deposed that she also found her maternal grandmother present at the spot and asked her about the quarrel and gathering of public persons and she (maternal grandmother) told her that the said quarrel was between her (PW7's) uncle Rambir and Sunny i.e. the accused, who was a resident of their locality. PW7 correctly identified the accused. PW7 further deposed that she had also seen injury on the forehead of her uncle Rambir and one of the relatives of accused Sunny, who was also FIR No.64/14 Page No.6/16 St. Vs. Sanni present at the spot was also injured. Further as per PW7, she informed the police by making a call from her mobile phone number 8587943398 and police reached at the spot within half an hour. Further that, when police arrived at the spot, they inquired her about the aforesaid phone number. Further that, her statement was also recorded.
12. PW8/ASI Sukhpal Singh deposed that on 17.01.2014, while he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as Head constable, he was called by ASI Kishore at AIIMS Trauma Centre. He further deposed that on reaching there, he found injured Rambir admitted in the hospital. ASI Kishore made inquiries from him (injured) and recorded his statement. He further deposed that on said statement, one rukka was prepared and given to him for registration of FIR. PW8 took the same to PS Malviya Nagar and got the FIR registered, investigation was assigned to SI Ram Pal Singh. Further as per PW8, he also joined investigation with SI Ram Pal and they reached at the place of incident where they came to know that injured had been shifted to some other hospital from AIIMS Trauma Centre. Further that, they tried to trace the accused but he was not found there and they returned to the police station.
13. PW9/HC Kanwar Singh deposed that on the intervening night of 19/20.02.2014, while he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar as Head constable, he joined investigation of this case alongwith SI Ram Pal as he had already received information about the accused wanted in this case. PW9 further deposed that SI Ram Pal constituted a raiding party consisting of him (PW9) and beat staff and also joined complainant Rambir. PW9 further deposed that they all reached at FIR No.64/14 Page No.7/16 St. Vs. Sanni jhuggi no.US-8/12, Balmiki camp, Begumpur, Malviya Nagar where they found accused (correctly identified by PW9) present there and he was identified by the complainant. Further that, on identification of complainant, they apprehended the accused and arrested him vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex.PW9/B. Further that, accused was interrogated and the facts disclosed by him were recorded as his disclosure statement.
14. PW10/ASI Jogender Singh has brought the summoned record i.e. call book dated 16.01.2014 of PCR Eagle 14. As per his version, on said night, while he was on duty in PCR van from 8pm to 8am, at about 10.34pm, he received a call that at house no.8/192, Begumpur, Valmik camp, an incident of quarrel and pelting of stones had occurred. The information was received from mobile phone number 8285343442 and said information was recorded in the book vide Ex. PW10/A. PW10 further deposed that at about 10.40pm, another call was received and caller Shehnaz informed that 4-5 boys namely Shivy, Guddu, Govinda with two other boys forcibly took away a boy namely Sheru son of Rambir age 18 years, r/o 8/152, Valmik Camp in a vehicle.
15. PW11/SI Ved Prakash deposed that on 22.09.2014, while he was posted as a ASI at PS Malviya Nagar, further investigation of this case was assigned to him. He deposed that he recorded the supplementary statement of complainant Rambir and Dolly d/o Shyambir. Further that, thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
FIR No.64/14 Page No.8/16St. Vs. Sanni
16. PW12/SI Ram Pal Singh deposed that in the intervening night of 16/17.01.2014, he was posted at PS Malviya Nagar and his duty timing were from 8pm to 8am. He further deposed that in the early hours of 17.01.2014, at about 4.30am, the present case was marked to him for investigation. Further as per PW12, he collected the copy of FIR and original rukka from the duty officer and alongwith HC Sukhpal, he reached at the spot i.e. in front of Jhuggi number US-8/52, Valmiki Camp, Malviya Nagar but, none were found at the spot. On inquiry, PW12 came to know that injured was shifted to some unknown hospital. Further that, he also inquired about the accused but no clues were found. Thereafter, they went back to the PS. 16.1 Further as per PW12, on 19.01.2014, he went to the house of complainant namely Rambir, who had shown the spot where the incident had occurred and upon his instance, he (PW12) prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/A. Further that, he (complainant) also showed the stone with which the accused had attacked on him. Further that, PW12 kept the same in pullanda and sealed with the seal of RPS and seized the same vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. Further that, he recorded the supplementary statement of injured and thereafter, he came back to PS. He further deposed that he was in search of accused but his whereabouts could be traced.
16.2 Further as per version of PW12, on 29.01.2014, he had taken the process u/s 82 Cr.PC against accused. On 19.02.2014, complainant Rambir had informed him (PW12) that accused had reached his house and if he raided the premises, accused would be apprehended. PW12 further deposed that he prepared the raiding FIR No.64/14 Page No.9/16 St. Vs. Sanni party and he alongwith his staff and HC Kanwar Singh, reached to the house of complainant and thereafter, they reached to the house of accused and at the instance of complainant, accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and he (PW12) also conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW9/B and also recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex.PW12/B. Further that, thereafter accused was produced before court and sent to JC. Further that, thereafter, he prepared the draft challan and after he got transferred, the case file was handed over to MHCR. PW12 correctly identified the case property i.e. stone as Ex.P1.
17. PW13/Dr. Abhishek Kothari deposed that on 16.01.2014, while he was working in AIIMS New Delhi as Jr. Resident, he examined one patient Ramveer s/o Sohan Lal. On examination, there was laceration wound of 8cm over forehead. Further that, he had prepared the MLC of injured vide Ex.PW13/A and nature of injuries were grievous in nature. Upon being put a court question, PW13 deposed that the injury mentioned in the MLC might be possible due to pelting of stone from the roof of a house.
Statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
18. During statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., all the incriminating material which had come on record during trial, was put to the accused but he denied all the allegations raised against him. He pleaded that it was a false case. He was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by his uncle Rambir as a scuffle took place between the complainant's son and his (accused's) brother Govinda and he developed vengeance against him on that account.
FIR No.64/14 Page No.10/16St. Vs. Sanni He stated that he had not thrown any stone on him. He denied to have made any disclosure statement to the police. In his defence, accused examined two witnesses i.e. DW1 Umesh Rana and DW2 Virender.
Defence Evidence
19. DW1/Sh. Umesh Rana deposed that on 16.01.2014, he was present in his jhuggi and on that day, at about 09:30pm to 10:00pm a quarrel took place between the accused's brother Govinda, Gunu, Sibi and complainant while complainant was having liquor. He further deposed that during verbal confrontation and scuffle, the complainant fell into a drain and received injuries on his head. He further deposed that someone called police and thereafter police took him to hospital. Later on, he (DW1)came to know that the accused Sanni had been falsely implicated in the present case. He further deposed that at the time of incident, accused Sanni was not present at the spot because he had gone to his maternal uncle's house at Agra. Further that, although police inquired him about said incident but did not record his statement. He further deposed that after hearing the noise, several neighbours had gathered there. One of the neighbour Virender was also present there at the time of incident.
20. DW2/Sh. Virender has also deposed on identical lines as was deposed by DW1, hence, his deposition is not repeated for sake of brevity.
21. As per record, prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses were duly cross examined by Ld. defence counsel and by Ld. Addl. PP for State respectively and relevant part of their cross FIR No.64/14 Page No.11/16 St. Vs. Sanni examination shall be discussed by the court in the later part of this judgment under the heading of 'court's discussion'.
Arguments of Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor
22. On behalf of the prosecution, Ld. Addl. PP Sh. Pravin Rahul argued that complainant, who is the victim of the offence and public witness i.e. PW7 Ms. Dolly have come up with clinching evidence regarding assault on the complainant with stone by the accused persons and barring few minor discrepancies, nothing has come out in their cross-examination to discredit their version which is also supported with the medical evidence. Ld. PP further submitted that since grievous injuries were caused to complainant on the forehead with object i.e. big stone, by the accused, a case of Section 308 IPC is clearly established on record.
Defence's Arguments
23. Per contra, Ld. defence counsel repelled the above arguments by submitting that owing to material discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution case, no conviction can be recorded on the unreliable testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It is further argued that accused has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant for taking revenge on Govinda, Gundu and Sivi, who are the brothers and relatives of the accused, with whom the complainant had a fight just a few days before the alleged incident as he had entered into a scuffle.
24. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised from both the sides and also carefully perused the FIR No.64/14 Page No.12/16 St. Vs. Sanni entire material on record.
Court's Discussion
25. Let us now analysis the evidence in order to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the accused. For that, firstly it has to be seen whether the witnesses examined by the prosecution are reliable and trustworthy and secondly, whether their testimonies disclose the essential ingredients of the offence allegedly committed by the accused.
26. Before undertaking the exercise to scrutinize the evidence for ascertaining whether the evidence is sufficient to establish the essential ingredients of alleged offences, court is required to first assess the credibility of the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove its case. During course of arguments, defence counsel had drawn attention of this court to various discrepancies in the version of the prosecution witnesses therefore, I deem it appropriate to now advert to the prosecution evidence to check the credibility and genuineness of the prosecution case.
27. The case of the prosecution mainly based on the testimony of PW2 Rambir who is the injured/victim of the offence. The accused has taken the defence that he has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant for taking revenge on Govinda, Gundu and Sivi, who are the brothers and relatives of the accused, with whom the complainant had a fight just a few days before the alleged incident as he had entered into a scuffle.
FIR No.64/14 Page No.13/16St. Vs. Sanni
28. As per the defence plea, the complainant/injured had sustained injuries in a fight between the complainant on one side and the neighbours and family members of the accused on the other side as during said fight, complainant fell down and hit against a hard object.
29. Since the plea of false implication has been raised by the accused, it is necessary to carefully scrutinize the testimony of the victim in the light of other material on record in order to ascertain whether he is a credible witness. Furthermore, it is also necessary to ascertain whether the testimony of injured victim is clinching enough to bear the burden of conviction on his sole testimony as the prosecution appears to have not examined any other eye witness in this case. Complainant/injured Rambir (PW2) and one Ms. Dolly (PW7) are the only public witnesses examined in the matter.
30. PW7 is the niece of injured victim and as per her version, she reached at the spot only after the incident when she saw injuries on the forehead of her uncle Rambir and one of the relative of the accused Sanni, who was also present at the spot, was also injured. From her testimony, it appears that it was a fight between the complainant's side and accused's side and the injuries were sustained by the persons of both the groups. The said position falsifies the version of the victim where he says that he sustained injuries at the hands of the accused after the accused pelted stone upon him while standing on the roof of his house.
31. There is nothing in the version of the complainant that FIR No.64/14 Page No.14/16 St. Vs. Sanni any fight had occurred between his family members and the family members of the accused either before he sustained the injuries or even after the injuries were caused to him. Furthermore, as per the injured victim many persons from the neighbourhood had gathered at the spot when he was standing in gali and having conversation with the accused and even at the time of hitting of the stone on his forehead, many public persons were present. But, for reason best known to IO, no such neighbour was cited as a witness. Even the family members of the complainant/injured i.e. his wife and mother, who as per his own testimony were present at the time of alleged incident were neither cited nor examined as a witness to corroborate the version of the injured victim.
32. As per the prosecution case, the injured victim went to the accused to make inquiries from him after he got to know that the accused had quarreled with his son, upon which the accused got annoyed and stated that the son of the complainant was though got beaten up by his (accused)associates but, now he would see him (complainant) and then he hit the complainant by throwing a stone on him while standing on the roof of his house and resultantly, complainant got injured, sustained injuries on his forehead and became unconscious.
33. Neither the son of the complainant has been examined with whom the accused allegedly quarreled nor the person who told the complainant about said quarrel was examined by the prosecution. As already pointed out above the version of the complainant also suffers from many loopholes and contradictions in as much as in his FIR No.64/14 Page No.15/16 St. Vs. Sanni version recorded in the court he stated that the accused threw stone upon him twice or thrice but the MLC of the injured shows only one injury on the forehead. The injury on the forehead is in the nature of lacerated wound of 8cm. As per the PW13/Dr. Abhishek Kothari, who prepared the MLC of the injured, the injuries on the MLC were possible due to fall against a hard surface as well as due to the stone pelting from the roof.
34. Considering the aforementioned infirmities and contradictions in the version of the complainant, I do not find it safe to record conviction on his sole testimony which does not find corroboration from any independent evidence. In my considered view prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused deserves to be given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, accused stands acquitted. Bail bonds of accused stands cancelled and surety stands discharged.
35. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Court (Sunena Sharma)
on 23.01.2020 Additional Sessions Judge-03/South
Saket Courts, New Delhi
SUNENA Digitally signed by
SUNENA SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2020.03.16
12:39:59 +0530
FIR No.64/14 Page No.16/16
St. Vs. Sanni