Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Rameez on 12 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR KHARTA,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)-02, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions case no. 27356/2016)
FIR No. 170/2013
Police Station DBG Road.
Charge-sheet filed under Sections Sec. 186/333/353/307 IPC.
Charges framed against accused. Sec. 186/333 & 307 IPC
Convicted under Sections Sec. 186/332/324 IPC
State Versus Mohd. Rameez,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Azizuddin,
R/o H. No. 7226, Gali Paharwali,
Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
...Accused.
Date of Institution of case 10.07.2015
Date of Arguments 05.03.2025
Judgment reserved on 05.03.2025
Judgment pronounced on 12.03.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Mohd. Rameez is facing trial for the offences punishable under Sec. 186/333 & 307 IPC. The story of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2013 at 08:30 pm at MCD, MTNL Office, Idgah, Faiz Road, Delhi, accused voluntarily obstructed the complainant Ct. Gokul Narain, No. 791/C of PP Shiddipura, while he was patrolling in the area and who being public servant FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 1 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
was discharging his public functions and in the meantime, accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt by a surgical blade Ct. Gokul Narain with intention to prevent or deter him from discharging such duty as public servant. Further on the aforesaid date, time and place accused struck a surgical blade on the neck of Ct. Gokul Narain causing a sharp grievous injury below his ear with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if accused by that act would have caused death of the said person, he would have been guilty of murder.
2. The brief facts which are borne out from the record of the case are that on 06.06.2013, on receiving DD No. 27PP, Ex. PW-13/A regarding assault of a police personnel by a person with blade, near MCD Office, Rohtak Road, PW-14/IO Inspector Dheeraj Singh along with PW-7 HC Jugal Kishore went to the spot of incident i.e. MCD, MTNL Office, Idgah, Faiz Road, Delhi where an Eterno Scooty bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 was found parked with its key. During inquiry, it was revealed that injured police personnel had been shifted to Jeevan Mala Hospital. Thereafter, IO left Ct. Jugal at the spot and he proceeded to the hospital where he collected the MLC of injured police personnel namely Ct. Gokul Narain, who was unfit for statement at that time. On 07.06.2013, at about 12:10 am, injured was declared fit for statement and thereafter IO recorded his statement, Ex. PW-2/A and on the basis of which, he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-14/A and got the present FIR registered at PS DBG Road. Thereafter IO returned to the spot along with one FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 2 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
Surjeet who brought the injured police constable to hospital and he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-3/A at his instance. During investigation, IO seized the Enterno Scooty bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 along with its key vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/A. IO also seized parcels along with sample seal of Jeevan Mala Hospital vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. During investigation, IO received secret information regarding accused that he would come at Eidgah and thereafter IO along with secret informer and Surjeet went to Eidgah where on pointing out of secret informer, accused was apprehended by the IO. Thereafter, IO arrested accused Mohd. Rameez in the present case, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. Accused also got recovered weapon of offence i.e. surgical blade hidden underneath a brick near Anjuman Clinic. IO prepared sketch of surgical blade. During investigation, IO sent the exhibits to FSL Rohini, recorded statement of witnesses and obtained nature of injury on the MLC of injured which was opined as 'grievous sharp injury'. Thereafter further investigation of this case was entrusted to PW-9 Inspector Ram Niwas who on completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet before the Court through the SHO.
3. Vide order dated 2 3 . 0 4 . 2 0 1 5 copy of the charge-sheet was directed to be supplied to accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C which was supplied to the accused on 14.05.2015. Vi d e o r d e r d a t e d 0 5 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 5 the case was committed to the Court of Sessions under Sec. 209 Cr.P.C.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 3 of 374. Vide order dated 10.08.2015, the Ld. Predecessor Court was pleased to frame charges under Sec 186/307/333 IPC against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined 15 witnesses. The testimonies of presecution witnesses along with its nature has been discussed briefly in the following paragraphs.
6. PW-1 Retd. SI Rajinder Singh, was the duty officer who proved copy of present FIR Ex. PW1/A, endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B and certificate under Section 65B Evidence Act Ex. PW1/C with respect to the the above-said FIR. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
7. PW-2 Ct. Gokul Narayan, is the complainant/injured in the present case. He deposed that on 06.06.2013, he was posted at PP Shiddipura, PS DBG Road and he was working as Beat Constable at Beat No. 10 which included the area of Eidgah, MTNL, Faiz Road and Siddhipura. He further deposed that on that day while patrolling in the said beat at about 08:15 pm, he reached at MCD Office where one Surjeet Singh, a Beldar working at Eidgah Water Emergency, MCD office met him and he started talking to him. He further deposed that at about 08:30 pm, while he was talking to said Surjeet Singh, accused namely Rameez came there on one Eterno Scooter of light blue colour. He further deposed that earlier he had instructed accused Rameez not to roam around in the area in drunken condition near Eidgah. He further deposed that accused stopped his scooter on the road, FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 4 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
came to them and took out one surgical blade from the right side pocket of his pant and suddenly struck it on his neck. He further deposed that the blade struck below his ear on his neck as he had slightly turned at the time of assault and blood started flowing from his neck. He also deposed that accused ran towards his scooter and while he was starting the scooter, he went to him running to catch him. He further deposed that accused Rameez left the scooter bearing registration no. DL-8SY-7266 there and ran away from the spot on foot. He further deposed that Surjeet took him 24 Ghanta Clinic at East Park Road. He also deposed that Ct. Aadesh Tyagi and Ct. Harender met him as they were patrolling and he was taken to Jeevan Mala Hospital by Ct. Aadesh Tyagi and Ct. Harender in rickshaw and Surjeet also accompanied them to the hospital. He further deposed that the uniform which he was wearing at the time of incident had got blood stained and the said uniform was seized by the Medical Officer who had examined him in the hospital. He further deposed that SI Dhiraj Singh came to the hospital and recorded his statement, Ex. PW-2/A. He further deposed that on the next day, he along with SI Dhiraj, Surjeet Singh and Ct. Jugal Kishore went to Eidgah Chamberi as secret informer had informed that accused Rameez would be coming to Eidgah Chamberi. He further deposed that accused Rameez came to Eidgah Chamberi at about 10:20-10:30 pm and he immediately identified him and accused Rameez was apprehended. He proved arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement and pointing out memo of accused as Ex. PW-2/B to Ex. PW-2/E. FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 5 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
8. In his cross-examination, PW-2 Ct. Gokul Narayan deposed that Rickshaws of Surjeet were lifted from time to time for violating the law. He denied the suggestion that rickshaws were not lifted by him as he was also a partner in the rickshaws along with Surjeet. He also deposed that accused Rameez was known to him since last 15-20 days. He denied the suggestion that he using scooter of accused Rameez for last about 4-5 months. He denied the suggestion that when accused demanded his scooter from him, accused had been falsely implicated in the present case. He also denied the suggestion that no incident had taken place on 06.06.2013 or that accused did not meet him on the date of incident or that injuries had been received by him by falling on his own. He also deposed that he had seen the accused drinking alcohol 2-3 times during 15-20 days before the incident. He denied the suggestion that he used to meet accused almost daily at the rickshaw stand of Surjit where he used to visit there. He also deposed that at the time of incident, Surjeet was sitting at a distance of 10 to 12 meters. He also deposed that Surjeet kept on standing but did not try to catch the accused. He also deposed that the name of accused was Rameez had became known to him about two days prior to the incident when he was inquired while consuming liquor at a public place. He also deposed that he was on medical rest on 07.06.2013 but incidentally, he was present at Shani Mandir with IO. He denied the suggestion that accused himself had surrendered before the police and was not arrested in the manner mentioned above.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 6 of 379. PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh, deposed that he was employed in Jal Board and looked after rickshaw garage after his duty hours. He further deposed that on the day of incident at about 08:00- 08:30 pm, he was sitting outside the rickshaw garage and Ct. Gokul Narain was having talks with him and in the meantime, someone came from behind and hit something on the person of Ct. Gokul Narain. He further deposed that blood was oozing from the injury of Gokul Narain below his cheek and he took him to the shop of doctor situated at Manakpura and after his first aid, he took him to Jeevan Mala Hospital. He further deposed that he did not know anything more about this case. This witness was cross-examined at length by Ld. Addl. PP for the State but he did not support the case of prosecution at all. He was also confronted with his statement recorded under Sec. 161 Cr.PC, Mark-A on various points. He admitted his signature at site plan Ex. PW-3/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he knew Ct. Gokul Narain since last 3-4 years. He also admitted that he had not taken permission from his office to run rickshaw garage or to park rickshaws in front of the office. He also deposed that documents Ex. PW-3/A and Ex. PW-2/B were blank when he had signed the same. He also deposed that his clothes were not stained with blood of Ct. Gokul Narain. He also deposed that he had not made any 100 number call or had informed the police station about the incident before taking Ct. Gokul Narain to the doctor. He denied the suggestion that Ct. Gokul Narain used to take money from him for parking rickshaws at the spot hence he was deposing falsely at his instance. He also denied the FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 7 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
suggestion that Ct. Gokul Narain had fallen on the spot or that he received injury because of falling on some broken glass.
10. PW-4 Dr. Rajinder Kumar, Deputy Director (Retd.), FSL Rohini has proved his detailed serological and biological reports as Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-4/B. He also proved forwarding letter as Ex. PW-4/C. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
11. PW-5 Ct. Harender Kumar, was the Duty Officer at PS. He proved copy of DD No. 21, Ex. PW-5/A regarding departure of Ct. Adesh and Ct. Gokul Narain for patrolling duty on 06.06.2013. He also deposed that after his duty as Duty Officer at 08:00 pm, he started for patrolling in the area of East Park Road near Wine shop where Ct. Adesh Tyagi met him while patrolling. He further deposed that thereafter they reached at 24 Ghanta Clinic and saw that Ct. Gokul Narain was having injury and one Surjit had taken him to the clinic for medical examination. He further deposed that they took Ct. Gokul Narain to Jeevan Mala Hospital by rickshaw where MLC of Ct. Gokul Narain was prepared and he was declared unfit for statement. He further deposed that Ct. Gokul Narain was declared fit for statement on 07.06.2013 and SI Dhiraj Singh recorded his statement, prepared tehrir and got the present FIR registered through Ct. Adesh Tyagi at PS. In his cross-examination, he deposed that when they reached at the 24 Ghanta clinic, Ct. Gokul Narain was conscious. He also deposed that one public person, Surjit Singh was there with Ct. Gokul Narain but he was not aware at that time about his FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 8 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
name, though he used to visit in the Police Chowki Shidhipura. He denied the suggestion that neither any DD entry was recorded by him nor he took the injured Ct. Gokul Narain to Jeevan Mala Hospital.
12. PW-6 Ct. Narender, deposed that he had deposited the exhibits of this case i.e. three pullandas and one envelope containing sample seal to FSL, Rohini vide RC No. 5021/13 and had handed over its acknowledgment to MHC(M) after depositing the same to FSL. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not count the documents which he took from FSL to PS.
13. PW-7 HC Jugal Kishore, deposed that on 06.06.2013 at about 08:45 pm on receipt of DD No. 27 at the Police Post, he along with SI Dhiraj went to the spot situated at near MCD Office, MTNL Office, Eidgah, Faiz Road, Delhi on government motorcycle bearing registration no. DL-1SN-5616. He further deposed that on inquiry, they came to know that the injured Ct. Gokul Narain had been taken to Jeevan Mala Hospital. He further deposed that one Eterno scooty bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 was found standing with its key which was facing towards New Rohtak Road. He further deposed that SI Dhiraj directed him to remain present at the spot and proceeded to Jeevan Mala Hospital and after sometime, SI Dhiraj returned to the spot along with one Surjit, eyewitness of the incident. He further deposed that IO prepared site plan at instance of Surjit and in the meantime Ct. Adesh Tyagi also came at the spot along FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 9 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
with copy of FIR and original Tehrir which he gave to SI Dhiraj. He also deposed that SI Dhiraj seized the scooter found at the spot along with its key vide seizure memo Ex. PW-7/A. He further deposed that after discharge of Ct. Gokul Narain, he along with IO, Surjeet Singh and Ct. Gokul Narain searched for accused and in the meantime one secret informer informed SI Dhiraj that accused of this case would come to Eidgah Chamberi, Rani Jhasi Road, near MTNL office. He narrated about apprehension of accused on pointing out by secret informer and proved his arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statements and pointing out memo as Ex. PW-2/B to Ex. PW-2/E. In his cross-examination, he deposed that statement of eyewitness Surjit was recorded by the IO at the spot after preparation of the site plan. He also deposed that the site plan as well as documents pertaining to arrest of the accused including the disclosure statement of accused were prepared in the presence of Surjit. He denied the suggestion that site plan was prepared in the PS and was not signed by any witness. He also denied the suggestion that he had not participated in the investigation of this case at any point of time and had signed the documents in the PS at instance of IO.
14. PW-8 Ct. Aadesh Kumar Tyagi, deposed that on 06.06.2013, he was on patrolling duty and he along with Ct. Harinder reached at East Park Road, 24 Ghanta Clinic at about 08:45 pm, where they saw Ct. Gokul Narain in injured condition along with one public person at the clinic. He further deposed FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 10 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
that from the said clinic, Ct. Gokul Narain was taken by them to Jeevan Mala Hospital and the said public person namely Surjit had also accompanied them to the hospital. He further deposed that Chowki In-charge SI Dhiraj Singh came at the hospital and obtained MLC of Ct. Gokul Narain who was declared unfit for statement. He further deposed that on 07.06.2013 at about 12:10 am, statement of Ct. Gokul Narain was recorded by SI Dhiraj, who prepared Tehrir on the statement of Ct. Gokul Narain and gave it to him for registration of FIR at PS. He further deposed that he went to PS DBG Road and got the present FIR registered on the basis of tehrir and gave the copy of FIR and tehrir to SI Dhiraj for investigation. He further deposed that he went to Jeevan Mala Hospital where doctor handed over two sealed pullanda sealed with seal of hospital, one containing blood stained clothes of Ct. Gokul Narain and one containing his blood sample along with sample seal of hospital, which was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. In his cross-examination, he deposed that Ct. Harinder had not accompanied them to Jeevan Mala Hospital. He also deposed that he reached there later on but he could not say how he reached there. He deposed that in the same night at about 12:10 am, statement of Ct. Gokul Narain was recorded by SI Dhiraj in presence of police staff including him. He denied the suggestion that he never joined the proceedings and had signed the memo at instance of IO.
15. PW-9 Inspector Ram Niwas, was the second IO of the present case. He deposed that after receiving of further FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 11 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
investigation of the present case, he recorded statement of two witnesses i.e. carrier of exhibits and the then MHC(M), prepared challan and submitted the same in the court after completing the formalities under Sec. 195 Cr.PC. This witness was not cross- examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
16. PW-10 HC Ajay, was the MHC(M). He proved the entries in register no. 19 & 21 made by him exhibited as Ex. PW-10/A to Ex. PW-10/C. He also proved acknowledgment of FSL as Ex. PW-10/D. This witness was not cross-examined on behalf of accused despite opportunity given to him.
17. PW-11 Ct. Vipin, deposed that on 09.06.2013, he joined the investigation in the present case along with IO. He further deposed that on that day, accused Rameez had taken the police party near Anjuman Clinic, Eidgah Chambari and got recovered weapon of offence i.e. one surgical blade by removing a brick near a wall. He proved sketch of surgical blade and its seizure memo as Ex. PW-11/1 & Ex. PW-11/2. In his cross-examination, he deposed that at the time of recovery except three of them and accused Rameez, none was present there. He admitted that at the place of recovery, public persons were available and were coming and going. He also deposed that surgical blade was measured by the IO with the tools which he had possessed. He also deposed that he could not say as to whether any blood stain was on the surgical blade or not. He denied the suggestion that he had signed the seizure memo Ex. PW-11/2 at the PS at the instance of IO or that he had not visited the place of recovery.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 12 of 3718. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabharwal, Consultant, Jeevan Mala Hospital has proved the MLC of injured Ct. Gokul Narain as Ex. PW-12/A. He also opined about the nature of injuries on the MCL, Ex. PW-12/A as 'sharp injury (grievous)'. In his cross- examination, he deposed that he opined the nature of injury as grievous on the basis of injury as mentioned from portion-X i.e. clean lacerated wound on inferior to right ear with heavy bleeding. He also deposed that the injury in question was not life threatening but it could result in permanent disfiguration of face of injured.
19. PW-13 HC Sandeep, was the DD Writer at PS. He proved copy of DD No. 27PP regarding slashing with blade of a police personnel by a person near MCD Office, MTNL office, Eidgah, Faiz Road, Delhi as Ex. PW-13/A. He also proved copies of DD No. 5PP and DD No. 8PP as Ex. PW-13/B & Ex. PW-13/C. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that all the abovementioned DD entries were ante dated and ante time.
20. PW-14 Inspector Dheeraj Singh was the Investigating Officer in the present case. He deposed that on 06.06.2013, on receiving DD No. 27PP, Ex. PW-13/A regarding assault of a police personnel by a person with blade, near MCD Office, Rohtak Road, he along with Ct. Jugal Kishore went to the spot of incident i.e. MCD, MTNL Office, Idgah, Faiz Road, Delhi where an Eterno Scooty bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 was found parked with its key. He further deposed that during inquiry, it was revealed that injured police personnel had been FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 13 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
shifted to Jeevan Mala Hospital. He further deposed that he left the Ct. Jugal at the spot and proceeded to the hospital where he collected the MLC of injured police personnel namely Ct. Gokul Narain, who was unfit for statement at that time. He further deposed that on 07.06.2013, at about 12:10 am, injured was declared fit for statement and thereafter he recorded his complaint, Ex. PW-2/A and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka, Ex. PW-14/A and got the present FIR registered at PS DBG Road. He further deposed that thereafter he returned to the spot along with one Surjeet who brought the injured police constable to hospital and he prepared site plan, Ex. PW-3/A at his instance. He also deposed that he seized the Enterno Scooty bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 along with its key vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/A and he also seized parcels along with sample seal of Jeevan Mala Hospital vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A. He narrated about apprehension of accused on pointing out by secret informer and proved his arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statements and pointing out memo as Ex. PW-2/B to Ex. PW-2/E. He also narrated about recovery of weapon of offence i.e. surgical blade at instance of accused and he proved sketch of surgical blade and its seizure memo. He also deposed about sending of exhibits to FSL Rohini and obtained nature of injury on the MLC of injured police constable which was opined as 'grievous sharp injury'. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the victim was not conscious when he reached the hospital. He also deposed that no other public person had joined the investigation on that day at the spot. He also deposed FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 14 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
that the documents regarding arrest, personal search, disclosure of the accused etc. were prepared at the spot when accused was arrested. He also deposed that he did not notice any blood stains on the surgical blade on the day of its recovery. He also deposed that the public persons were available at the spot from where the surgical blade was recovered. He also deposed that he had requested the said public persons to join the investigation and to become the witness regarding the recovery of surgical blade, however, they refused for the same due to their personal reasons. He denied the suggestion that he had prepared the investigation papers at the police post Shiddhipura in connivance of Ct. Gokul Narain. He also denied the suggestion that he had not made any public person as a witness to the alleged recovery of the surgical blade because no such recovery was made at the instance of accused from the spot near Anshuman Clinic.
21. PW-15 Retd. ACP O. P. Yadav, has proved his complaint under Sec. 195 Cr.PC as Ex. PW-15/A. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not have personal knowledge of the facts of the present case. He also deposed that the complaint, Ex. PW-15/A was drafted by him. He denied the suggestion that he had just forwarded the complaint placed before him by his subordinate staff.
22. After closing of prosecution evidence, statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 Cr.PC, wherein he denied all the charges against him. He stated that the prosecution witnesses were interested witnesses and it was a false case. He FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 15 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
also stated that he had not committed any offence and he was innocent. Accused did not lead defence evidence.
23. Final arguments were advanced by Sh. Pankaj Kumar Ranga, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. Atul Kumar Sharma, Ld. Counsel for accused.
24. Ld. Addl. PP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution story and have corroborated each other's version. To substantiate his submissions, he argued that PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain has completely supported the case of the prosecution. He also argued that PW-3 Sh. Surjit has also deposed that someone had caused injury to the person of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and the said person had reached the spot of incident on a scooter. He also argued that weapon of offence i.e. surgical blade has been recovered at instance of accused. He also argued that MLC of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain along with nature of injury has been duly proved by PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal. He also argued that accused had obstructed the complainant in performance of his public/official duties and complaint under Sec. 195 Cr.PC in this regard has been duly proved by PW-15 ACP O. P. Yadav. He also argued that the accused had hit the complainant with a surgical blade on the vital part of his body i.e. on neck which clearly shows that the accused wanted to commit murder of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain. He also argued that defences taken by the accused are vague in nature. He further FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 16 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
argued that the IO as well as the other police officials have duly proved the proceedings conducted by them. He also argued that since the prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt, he should be convicted for the offences under which charges have been framed against him.
25. Per Contra Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. To substantiate his points, he argued that the investigation in the present case has been conducted in an arbitrary manner. He argued that PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. He also argued that FSL report is also not in favour of prosecution. He further argued that no public witness was joined in the investigation at the time of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. surgical blade and no blood was found on the said surgical blade and hence the recovery has not been duly proved by the prosecution. He further argued that PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal has not deposed anything about seizure of uniform of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain by him. He also argued that clothes of PW-3 Sh. Surjit were also not seized by the IO. He also argued that IO has not obtained the opinion from the doctor with respect to the possibility of alleged injuries on the person of complainant through the recovered surgical blade. He also argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and PW-3 Sh. Surjit. He also argued that the accused had no motive to kill the FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 17 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain. He also argued that PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal in his cross-examination has failed to prove that the injury on the person of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain was grievous in nature. He also argued that since the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond the reasonable doubt, he should be acquitted under all the sections of law under which charges have been framed against him.
26. In the present case, charges under Sec. 186/333 IPC & 307 IPC have been framed accused. These Sections have been defined as follows:-
186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any public servant in the discharge of his public functions, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or both.
333. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 18 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
307. Attempt to murder:-
Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is cause to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Attempts by life convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
27. I have thoughtfully considered the arguments advanced, perused the material available on record, scrutinized the evidence led by the prosecution and gone through the relevant provisions of law. I have also considered the judgments relied upon by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State as well as Ld. Counsel for accused.
28. PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain deposed that on 06.06.2013 at about 08:30 pm when he was on patrolling and was talking to PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh at MCD Office, Eidgah, Faiz Road, accused Rameez came on one Eterno scooter of light FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 19 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
blue (firozi colour) and he took out one surgical blade from right side pocket of his pant and suddenly struck the same on his neck. He also deposed that the blade has struck below his left ear on his neck as he had slightly turned at the time of assault. He further deposed that blood started flowing from his neck. PW-3 Sh. Surjit has corroborated the version of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain by deposing that while he was talking to PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain, in the meantime, someone came from behind and hit something on the person of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and blood started oozing from the injury of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain below his cheek. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal has proved the MLC of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain as Ex. PW-12/A in which it has been clearly mentioned that the injury was on the inferior to the right ear and there was heavy bleeding. Accused has failed to put any dent on the versions of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and PW-3 Sh. Surjit with respect to the abovesaid facts. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved that on 06.06.2013 at about 08:30 pm, injury was caused to PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain just below his right ear and the bleeding had taken place.
29. PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain deposed that accused Rameez came to the spot of incident on one Eterno scooter. He also deposed that accused Rameez left the scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 at the spot and ran away on foot. PW-3 Sh. Surjit in his cross-examination by the Ld. Addl. PP for FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 20 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
the State deposed that he cannot say if the scooter which was shown to him in the court parking was the same scooter on which accused came to the spot. Thus, as per version of PW-3 Sh. Surjit, accused had come on the spot on scooter, though, he could not identify the same. PW-14 IO/Inspector Dhiraj Singh deposed that on receiving DD No. 27PP, he along with Ct. Jugal went to the spot where one Eterno scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 was found parked with its keys which was seized by him vide seizure memo, Ex. PW-7/A. In the cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, accused has not disputed the fact that the said scooter was not found at the spot of incident just after the incident. Rather in the cross-examination of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain, suggestion has been given to him that accused demanded his scooter back from Ct. Gokul Narain and that is why accused had been falsely implicated in the present case. Thus, it has come on record that the assailant came on Eterno scooter bearing registration no. DL-6SY-7266 and left the same at the spot of incident after the incident and the said scooter belonged to accused Rameez.
30. PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain deposed that accused Rameez took out one surgical blade from the right side pocket of his pant and suddenly struck it on his neck which means that accused came from his front side and he was able to see his face. PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh deposed that someone came from behind and hit something on the person of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain. In his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, he FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 21 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
deposed that he could not see the assailant as he was having his back towards him. The incident in the present case took place in spur of moment. Since PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh were talking with each other and accused came from front side of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain, it is natural that his back was towards PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh and his testimony in this regard seems to be credible. In his cross- examination, PW-3 Sh. Surjit Singh has not deposed that some person other than accused Rameez had attacked PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and rather he has deposed that he cannot say, if accused Rameez was the person who had inflicted injury on the person of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain as he could not see the assailant as he was having his back towards him. PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain is injured in the present case. The testimony of the injured witness is to be appreciated as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this regard.
31. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab cited as (2009) 9 SCC 719 while dealing with the evidentiary value of injured witness has observed as under:-
"28. Darshan Singh (PW-4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the Doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 22 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka, this Court has held that the deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
32. In 'State of U.P Vs. Kishan Chand', a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends supports to its testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan Vs. State of Haryana)."
33. Nothing has been brought on record by the accused to put any dent on the version of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain. As per the MLC of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain, Ex. PW-12/A, there was heavy bleeding from the injury of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain had named the wrong person other than the FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 23 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
person who caused said injury on his person. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Cour of India in Jarnail Singh & Ors. (Supra) & Kishan Chand (Supra), this Court is of considered opinion that the testimony of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain cannot be discarded without any ground and hence the testimony of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain being injured is reliable.
34. PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain has specifically deposed that accused Rameez took out one surgical blade from his pocket and suddenly struck it on his neck. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal has proved MLC of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain as Ex. PW-12/A. He also proved his opinion on the MLC, Ex. PW-12/A as sharp injury 'grievous'. PW-14 IO/Inspector Dhiraj deposed that he recorded disclosure statement of accused, Ex. PW-2/D and thereafter accused got recovered surgical blade hidden underneath a brick near Anjuman Clinic. The sketch of surgical blade and its seizure Ex. PW-11/1 & Ex. PW-11/2 have been duly proved by the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that the injury on the person of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was caused by accused through some sharp edged object and since surgical blade, Ex. P-1 has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of accused, same is relevant under Sec. 27 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
35. PW-4 Dr. Rajender Kumar, Deputy Director, FSL has proved his reports, Ex. PW-4/A & Ex. PW-4/B. He deposed that FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 24 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
on biological examination blood was detected on Ex. S1(a) [pant of injured], Ex. S1(b) [shirt of injured] & Ex. S2 [blood sample of accused] but blood could not be detected on Ex. S3 i.e. surgical blade. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that non- availability of blood stains on the blade shall be read against the prosecution. The surgical blade, Ex. P-1 was recovered at instance of accused on 09.06.2013 i.e. after three days of commission of offence and same was recovered from underneath of bricks and in these circumstances, non-availability of blood on the said surgical blade is possible. Thus, this point cannot be read either against the accused or against the prosecution.
36. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal has opined the nature of injury as sharp injury (grievous). Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the case does not fall under any of the clause of Sec. 320 IPC and hence the said injury cannot be said to be grievous in nature. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal in his cross-examination has admitted that there was no permanent privation of hearing of either ear. He also deposed that the said injury was not life threatening but it could result in permanent disfiguration of face of injured. It is pertinent to mention that the said injury was caused on the neck of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain just below his ear and said body part was not part of face and till the time of giving opinion no disfiguration of face had taken place. PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal deposed that he has given the opinion as it could have result in facial paralysis. In the present case, no facial paralysis on the person of PW-2 FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 25 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain had taken place and such opinion cannot be given only on the basis of anticipation. PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was discharged from the hospital on very next day. Grievous hurt has been defined under Sec. 320 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case falls within the purview of Sec. 320 IPC only when emasculation takes place or there is permanent privation of sight of either eye or there is permanent privation of hearing of either ear or there is privation of any member or joint or there is destruction or permanent impairing of powers of any member or joint or there is permanent disfiguration of head and face or there is fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth or the said injury endanger the life or causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or the sufferer is unable to followed his ordinary pursuits. The injury in the present case does not fall under any of the clauses of Sec. 320 IPC and hence the opinion given by PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal is without any substance and hence cannot be accepted. Thus, the injury in the present case was simple in nature which has been caused by a sharp edged weapon.
37. PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain deposed that on 06.06.2013, he was posted at PP Shidipura, PS DBG Road, Delhi and on that day, while patrolling at about 08:15 pm, he reached near MCD office, Eidgah, situated near MTNL office, Faiz Road where he met with PW-3 Sh. Surjit and the incident took place at about 08:30 pm. PW-3 Sh. Surjit has also corroborated the FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 26 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
version of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain by deposing that on 08:00-08:30 pm, he was sitting out the rickshaw garage and he having talked with PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain and at that time the incident took place. PW-5 Ct. Harender Kumar has proved the DD entry No. 21PP, Ex. PW-5/A vide which PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain had left the PS for patrolling in the area of Rani Jhashi Road, Eidgah Gol Chakkar, at about 07:00 pm on 06.06.2013. Blood stained uniform of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was seized by the IO vide seizure memo Ex. PW-8/A which shows that PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was performing his official duties as public servant at the time of incident. In the cross- examination of any of the prosecution witnesses, the accused has not disputed the fact regarding the presence of PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain at the spot of incident and performance of his duty by him at the time of incident. Thus, the prosecution has duly proved that at the time of incident, PW-2/complainant Ct. Gokul Narain was on duty and was performing public functions in capacity of a public servant. Prosecution has also successfully proved that injury was caused on person of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain and thereafter he was taken to hospital and could not perform his public functions due to the act of accused. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 186 IPC that accused Rameez obstructed public servant i.e. PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain in discharge of his public functions.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 27 of 3738. To prove the prosecution case, the testimony of the prosecution witnesses must be reliable. It is not the quantity but the quality of the testimony of the witness that helps a court in arriving at a conclusion in any case. The test in this regard is that the evidence adduced by the parties must have a ring of truth. In a criminal trial, the prosecution has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and it is possible only when the testimony of prosecution witnesses is cogent, trustworthy and credible. To secure a conviction of accused, the testimony of the prosecution witness must be of sterling quality.
39. In case titled as 'Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 21', it is held that :
"22. In our considered opinion, the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 28 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
makes the initial statement and ultimately before the court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstances should given room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have corelation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of very other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only, if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other such similar tests to FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 29 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
be applied, can it be held that such a witness can be called as a "sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
40. Similarly, in case of Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) SCC 170, it is held that :
"23. It is no doubt true that the conviction in a case of rape can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix, but that can be done in a case where the court is convinced about the truthfulness of the prosecutrix and there exist no circumstances with cast of shadow of doubt over her veracity. It the evidence of the prosecutrix is of such quality that may be sufficient to sustain an order of conviction solely on the basis of her testimony. In FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 30 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
the instant case we do not fine her evidence to be of such quality."
41. Thus, from the above said judgments, it is clear that the version of the witness should be natural one and it must corroborate the prosecution case. Such version must match with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses. It should be of such a quality that there should not be any shadow of doubt upon it.
42. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sandeep (supra) and Ramdas (Supra), this court is of the considered opinion that injured PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Nrain is witness of sterling quality as his version is natural and he has also withstood the test of cross examination. This court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of injured PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain is clear, cogent, credible, trustworthy and consistent and has been corroborated by the other prosecution witnesses and medical evidence on record and the circumstances.
43. On the basis of appreciation of entire evidence discussed in the abovesaid paras, this court is of considered opinion that on 06.06.2013 at about 08:30 pm at MCD MTNL Office, Eidgah, Faiz Road, Delhi, accused Mohd. Rameez had attacked PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain and had caused injury on his person on the upper portion of his neck just below his ear due to which he had sustained simple injury on his person. Now the question before this court is whether offences punishable under Sec. 307 & 333 IPC are made out against the accused or not.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 31 of 3744. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that accused had no intention to kill PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain nor any medical evidence has come on record that such injury could have caused the death of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain and hence case does not fall within the purview of Sec. 307 IPC. PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain has deposed that accused Rameez suddenly struck surgical blade on his neck below his ear. As per the case of the prosecution, only single blow of surgical blade was given by the accused on the upper portion of the neck of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain just below his ear. The said body part is not the sensitive/vital part, though, middle and lower part of the neck are sensitive/vital parts from where different veins passes. If the accused had intention to kill PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain, he must have given multiple blows with the surgical blade on the neck or other sensitive parts of the body of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain or he may have used some deadly weapon for the said purpose which has not been done in the present case. In the preceding paragraphs, this court has already decided that the opinion given by PW-12 Dr. Arush Sabbarwal cannot be accepted as the case does not fall within the purview of any of clauses of Sec. 320 IPC and the nature of the injury on the person of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was 'simple' in nature. As per the case of prosecution, PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain had asked the accused not to roam around in the area in drunken condition near FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 32 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
Eidgah due to which accused wanted to kill PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain. The said fact is relevant under Sec. 8 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 but the motive is not so strong that accused will kill PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain only for that reason. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence adduced by prosecution, it has not come on record that accused wanted to kill PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain or he had any knowledge that by such act, the death of injured may be caused. However, the prosecution has successfully proved that the accused had voluntarily caused injuries on the person of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved that simple injury on the person of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain was voluntarily caused by accused with sharp edged weapon/object i.e. surgical blade. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sec. 299 & 300 IPC as nothing has been brought on record that the accused had the intention to kill the PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain or that he had any knowledge that such injuries may cause death of PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain as none of the doctors have deposed so. Thus, the case of the prosecution does not fall within the purview of Sec. 307 or 308 IPC. The case also does not fall within the purview of Sec. 333 IPC as the injury proved by the prosecution is simple in nature and not grievous. In the present case charges have been framed under Sec. 186/307/333 IPC and in these circumstances recourse provided under Sec. 222 FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 33 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
of The Code of Criminal Procedure may be taken. Sec. 222 Cr.PC reads as under:-
222. When offence proved included in offence charged:-
1. When a person is charged with an offence consisting of several particulars, a combination of some only of which constitutes a complete minor offence, and such combination is proved, but the remaining particulars are not proved, he may be convicted of the minor offence, though he was not charged with it.
2. When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduce it to minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it.
3. When a person is charged with an offence, he may be convicted of an attempt to commit such offence although the attempt is not separately charged.
4. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to authorise a conviction of any minor offence where the conditions requisite for the initiation of proceedings in respect of that minor offence have not been satisfied.
45. When the ingredients of the offence under which charges have been framed are not proved by the prosecution but the ingredients of any other offence which is minor to the offence with which accused has been charged, the accused can be convicted for the minor offence, though charges for the same have not been framed.FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 34 of 37
State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
46. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Tarkeshwar Sahu Vs. State of Bihar, cited as 'MANU/SC/4421/2006' has observed as under:-
"26. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the crime committed by the accused was initial stage of preparation. The offence committed does not come within the purview of offence punishable under sections 376/511 IPC. The offence committed squarely covers the ingredients of Sec. 366 & 354 IPC. The appellant was charged under Sec. 376/511 IPC but on invoking the provisions of Sec. 222 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused charged with major offence can always be convicted for the minor offence, if necessary ingredients of minor offence are present."
47. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled as 'Shamnsaheb M. Multani Vs. State of Karnataka, cited as 'MANU/SC/0047/2001' has explained the minor offence in connection with the major offence as under:-
"17. What is meant "a minor offence" for the purpose of Sec. 222 of the Code? Although, the said expression is not defined in the Code, it can be discerned from the context that the test of minor offence is not merely the prescribed punishment is less than the FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 35 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.
major offence. The two illustrations provided in section would bring the above point home well. Only if two offences are cognate offences, wherein main ingredients are common, the one punishable among them with a lessor sentence can be regarded as a minor offence vis. a vis. the other offence."
48. Applying lying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgments titled as Tarkeshwar Sahu (supra) & Shamnsaheb M. Multani (supra), this court is of considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC as accused voluntarily caused simple injury on the person of injured PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain with sharp edged object i.e. surgical blade and offence punishable under Sec. 324 IPC is a minor as well as cognate offence to the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC under which charge has been framed against the accused. Prosecution has also proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 332 IPC as accused voluntarily caused simple injury on the person of injured PW-2 complainant/injured Ct. Gokul Narain who was a public servant and was discharging his public duties and offence punishable under Sec. 332 IPC is a minor as well as cognate offence to the offence punishable under Sec. 333 IPC under which charge has been framed against the accused. Prosecution has also successfully proved the ingredients of offence punishable under Sec. 186 IPC and same has been discussed in the para no. 37 of the judgment.
FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 36 of 3749. In view of aforesaid discussion, accused Mohd. Rameez is hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 186/332/324 IPC. Accused Rameez is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec. 307/333 IPC.
Digitally signed VIRENDER by VIRENDER KUMAR KUMAR KHARTA KHARTA Announced in the open court Date: 2025.03.12 17:28:37 +0530 on 12th day of March, 2025 (Virender Kumar Kharta) ASJ/FTC-02(CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI:12.03.2025 FIR No. 170/2013, PS: DBG Road, Page No. 37 of 37 State Vs. Mohd. Rameez.