Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Etc ( 4 Bail ) (75) (To) on 4 June, 2024
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024
IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC/236/2019 FIR No.: 180/2016
CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 PS : Paschim Vihar East
State Versus 1) Ravi
S/o Ram Singh
R/o B-3/543 (12 ½ Gaj/Yards),
Raghuvir Nagar, New Delhi.
2) Khushi Lal
S/o Sh. Brij Lal
R/o Jhuggi B-159, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
3) Narendar @ Chhotu
S/o Ram Singh
R/o B-3/543 (12 ½ Gaj/Yards),
Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
Also at - H. No. B -543 Raghubir Nagar, Delhi.
4) Prahlad
S/o Sh. Brij Lal
R/o B-159 Bengali Camp Jhuggi, Meera Bagh,
Paschim Vihar, Delhi.
Date of institution : 06.05.2019
Date of arguments : 27.05.2024
Date of judgement : 04.06.2014
JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution case in brief is that on 24.03.2016 at about 03:30 SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 1 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 pm at near Ganda Nala, Bengali Cam, Meera Bagh, all the accused persons caused bodily injury/injuries to the complainant Bablu Diwakar and Inderjeet with sharp as well as blunt objects. On these allegations, a charge under Section 308/34 IPC as well as under
Section 323/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
2. In order to prove its case prosecution examined in all nine witnesses.
Testimony of PW1 Inderjeet
3. I reproduce evidence of PW1 as under :
"I am Labour by profession. On 24.03.2016 my brother namely Bablu Diwakar had gone to purchase गुटखा (Guthka) and Bunty was also with him. The गुटखा (guthka) shop is belongs to Ravi Sansi, today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Ravi Sansi also used to sale illicit liquor illegally in that shop. An altercation took place there at 2.30 p.m. On the same day at about 2.30p.m. I alongwith my brother Rameshwar were celebrating Holi. Ravi along-with his brother i.e. accused Chotu and accused Prahlad along-with his brother accused Khusi Lal, all today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) came there, they were armed with danda and stones and started beating us all of a sudden. Accused Ravi and Chotu assaulted to me on my head with danda and stones. Accused Khusi Lal and Prahlad assaulted my brother Rameshwar. In the meantime Bablu Diwakar also came there and he was assaulted by the accused persons on his chest and other places. Accused persons fled away from the spot after pelting stones on us. Many people assembled away which forced the accused persons to ran away from the spot. Accused Ravi sales liquor and that is why many persons remain present in his SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 2 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 shop and many times a quarrel had taken place. Accused Ravi in order to show his दादागिरी in the area show that no body can muster courage to stop him from selling illicit liquor.
I was taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital and I received treatment there. I had put my thumb impressions on the MLC. My statement was recorded by the IO.
X X X By Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
I am in the profession of Labour for the last 14-15 years. It is correct that he occurrence had taken place in a populated area and many jhuggies are there. Prior to this incident, Ravi had not quarreled with me. It is correct that injured Bablu and Rameshwar are my real brothers. It is correct that we all reside in the same lane in the same colony . It is correct that accused Ravi used to sell liqour illegally and I along-with other persons used to object the same. Public persons had made him to understand accused Ravi not to sell liquor or shift his adobe to some other place. It is correct that accused Khusi Lal and Prahlad used to reside by the side of the shop of Ravi. I have never requested accused Khusi Lal and accused Prahald to support us in getting closed the liquor shop of accused Ravi. It is correct that a lady namely, Prema also reside in the same area. It is correct that accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad are not relatives of accused Ravi. It is correct that I was having talking terms with accused Khusi Lal and Prahlad being neighbourers. It is wrong to suggest that we set vehicles parked there on fire. Vol. Infact it was accused Ravi, who in order to falsely implicate us sat the same on FIR. My statement was recorded by the IO in the Hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I have deposed falsely or accused Khusi Lal and Prahald were present at the spot and were not involved in the present case. X X X By Sh. Roz Malik, Advocate associate for Mr. Prnay Ahishek, Advocate for accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
Deferred as main Counsel is stated to busy in providing medical treatment to his father.
X X X By Sh.Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 3 of 34
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 We were taken to the hospital by our family members but I do not remember the mode by which we were taken. So far I remember we were taken to hospital at 2.30 p.m. Due to severe injury, I am not able to remember the particulars of the person who had taken us to the hospital. The occurrence had taken place at Meera Bagh Jhuggi. 50 persons in total had collected at the time of occurrence. I do not remember if IO had examined any such public persons or not. We had left the spot at about 2.30 p.m. but I do not remember the time when we reached at the hospital.
I was given treatment in the hospital for about 3-4 days and remained in the hospital. Other injured persons have also remained in the hospital for about 3-4-5 days. Police officials had met us in the hospital on the day of incident itself sometime after treatment. I do not remember if police officials obtained my signature on any statement or not. I do not remember the exact date of my statement recorded by the IO. On being insisted again and again by the ld. Counsel for the accused persons the witness states that the date of incident was 24.07.2003 (witness appears to be illiterate and he has submitted that now we are in the month of July).
The accused persons were known to me one month prior to the incident. No altercation had taken place prior to the date police officials incident. I am not aware if accused persons are having any cases registered against them. It is incorrect to suggest that no altercation had taken place between me and the accused persons. It is further incorrect to suggest that some other persons had caused injuries to us. It is further incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely against the accused persons.
The persons who had collected at the spot were having colours on their face. It is incorrect to suggest that I could not identify the real culprit due to colour on their face. It is incorrect to suggest that accused persons were also having colour on their face. (Vol. Inke chehre par colour nahi tha). Besides accused persons, 10-12 persons were present without having any colour on their face. Those 10-12 persons also gave beatings to us besides the accused persons and were having danda and chaku in their hand. I do not know the names of those 10-12 SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 4 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 persons who were in the group of the accused persons. Those 10-12 persons had never extended any threat to us.
I do not remember as to how many times my statement was recorded by the IO. I do not remember the dates on which the statement of my brother and other injured were recorded by the IO. My first statement was recorded in the hospital on the date of incident but I do not remember the other dates when my statement was recorded by the IO.
It is incorrect to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this very case. It is incorrect to suggest that infant accused persons were involved in sale of illicit liquor and with the motive to get them removed from the area, I have falsely implicated in the present case. It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
At this stage, Ld. Addl. PP for the State seeks permission to re-examine the witness. Heard. Allowed.
It is correct that occurrence is of 24.03.2016 and not of 24.07.2003 which IO had stated today in my cross- examination. It is correct that due to confusion and illiteracy, I had given long date of incident today.
X X X By Sh.Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
I do not remember as to how many months occur in a year. 360 days occur in a year. I am illiterate and have studied only upto Class I. Court Question - I have never gone to school. I do not know how to count date, month or year. At present, 10 th number month is going on. I do not know the year which is in progress."
Testimony of PW2 Rameshwar
4. I reproduce evidence of PW2 as under :
"I am Labour by profession. On 24.03.2016 my brother namely Bablu Diwakar had gone to purchase गुटखा (Guthka) and Bunty was also with him. The गुटखा (guthka) shop belongs to Ravi Sansi, today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Ravi Sansi SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 5 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 also used to sale illicit liquor illegally in that shop. An altercation took place in the shop. On the same day at about 2.30p.m. I alongwith my brother Rameshwar were celebrating Holi. Ravi along-with his brother i.e. accused Chotu and accused Prahlad along-with his brother accused Khusi Lal, all today present in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) came there, they were armed with danda and stones and started beating us all of a sudden. Accused Ravi and Chotu assaulted to my brother, namely Inderjeet and also on his head by danda and stones. Accused Khusi Lal and Prahlad assaulted me. In the meantime Bablu Diwakar also came there and he was assaulted by the accused persons on his chest by some pointed object and other places. Accused persons fled away from the spot after pelting stones on us. Many people assembled which forced the accused persons to ran away from the spot. Accused Ravi sales liquor and that is why many persons remain present in his shop and many times a quarrel had taken place. Accused Ravi in order to show his दादागिरी in the area show that no body can muster courage to stop him from selling illicit liquor. He always remain with many persons.
My brother Inderjeet and Bablu were taken to Hospital in a police vehicle and I took treatement from private clinic. My statement was recorded by the IO. X X X By Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel for accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
It is wrong to suggest that I had not stated about being assaulted by accused Khusi Lal and Prahlad. I had not handed over the documents pertaining to my treatment as the same was misplaced at the time of marriage of my cousin, which took place after two years of occurrence. As nobody demanded from me that documents and for that reason I did not give it to anyone including police. It is wrong to suggest that as I had not sustained any injury nor I had taken any treatement from any Hospital or Doctor or for this reason I did not hand over the documents and for this reason I am taking false plea of misplacing of documents. It is wrong to suggest that accused Prahlad and Khusi Lal were not present at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that I was also not present at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that being real brother of other injured, I have SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 6 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 deposed falsely in order to make their case strong. X X X By Sh. Roz Malik, Advocate associate for Mr. Prnay Ahishek, Advocate for accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
Deferred as main Counsel is stated to busy in providing medical treatment to his father.
I was taken to hospital in a police vehicle. I do not remember the exact time but it was after 2.30 p.m. in the noon. Alongwith me, Bablu and Inderjeet had also gone to the hospital in the same vehicle. We reached the hospital within one hour. I remained admitted in the hospital for two days. The police gypsy brought me to my house after two days from the hospital. I do not know whether doctor prepared treatment document or not. Again said, some documents were prepared by the doctor but I do not remember exactly.
My statement was recorded by the police at my house. I was again examined by police officials in hospital after recording of my statement at my house. For the first time, police officials of gypsy inquired from me about the incident when they arrived at the spot.
When I reached at the spot, no public person were present there. (Vol. The accused persons already ran from the spot). My younger brother Bunty came to house to call me when incident was taking place near the shop of the accused persons. My house is situated about 50-60 meters from the shop of the accused persons.
I do not remember the time when my younger brother Bunty came to call me. Police officers had not inquired from the public persons assembled in the spot in my presence.
My brother Bablu and Inder remained admitted in the hospital for two days. I do not know accused persons Ravi and Narender personally prior to the incident but both have been selling liquor in our area from their shop. No quarrel took place with both the accused persons prior to the incident.
It is wrong to suggest that on the occasion of Holi on that day, the faces of accused Ravi and Narender were covered with the colours. It is also wrong to suggest that some other persons beaten us. It is wrong to suggest that we falsely implicated both the accused persons.SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 7 of 34
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 When I had reached at the spot, I saw accused persons were caught hold of my brother Bablu and giving beating to him. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons did not give beating to us. It is wrong to suggest that in order to get accused persons stopped from selling liquor in the area, we had falsely implicated the accused persons."
Testimony of PW3 ASI Jagmohan
5. I reproduce evidence of PW3 as under :
"In the year 2016 I was Head Constable and was posted at PS Paschim Vihar, Delhi. I was Beat Constable of the area Meera Bagh and I remained present with the IO in the investigation of this case. On knowledge about the incident, I along with Constable Surender reached to the place of occurrence i.e. Bengali Camp, Meera Bagh Jhuggi. On reaching there I found many persons assembled there. It was revealed that some persons have sustained injuries in the quarrel. Injured were removed to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. I also found one motorcycle in a complete burnt position near the wall of dirty drain. One scooty burnt from the back portion and in a damage condition was lying a little ahead to the dirty drain towards Jhuggi, one motor cycle pusler black color has been damage on the petrol tank was also lying near the Jhuggi. In the meantime IO along with constable at the spot.
IO left the spot with Ct. Surender. IO left at the spot and I remained there at the scene of crime to maintain the law and order situation. IO made endorsement on the DD entry and handed me rukka prepared under Section 435 IPC. Accordingly, I went to the PS and get the FIR registered and investigation marked to ASI Yashpal. During inquiry/investigation it was revealed that the motorcycles and scooty are of the persons who were involved in the incident. I handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to ASI Yashpal. The above matter is of 24.03.2016.
On 25.03.2016, I again joined investigation of the case with IO ASI Rajender. We were searching for the accused. We reached at B-3 121/2 Gaz, Raghubir Nagar, SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 8 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 Delhi. Accused Prahlad present in the court was present there, who is present today in the court, who was known to me prior to the incident. He was apprehended and he admitted his guilt and further told that he can get recovered bricks and stones used in the incident. Accused Prahlad was arrested and his personal search was conducted. The arrest memo and personal search memo are exhibited as Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively. Accused gave a statement voluntarily which was recorded by the IO and is now exhibited as Ex. PW3/C. Accused going ahead to the police party in pursuance of his disclosure statement got recovered stone and a piece of brick which was kept in cloth and sealed with the seal of RCS and after use seal was handed over to me. Sealed parcel was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW3/D. All memos referred above bear my signatures at point A. Accused was medically examined after arrest. I can identify the case property if shown to me.
At this stage case property with seal of RCS is produced, opened and on opening. One half portion of brick and one piece of stone are taken up. Shown to the witness, who correctly identify are the brick and stone got recovered by accused Prehlad. The half brick is now exhibited as Ex. PW3/P1 and stone is Ex. PW3/P2. XXX by Sh. Roj Malik for accused Ravi and Narender.
Nil. Opportunity given.
XXX by accused Khusi Lal.
Nil. Opportunity given.
XXX by accused Prahlad.
Request for adjournment declined.
Opportunity given. Nil."
Testimony of PW3 Babloo Divakar
6. I reproduce evidence of PW3 as under :
"At the time of incident, I used to do the work of washing the cars. The incident took place on 24.03.2016. I was present on my house on that day. It was festival of Holi on that day. At about 2.30 p.m., I had gone to the shop SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 9 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 of Ravi Sansi for the purpose of purchasing Gutka alongwith my brother Bunty. When I was returning to my house, accused Ravi had pushed my brother Bunty. Accused Ravi is present in the Court today (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Ravi was accompanied by co-accused i.e. Khushi Lal, Prahlad and Chotu are present in the Court today (correctly identified by the witness) who started manhandling me. Accused Ravi had hit me on my chest by some pointed weapon.
(At this stage, witness has shown the injury marks which is present on his chest).
All the accused persons had also thrown bricks on us and they had come to our house while beatings us continuously. Accused persons had even attacked my brother Inderjit by injurying him on his head by using the weapon they were carrying in their hand and they had beaten my brother Rameshwar. They had attacked Rameshwar on his head by using a brick. Accused persons started throwing bricks on the houses and even tried to break the door of my house.
Police came and recorded my statement which is now Ex. PW-3/A bearing my signature at point 'A'. Police took me to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital.
At this stage, MLC No. 5358 dated 24.03.2016 is exhibited as Ex. PW-3/B bearing thumb impression of the witness at point 'X'.
X X X By Sh. Abhijit Bhagat, Ld. LAC for the accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
Police was called by my brother Inderjit. Police came to the spot at about 4.00 p.m. It is correct that my brother Bunty resides with his maternal aunt (Mausi). It takes about 2-5 minutes to reach the spot from my house. It is correct that my house is located in a residential area. It is correct that at the time of incident due to Holi festival, many people were present in the area and were playing Holi. It is wrong to suggest that the faces of the accused persons were covered with Holi colours.
I had told the history to the doctor who examined me at the hospital. I had even told the name of the accused persons to the doctor who examined me. It is correct that I know accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad since childhood and they live in my neighbourhood.SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 10 of 34
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 It is correct that prior to the incident, no quarrel had taken place between me and accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad. Police recorded my statement Ex. PW-3/A at my house. I had told the police the manner in which my brother Rameshwar was attacked by the accused persons.
I had told the police that accused persons had tried to break the door of my house.
At this stage, witness is confronted with his statement Ex. PW-3/A where the said fact was not recorded. It is wrong to suggest that the accused persons had not come to my house.
It is correct that accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad reside in my locality and I used to tell them to not to be in company of accused Ravi. But they did not pay heed to my advise. It is wrong to suggest that as accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad did not pay heed to my advise, so I had minor quarrel with them on the said issue.
The house of accused Prahlad and Khushi Lal is at a distance of about 7-8 houses from my house. It is wrong to suggest that accused Prahlad and Khushi Lal had not beaten or mishandled me or any of my brother. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused Prahlad and Khushi Lal at the instance of Investigating Officer.
X X X By Sh. Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
I reached the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. Police took me to the hospital by police zypsy. I was accompanied by my brother Rameshwar and Inder to the hospital. I remained at the hospital for about 2-3 hours. My brothers had accompanied me back to the house. (Vol. They had received stitches on their injuries from the hospital). Police had recorded statement of all of us i.e. me and my brother Inder and Rameshwar.
We had reached the house at about 9.00 to 10.00 p.m. on the said day. Police had come to my house on one occasion for the purpose of recording my statement and on the other occasion, they had called me to the PS. About 20 public persons were present at the spot when accused persons were beating us. Police had recorded statement of public persons who were present at the spot and one of the said person was Prem Aunty.SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 11 of 34
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 Police had recorded her statement in my presence. House of accused persons is at a distance of 7-8 houses from my house. No quarrel prior to the present incident had taken place between us and the accused persons.
It is wrong to suggest that as it was Holi festival on that day, so the faces of accused persons were covered with colour and they could not be recognized by us. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of public persons living in our locality. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons had never beaten us or that no injuries were ever caused to us by the accused persons. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
Testimony of PW4 Bunty
7. I reproduce evidence of PW4 as under :
"At the time of incident, I used to remain in the house and used to do the work of my house. On 24.03.2016, it was festival of Holi on that day and I had come to my maternal aunt's house (Mausi's house) on that day. At about 2.30 p.m., I had gone to the shop of Ravi Sansi for the purpose of purchasing Gutka alongwith my brother Babloo Divakar. When I was returning back to the house, accused Chotu had pushed me. Accused Chotu is present in the Court today (correctly identified by the witness). Accused Ravi had hit my brother Babloo by attacking him with some pointed weapon on his chest. I had gone to the house of my Mausi for the purpose of calling my brothers Rameshwar and Inder by telling them about the said incident. Both of them came to the spot. They were total four accused persons. All the four accused persons are present in the Court today and correctly identified by the witness. One of the accused persons had attacked my brother Inder on his head with some pointed weapon like knife. They had attacked my brother Rameshwar by hitting him with "Adda" on his head.
I had locked the door of my house and accused persons had hit on the said door by using knife. Accused persons had even thrown bricks and stones on us due to SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 12 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 which we received injuries.
I can identify the case property, if shown to me. At this stage, MHC(M) has produced one sealed clothe parcel sealed with the seal of Court. MHC(M) is directed to break the seal and open the parcel. On opening the same, it found containing a stone and a half brick. Both of the said articles are correctly identified by the witness ot be used by the accused persons for the purpose of hitting the injured persons at the time of incident. The said articles are now exhibited as Ex. P-1 (colly).
X X X By Sh. Abhijit Bhagat, Ld. LAC for the accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
Police, who reached at the spot at about 4.00 p.m., was called by my brother Inderjit. I reside with my maternal aunt (Mausi). It takes about 2-5 minutes to reach the spot from my house, which is situated in a residential area. It is correct that at the time of incident due to Holi festival, many people were present in the area and were playing Holi. It is wrong to suggest that the faces of the accused persons were covered with Holi colours and I did not correctly identify them.
I had told the police the manner in which my brother Rameshwar was attacked by the accused persons.
It is wrong to suggest that accused Prahlad and Khushi Lal had not beaten or mishandled me or any of my brother. It is wrong to suggest that I have falsely implicated the accused Prahlad and Khushi Lal at the instance of Investigating Officer. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.
X X X By Sh. Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
It is wrong to suggest that no shop of Gutka was ever run by accused Ravi Sansi. (Vol. He was having a shop of liquor and Gutka). I had come to the house of my Mausi on 24.03.2016 at about 10.00 to 10.30 a.m. for the purpose of playing Holi. I was accompanied with my mother to play Holi from 10.30 to 2.30 p.m. My mother was present at the house of my Mausi at about 2.30 p.m. She had not come out of the house listening the voice of quarrel. The house of accused Ravi is at a distance of 8-10 houses from the house of my Mausi.
About 20-25 public persons were present at the SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 13 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 spot when accused persons were beating us. Police had not recorded statement of any such public persons in my presence.
It is wrong to suggest that as it was Holi festival on that day, so the faces of accused persons were covered with colour and they could not be recognized by us. It is wrong to suggest that neither me nor my mother were present at the house of my Mausi on that day. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of my cousin brothers. It is wrong to suggest that accused persons had never beaten us or that no injuries were ever caused to us by the accused persons.
It is wrong to suggest that the case property has been falsely planted or they have never caused any injury to us by the said case property. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
Testimony of PW5 Retd. Sub Inspector Hansraj
8. I reproduce evidence of PW5 as under :
"On 24.03.2016, I was Assistant Sub Inspector and posted at PS Paschim Vihar and working as Duty Officer from 4.00 p.m. to 12.00 midnight. On that same day at about 22:58 hours, Ct. Surender came to the Police Station with a complaint endorsed (rukka) and sent by Sub Inspector Rajender for registration of FIR u/s. 308/303/34 IPC. On the basis of the same, the present FIR was registered. I got the contents of the complaint and endorsement (rukka) typed with the help of police officials. After typing, I compared it with complaint and endorsement (rukka) and found the same correct. Thereafter, I signed the FIR and handed back the copy of FIR and original complaint and endorsement (rukka) to Ct. Surender to be handed over to Sub Inspector Rajender. I made endorsement on the rukka. I also issued certificate u/s.
65B of Indian Evidence Act. The FIR is now Ex. PW-5/A and endorsement on the rukka is Ex. PW-5/B and the certificate u/s. 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex. PW-5/C. All the said documents bear my signature at point 'A'.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 14 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 X X X By Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, Advocate for the accused persons Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
Nil. Opportunity given.
X X X By Sh. Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused persons Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
Nil. Opportunity given."
Testimony of PW6 HC Ravi Sharma
9. I reproduce evidence of PW6 as under :
"In the year 2016, I was Constable and posted at PS Paschim Vihar. On 07.05.2016, I was present in the investigation of this case with Investigating Officer / Sub Inspector Rajender Singh. Accused Ravi who is present today in the Court (correctly identified by the witness) came to the Police Station at about 9.00 am and stated that he was involved in the incident which had taken place on 24.03.2016. He was interrogated by the Investigating Officer and he was arrested in this very case and his personal search was conducted. The arrest memo and personal search memo are now Ex. PW-6/A and PW-6/B respectively bearing my signature at point 'A'. Accused gave disclosure statement which was recorded by the Investigating Officer regarding manner of occurrence, same is now Ex. PW-6/C. Accused pointed out the place where he has thrown the stone and iron strip which were used in the commission of offence. Search was made to recover the same but the same could not be recovered. The pointing out memo is now Ex. PW-6/D. All memos referred above bears my signature at point 'A. Accused was got medically examined and was produced before the Ld. Court and he was remanded to Judicial Custody by Ld. Court. My statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
X X X By Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, Advocate for the accused persons Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
Nil. Opportunity given.
X X X By Sh. Pranay Abhishek, Advocate for the accused persons Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
It is incorrect to suggest that the accused has not SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 15 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 made any disclosure statement or that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is incorrect to suggest that I have never joined the investigation or that I have deposed falsely today."
Testimony of PW7 Dr. Ajay Kumar
10. I reproduce evidence of PW7 as under :
"On 24.3.2016 at about 6:05 pm, I had examined the injured namely Bablu, Male 21 year brought by HC Giri Raj, identified by SI Rajender Singh and on local examination I had found the following injuries :
1. Linear incised wound over front of chest of size 6 cm x .5 cm x .2 cm.
2. Afresh CLW over right parietal region of scalp of size 2cm x .5 cm x .2 cm with blood clot.
I prepared the MLC and patient has put his thumb impression. The MLC is already Ex.PW3/B bearing my signature at point A. The MLC is in my hand writing. My signature is at point A. On the same day at about 5:50 pm, I had examined the injured namely Inder, Male 23 years brought by HC Giri Raj, identified by SI Rajender Singh and on local examination I had found the following injuries :
1. Incised wound over right parietal region with skin and muscle small piece of size 2 x 1 cm x muscle deep cut and removed from rest part of the scalp.
2. Small incise wound over right arm of size 1 x .2 x 2 cm with blood clot.
I prepared the MLC and patient has put his thumb impression. The MLC is in my hand writing and the MLC is now Ex.PW bearing my signature at point A. Patient was referred to surgery neurology department for further management and opinion.
X X X By Sh. Pranav Abhishek, Advocate for accused Ravi and Narender and Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, Advocate for accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
It is correct that no final opinion was given by me on the MLC of injured Inder as he did not come for review as called in surgery department."
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 16 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 Testimony of PW8 ASI Dharmender Rai
11. I reproduce evidence of PW8 as under :
"In the year 2016, I was posted as MHC(M) at PS Paschim Vihar.
On 25.03.2016, Sub-Inspector Rajender Singh handed me one sealed parcel sealed with the seal of RSC with direction to deposit the same stated to be containing the stone and broken brick. Accordingly, I deposited the case properties in the Malkhana after making entry No. 4168 in the register No. 19 maintained on regular basis in this regard. I have brought the original register No. 19 (OSR). The copy of relevant entry in the said register taken on file is now Ex. PW-8/A (colly).
X X X Sh. Abhijeet Ashok Bhagat, Ld. LAC for accused persons Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
As per our record, exhibits deposited in this case were never sent to FSL.
X X X Sh. Roj Malik, Advocate for accused persons Ravi and Narender @ Chotu.
As per our record, exhibits deposited in this case were never sent to FSL."
Testimony of PW9 Assistant Sub-Inspector Banwari Lal
12. I reproduce evidence of PW9 as under :
"On 10.07.2018, I was posted at PS Paschim Vihar as Assistant Sub-Inspector. On that day, the case file of the present case was marked to me for further investigation.
On 07.08.2018, I went to the houses of accused Narender @ Chhotu and accused Khushi Lal. From their respective houses, the said accused persons who are present in the Court today were apprehended. The said accused persons were arrested and personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-9/A to PW-9/E respectively which bears my signature at point 'A' each. The disclosure statement of accused Narender @ Chhotu was recorded SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 17 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 vide Ex. PW-9/F bearing my signature at point 'A'. The said accused persons had already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Ld. ASJ Sh. Rakesh Kumar-I. The said accused persons were released on bail.
I can identify the handwriting and signature of SI Rajender Singh as I had seen him while writing ad signing during the course of my service with him. SI Rajender Singh has already expired.
As per record, the statement of complainant Bablu Diwaker was recorded by SI Rajender vide complaint already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A which bears the signature of SI Rajender at point 'B'.
The rukka was also prepared by SI Rajender vide Ex. PW-9/G which bears the signature of SI Rajender at point 'A'. The site plan was also prepared by SI Rajender vide Ex. PW-9/H. The seizure memo in respect of weapon of offence was also prepared by SI Rajender vide memo already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/D which bears the signature of SI Rajender at point 'B'. The disclosure statements of the accused Prahlad and Ravi were also recorded by SI Rajender vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/C and PW-6/C respectively which bears the signature of SI Rajender at point 'B'. the pointing out memo at the instance of accused Ravi was also prepared by SI Rajender vide memo already Ex. PW-6/D which bears the signature of SI Rajender at point 'B'. The arrest and personal search memos qua accused Prahlad and Ravi were also filled up by SI Rajender Singh vide memos already exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A, PW-6/A, PW-3/B and PW-6/B all bearing signature of SI Rajender at point 'B'.
On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was prepared under the supervision of SHO and the same was filed in the Court.
X X X By Sh. Roj Malik, Advocate for accused persons Ravi and Narender.
At first, I went to the house of accused Narender at about 1.00 p.m. I was alone at that time. First of all, arrest memo was prepared at his house and at last, the proforma of bail bond was filled up at his house. It is wrong to suggest that I never went to the house of accused Narender or that he was falsely implicated in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely.SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 18 of 34
State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 X X X By Sh. Abhijeet Bhagat, LAC for accused persons Khushi Lal and Prahlad.
I reached at the house of accused Khushi Lal on foot at about 10.00 p.m. the information regarding the arrest of Khushi Lal was given to his wife namely Sapna who was present at the house. (Vol. The said accused was released on bail on furnishing surety by Ms.Sapna). It is wrong to suggest that the accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad were falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of complainant. It is also wrong to suggest that accused persons had not committed any offence or that I am deposing falsely."
Statement of accused Ravi under Section 313 CrPC
13. In his statement under Section 313 CrPC, accused Ravi denied all the allegations and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In answer to question no.21, he stated that on the day of incident, he was sitting in his shop. Some persons came from nearby locality and quarrel took place between them and complainant. He tried to intervene to stop the quarrel, but complainant falsely implicated him for this bonafide act.
Statement of accused Khushi Lal under Section 313 CrPC
14. Accused Khushi Lal denied all allegations in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. In answer to question no.21, he stated that he is friend of accused Ravi. Complainant did not like this friendship with accused Ravi and his associates. Complainant had told him not to be SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 19 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 in company of accused Ravi and his associates. For this reason, he was falsely implicated in the present case.
Statement of accused Prahlad under Section 313 CrPC
15. His statement is same as that of accused Khushi Lal.
Statement of accused Narender @ Chhotu under Section 313 CrPC
16. Accused Narender denied all the allegations. In answer to question no.21, he stated that on the day of incident, he had gone to the shop of accused Ravi at about 12:30 pm and came back home at about 2:00 pm. He stated that he did not know as to what had happened and that he has been falsely implicated in the present case because of being friend of accused Ravi.
Defence Evidence
17. Accused persons did not examine any witness in their defence.
Submissions of Ld. Defence Counsels
18. It is argued that neither any blood was found at the spot nor any weapon has been recovered.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 20 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024
19. Ld. Defence Counsels argued that no blood was found at the spot, which shows that the incident did not take place at the spot and that the injuries in question might be self inflicted.
20. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that there are serious contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses and therefore, they are absolutely unreliable. For example, it is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that it is not clear as to who took the injured persons to hospital. It is submitted that this is important because PW1 has testified that they were taken to hospital by their family members, whereas PW2 Rameshwar has testified that they were taken to hospital in a police vehicle.
21. Ld. Defence Counsels have drawn my attention to testimony of PW1, who testified in his cross examination that 10-12 persons have given beating to them. However, this is contradictory to his statement under Section 161 CrPC.
22. Further, PW1, PW2 and PW3 are real brothers and therefore, are testifying falsely in unison. It is submitted that the accused persons and witnesses are neighbours and when the quarrel took place, large number of neighbours had collected. However, police had not joined any of the neighbours in investigation. Had any independent eye witness been joined, such witness would have stated SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 21 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 as to how actually the incident happened.
23. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that the accused Ravi and complainant party are neighbours. It is submitted that the complainant party had an unfounded apprehension that accused persons were involved in sale of illicit liquor. Therefore, with a motive to remove accused persons from the area, the complainant has falsely implicated them in the present case. Ld. Defence Counsels argued that PW1 Inderjeet, PW2 Rameshwar and PW3 Babloo Diwakar are real brothers. It is submitted that PW3 Babloo Diwakar had gone to the shop of accused Ravi for purchasing Gutka, where some manhandling took place between PW3 Babli Diwakar and accused Ravi. It is submitted that aggrieved by this manhandling, PW3 Babloo Diwakar went and came to the shop of accused Ravi along with his brothers and attacked accused Ravi. It is submitted that it was the complainant party, who went to the shop of accused Ravi, which resulted in the scuffle. Ld. Defence Counsels have drawn my attention to the site plan Ex.PW9/H, which shows that the incident had taken place at point A, which is shop of accused Ravi. Therefore, it is argued that the investigation itself supports the case of defence that complainant was the assailant party.
24. It is further argued that accused Narender was not even present SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 22 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 at the spot at the time of quarrel and accused Prahlad. Further, no medical examination of PW2 Rameshwar and PW4 Bunty was conducted, which shows that the incident never happened.
25. Further, it is argued that the injuries in question are only simple in nature and there is nothing on record to prove that the accused persons intended to commit an offence under Section 308 IPC. Ld. Defence Counsels have relied upon State Vs. Kamlesh Bahadur a judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 12.09.2023. Further, it is argued that the witnesses have failed to assign specific role of each accused in the incident.
Submissions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor
26. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered the plea of self inflicted injuries on the ground that no suggestion was put to PW7 Dr. Ajay Kumar to the effect that the injuries on the persons of victims could have been self inflicted. It is further argued that no such suggestion was given to the witnesses/injured persons during cross examination.
27. It is argued that if no injury was received by PW2 Rameshwar and PW4 Bunty, there was no need to get them medically examined. It is submitted that non preparation of MLC of PW2 and PW4 does not SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 23 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 lead to a presumption of their absence on the spot at the relevant time.
28. It is argued by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that no serious contradictions have been pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels. It is submitted that as per rukka Ex.PW9/G, written on the statement Ex.PW3/A of injured Balloo Diwakar, it is specifically mentioned that police vehicle had taken them to SGM Hospital. Therefore, it is submitted that the contradiction in the cross examination PW1 as to who took injured persons to hospital is a very minor contradiction.
29. Regarding the contradictions as to whether 10 to 12 persons had beaten the complainant party, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that in this regard PW1 was not confronted with his statement under Section 161 CrPC and therefore, this contradiction cannot be considered by the court.
30. It is submitted that it is true that PW1, PW2 and PW3 are real brothers. It is submitted that PW3 Babloo Diwakar and PW1 Inderjeet themselves were injured in the present case. It is submitted that the injuries on their persons have been brought on record by prosecution by proving MLCs Ex.PW3/B and Ex.PW7/A respectively. It is argued that there is no injury on the persons of the accused persons. Had the complainant party been the assailant, the accused persons must SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 24 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 have received some injuries. Absence of injuries on the persons of the accused persons belies the stand of defence that the complainant was assailant and the incident took place at the shop of accused Ravi.
31. Regarding place of occurrence, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has drawn my attention to the site plan Ex.PW9/H and submits that although the quarrel started in front of the shop of accused Ravi shown as point A in the site plan but actual incident took place at point B shown in the site plan. It is therefore submitted that it cannot be said that complainant party were the assailant in the present case and accused persons had acted only in defence.
32. It is further argued that there is nothing on record to show that accused Narender was not at the spot at that time. It is submitted by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that as per evidence of the witnesses, the incident took place at about 2:30 pm on 24.3.2016. Accused Narender states in answer to question no.21 under Section 313 CrPC that he had gone to the shop of accused Ravi at about 12:30 pm and returned home at 2:00 pm and that he had no knowledge about the incident. It is submitted that the onus to prove the plea of alibi is upon the accused, which he has failed to discharge. It is argued that accused Narender could have examined at least his family members regarding the time when he came back home. In SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 25 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 such situation, no benefit can be given to accused Narender.
33. Regarding non finding of blood, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is not necessary that blood should fall on earth. Further, it is argued that when a quarrel happens and many offenders attack a person, it is not possible for him to remember role of each accused persons specifically.
My Opinion
34. First of all I will take up the issue of contradictions as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels. In Birbal Nath Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. MANU/SC/1195/2023 decided on 30.10.2023. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while relying upon Rammi Vs. State of M. P. MANU/SC/0596/1999 : (1999) 8 SCC 649 held that contradictions in two statements may or may not be sufficient to discredit a witness. Therefore, it is to be seen as to whether the contradictions are so serious that same go to the root of the case and shake the credibility of a witness. In the present case, I find that the contradictions as pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels are superficial in nature and are not substantial. The contradiction as to who took the injured persons to police station is only peripheral and is not of any importance. Same is the case as to how many persons had beaten them up.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 26 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024
35. So far as issue of injuries is concerned, I am of the opinion that this is an after thought defence and plea of self inflicted injuries was never taken up during entire trial. Further, there is nothing on record to presume that injuries were self inflicted.
36. Perusal of the evidence shows that quarrel between the parties is not in dispute. PW1 Inderjeet has testified that his brother Babloo Diwakar and Bunty went to the shop of accused Ravi for purchasing Gutka on 24.3.2016 at about 2:30 pm. They were celebrating Holi. Accused Ravi used to sell illicit liquor in his shop. An altercation took place between them. Accused Ravi along with brother Narender @ Chhotu and accused Prahlad along with accused Khushi Lal came there armed with Dandas and stones and started beating them all of sudden. Accused Ravi and Chhotu (Narender) assaulted him on his head with Danda and stones. Accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad assaulted his brother Rameshwar. In the meantime, PW Babloo Diwakar also came there and he was also assaulted by the accused persons on his chest and other places. Thereafter they fled away.
37. PW2 has testified in the same way. However PW3 Babloo Diwakar has testified that he had gone to the shop of accused Ravi for purchasing Gutkha along with his brother Bunty (i.e. PW4). When he was returning to his house, accused Ravi had pushed his brother SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 27 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 Bunty and hit him (i.e. Babloo Diwakar) on his chest by a pointed weapon. He testified that accused persons threw bricks on them and attacked their brother Inderjeet by causing injury on his head by using the weapon they were carrying in their hands. They had attacked Rameshwar on his head by using a brick. He testified that accused persons started throwing bricks on his house and even tried to break the door of his house.
38. PW4 Bunty has explained the incident more clear. He testified that on 24.3.2016 at 2:30 pm, he had gone to the shop of accused Ravi for purchasing rukka along with his brother Babloo, when he was returning back, accused Chhotu pushed him and accused Ravi hit his brother Babloo by attacking him with a pointed weapon on his chest. He went to the house of his Mausi and told Rameshwar and Inderjeet about the incident. Both of them came to the spot and when one accused hit Inderjeet on his head with some pointed weapon like knife. They attacked Rameshwar by hitting him with "Adha". He testified that he locked the door of his house and accused persons hit on the said door by using knife. Accused persons had even thrown brick and stones on them due to which they received injuries.
39. It is true that the incident narrated by PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 have some variations but the same cannot be called contradictions.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 28 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 When incident of such a nature take place, the victims become so perplexed that they cannot remember and testify about the incident exactly in the same manner as it happened. From the perusal of the testimonies, it appears that a quarrel started in front of the shop of accused Ravi with PW3 and PW4. When PW1 and PW2 were informed about it, they also reached there but accused persons attacked them with Dandas, stones etc. as testified by the aforesaid witnesses. I agree with the submissions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that the complainant party been the aggressor, accused persons must have received some injuries but in the present case all the injuries have been received by complainant party. Therefore, it leaves me in no doubt that the complainant party was not the aggressor and it were the accused persons, who had attacked the complainant party. The MLCs of PW1 Inderjeet and PW3 Babloo Diwakar are on record. PW7 Dr. Ajay Kumar has proved that Babloo Diwakar received linear incised wound on front of his chest 6 cm X .5 cm X .2 cm. Bablo Diwakar also received a fresh CLW over right parietal region of scalp of the size 2 cm X .5 cm X 2 cm. He also proved that Inderjeet received an incised wound over right parietal region of the size 2 X 1 cm X muscle deep cut and small incised wound over right arm.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 29 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024
40. Thus blunt and sharp edged weapon were used over heads and other parts of body on the persons of PW1 and PW2. This shows that the accused persons well prepared and duly armed to cause hurt to the complainant party.
41. It is submitted that PW1, PW2 and PW3 are real brother and PW4 was a close relative and therefore, they are testifying in one voice falsely. I am of the opinion that there is nothing on record to render a finding that they are testifying falsely. These witnesses are testifying against accused persons because they are testifying about a real incident truthfully.
42. For the aforesaid reasons, I discount the self defence theory presented by Ld. Defence counsels. Further I also find substance in the submissions of Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor that onus of proving alibi is upon the defence. In the present case, accused Narender has taken a stand in statement under Section 313 CrPC that he was not present at the time of incident at the spot. However, his defence finds no support from any quarter. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad were also not present at the spot. However, no evidence has been pointed out by Ld. Defence Counsels in support of this submission.
SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 30 of 34State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024
43. In case of injury, it is not necessary that blood must fall on the ground. Therefore, if blood is not found on the ground, it does not mean that the incident had not taken place at that place. It is true that MLCs of PW2 and PW4 is not filed. It may be due to the reason that they had not received any injury and therefore, there was no need for getting them medically examined. Ld. Defence counsels have drawn my attention to testimony of PW2 Rameshwar in cross examination that when he had reached at the spot, no public person were present and that his younger brother Bunty had come to the house to call him when the incident was taken place near the shop of accused persons. I am of the opinion that this evidence should be seen in proper perspective. The incident had taken place in two parts. First in front of shop of accused Ravi at point A as reflected in the site plan and thereafter at point B mentioned in the site plan Ex.PW9/H. As per testimony of PW2, he resides at the distance of 50 meters from the place of occurrence. Therefore, he came at the place of occurrence and was beaten up. Although he has testified in cross examination dated 6.3.2020 that he was injured and remained admitted in hospital for two days. As there is no medical record of PW2 placed on judicial file, I am not inclined to accept the fact that he remained admitted in hospital for two days. However, his testimony in respect of the SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 31 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 incident has a ring of truth and I am not inclined to reject his testimony.
44. PW4 Bunty was present with PW3 Babloo Diwakar at the time of first incident, when a quarrel took place and accused Ravi hit Babloo Diwakar. PW4 has testified that he went to the house of his Mausi and called his brother Rameshwar and Inderjeet. He testified that both of them came to the spot and all the accused persons attacked them. Thus PW4 is eye witness to both the incidents and I am not inclined to reject his testimony simply because of him not being medically examined. His non examination by doctor is not an evidence of his absence from the spot at the time of incident.
45. Ld. Defence Counsels have also argued that no role of each accused has been specifically testified. I disagree with this submission. PW1 has testified that accused Ravi and Chhotu (Narender) had assaulted him on his head with Danda and stones. Accused Khushi Lal and Prahlad assaulted his brother Rameshwar. Babloo Diwakar was also assaulted by accused persons on his chest and other places. PW3 Babloo Diwakar has specifically testified that accused Ravi had hit him on his chest with some pointed weapon and that all accused persons had thrown bricks upon them. Similarly PW2 and PW4 have specified the roles of the accused persons. It is true SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 32 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 that there may be confusion in specifying role of each accused. But overall testimonies of all the witnesses are enough to specify as to how the incident took place.
46. Ld. Counsel for accused Khushi Ram and Prahlad has argued that they had not participation in the incident. However, Ld. Defence Counsel has been unable to convince this court as to on the basis of what evidence, such defence is being raised.
47. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsels that in the present offence, the injuries are not so serious that accused persons are convicted under Section 308 IPC. Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor has countered this argument by submitting that injuries on heads of both the injured persons indicates the intention of accused persons.
48. I have carefully considered all facts and circumstances of the case. The incident took place during Holi celebrations. The accused persons not only attacked the accused persons in furtherance of common intention but also went to the extent of throwing stones on the house of the victims. I have perused State Vs. Kamlesh Bahadur (supra) cited by Ld. Defence Counsels. In the said case, there was one victim, who received one simple injury on the head. Therefore, Hon'ble High Court held to be a simple case of 323 IPC. However, in the present case the head injury is not only on the head SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 33 of 34 State Vs. Ravi Etc. Judgement dt. 4.6.2024 of one person, rather two victims (PW1 Inderjeet and PW3 Babloo Diwakar) had received injuries on their heads apart from the one injury each caused with a sharp edged weapon. Therefore, I disagree with the submissions of Ld. Defence Counsels and I hold that the facts of the case fall within four corner of Section 308 IPC.
Conclusion
49. In view of above discussions, I hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, I convict all the accused persons under Section 308/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court on 4.6.2024.
(Vinod Kumar) Principal District & Sessions Judge West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SC/236/2019, FIR No.: 180/2016 CNR No.: DLWT01-003599-2019 Page 34 of 34