Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Joginder Kumar Heera, on 17 December, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHRY ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE02 CENTRAL, THC DELHI. CNR No.DLCT010000062000 SC No. 27190/2016 FIR No.105/2000 U/s 307/452/506/34 IPC. PS Anand Parbat State Vs. 1. Joginder Kumar Heera, S/o late Sh. Roshan Lal, R/o 50/12B, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi. 2. Prince Heera, S/o Joginder Kumar Heera, R/o 50/12, Industrial Area, Anand Parbat, Delhi. Date of institution : 27.02.2008. Judgment reserved on : 14.12.2018. Date of pronouncement : 17.12.2018. JUDGMENT
1. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 08.04.2000 at about 7.45 pm in gali in front of 50/12B, Industrial area, Gali No.1, Anand Parbat, Delhi with jurisdiction of Police station Anand Parbat accused Joginder Kumar Heera, Prince Heera, Achhey Lal (PO) in furtherance of common intention committed house trespass in the factory of complainant (Nirmal Kant) after having made preparation for causing hurt to him and wrongly restrained him. It is also the case of FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 1 prosecution that accused caused grievous injury to the complainant with blunt object under such circumstances, that if by said act they had caused his death they would have been guilty of murder and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 452/341/307/34 IPC. Accused Joginder Kumar Heera was also charged with criminal intimidation punishable u/s 506 IPC. Accused Acchey Lal was declared PO vide order dated 03.11.2014. Accused V. S. Meena was discharged whereas proceedings against the accused C.L. Jatav stood abated vide order dated 20.11.2014 and proceedings against accused SI N.C. Thakur stood abated vide order dated 20.09.2017.
2. The incident was of 08.04.2000 but FIR was registered on 22.04.2000. Aggrieved by in action of police, a complaint case was filed by complainant on 08.09.2000 alleging that in the first week of March, 2000, accused Joginder Kumar Heera came with his neighbour and threatened him to vacate the rented premises, the owner of which was his mother. Complainant also alleged that on 08.04.2000 at about 7.45 pm he was present at his factory, when Joginder Kumar Heera and his son accused Prince came with their workman accused Acchey Lal (PO) and 34 other persons to his factory and threatened him. Accused persons assaulted the complainant and he sustained injuries FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 2 on his left eye, left ear and temple and was taken to DDU hospital. The statement of complainant was recorded on 09.04.2000 but that FIR was registered only on 22.04.2000 and that too only against Joginder Kumar Heera u/s 325 IPC. The complainant also stated being aggrieved by the act of police he sent written complaints dated 06.05.2000, 05.06.2000 and 27.07.2000 to the Commissioner of Police stating therein the chargesheet was not filed against all accused under the relevant provisions. The Ld. Trial court after recording the per summoning evidence found that prima facie case was made out against accused Joginder Kumar Heera, Prince Heera and Acchey Lal (P.O.) u/s 147/148/149/307/452/506 IPC and Prince framed case u/s 167/177/217/218/418/465/468 IPC r/w Section 120/34 IPC was made against accused N. C. Thakur. C.L. Jatav, V.S. Meena were accordingly summoned. As the offence u/s 307 was triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to court of Sessions. Ld. Trial court found that there were no cogent evidence to summons against accused Uday Sahai and Ajay Raj Sharma. The sessions court vider order dated 15.03.2000 directed framing of charges u/s 307/452/34 IPC against accused Joginder Kumar Heera. Prince Heera and Acchey Lal and separate charge u/s 506 IPC was also framed FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 3 against accused Joginder Kumar Heera. Accused Achey Lal was declared PO vide order dated 03.11.2014.
3. The DD No. 15A of the incident was assigned to SI N.C. Thakur (since deceased) for investigation who recorded the statement of complainant and prepared the rukka and got the FIR Ex.PW2/A lodged u/s 325 IPC. After completion of investigation filed chargesheet against Joginder Kumar Heera, Prince Heera and Acchey Lal (PO) for the commission of offences u/s 325 IPC. The complaint case and State case were committed to the court of Sessions as the offence u/s 307 IPC was triable by the Court of Sessions. The complaint case and State case were consolidated and proceedings were directed to be recorded in the State case. Charges were framed against the accused persons persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses to bring home the guilt of accused.
5. The statements of accused persons were thereafter recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. both accused denied all the allegations of the prosecution witnesses and stated that they were innocent. Accused Joginder Kumar Heera on being asked whether he had anything else to FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 4 say stated as under :
6. Accused Joginder Kumar Heera stated as follow: "No quarrel had taken place with me. The complainant had lodge a false complaint to police and police after inquiry did not find any substance in the complaint and did not take any action, however, later on he filed false complaint against me and my son by exaggerating and under the legal guidance just with the motive to defame me and harass my family."
7. Accused Prince Heera stated as under: "I am innocent and I was a student of Xth class in the year 2000. My name has been false introduced to harass me and my family members. No. such incident. No such incident had taken place in my presence."
8. The information of the incident was received by PW7 SI Chander Bhan who stated that on 08.04.2000, he was posted at Police Control Room and he received a telephonic information from one Pratap regarding quarrel at 50/12, Gali No.1, Anand Prabat, Delhi. He further stated that he filled the PCR form and informed the wireless operator of PS Anand Parbat regarding the said information.
9. PW2 HC Bhagirath Mal stated that he posted as Duty Officer on 22.04.2000 when he received a rukka sent SI N.C Thakur, on the basis of which he registered FIR No. 105/2000. U/s 325 IPC vide DD No. 15A.
FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 5
10. PW3 Nirmal Kant Goel is the complainant.
11. PW4 Sh. Pramod @ Pappu is an eyewitness/an employee of complainant who corroborated the version of complainant regarding attack on him by accused Joginder Kumar Heera with iron rod and other accused holding the complainant at the time of attack.
12. PW5 ASI Ombir stated that on 22.04.2000, he was posted at Anand Parbat and on that day DO handed over to him rukka, he accordingly went to the spot and gave a copy of FIR and rukka to SI N.C. Thakur. PW5 also stated that on 09.05.2000,he again joined investigation when accused Joginder Kumar Heera was arrested at the instance of complainant
13. PW6 Constable Satbir Singh stated that on 08.04.2000, he accompanied SI N.C. Thakur to the spot where complainant Nirmal Kant was found in injured condition. He took the injured to the DDU hospital on the instructions of SI N.C. Thakur.
14. PW8 Savita Sbharwal, Audiometrist/ Audiologist stated that in the year 2000 she was working in DDU hospital. She further stated that on 13.04.2000, one patient namely Nirmal Kant was referred to her for audiometric test vide OPD slip Ex.PW3/I by Dr. Surender. She proved her report Ex.PW3/J. She also stated that Dr. Surender gave FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 6 report on MLC Ex.PW1/A as point X that injury was grievous on the basis of her report.
15. PW9 SI Praveen Kumar stated that on 18.03.2000 on receipt of DD No.10A regarding the quarrel and reached at the spot where accused Joginder Heera and one Murari Lal. He further stated that he made enquiries from them and found that there was apprehension of breadh of Prince, he had accordingly prepared Kalandra u/s 107/150 CrPC. He further stated that he was examined in the complaint case Nirmal Kant Goel V. Joginder Kumar Heera and he had proved the Kalandras. He also proved the Kalandras Ex.PW3/B and PW3/C prepared by him.
16. PW10 Dr. Gupteshwar Prasad, Specialist, Department of Surgery, DDU hospital stated that patient Nirmal Kant was discharged vide Ex.PW3/H.
17. According to the MLC complainant Ex.PW1/A he had suffered left orbital swelling and tenderness over the orbital areas with abrasion. He was referred to DOD, surgery and was advised xrays of skull, spine and chest.
18. According to the prosecution a call to PCR was made by the employee Pramod /PW4 who is also an eye witness. PW stated that FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 7 the PCR did not arrive at the spot. Complainant was then taken to PS Anand Parbat by one of his customer Tejender Kumar where they met SI N. C Thakur and on the instructions of SI N.C. Thakur, PW6/Ct. Stabir had taken the complainant to DDU hospital. According to the prosecution, SI N.C. Thakur also reached the hospital and recorded the statement of complainant Nirmal Kant in the hospital on 08.04.2000 Ex.PW3/DA.
19. According to the prosecution, the complainant was present at his factory premises 50/12, Gali no. 1, Industrial area, Anand Parbat, Delhi on the date of incident. Rukka was prepared on his statement and FIR was got registered. The investigation was assigned to SI N.C Thakur. After completion of investigation chargsheet was filed against accused persons u/s 325 IPC.
20. It is evidence of the complainant and eye witness Parmod / PW4 which holds the key as to whether accused persons are guilty or innocent. The crucial question is whether the evidence on record is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that accused persons committed the crime in furtherance of common intention.
21. PW3/Complainant deposed that he had took premises from rent from the mother of the accused Joginder Heera and that accused used FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 8 to threaten him every other day with dire consequences in case he did vacate the premises. Complainant further deposed that his landlady Santosh Rani Heera had deposed in kalandra u/s 107/151 CrPC that her son accused Joginder Heera has no concern with premises but he used to harass her tenants. He proved certified copy of the statement of Smt. Santosh Rani Heera Ex. CW1/A/ Ex.PW3/A and Kalandra Ex.CW1/B to CW1/F again Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C, Ex.PW3/D, Ex.PW3/E, Ex.PW3/F. Complainant further stated that in March 2000 accused Joginder Kumar Heera came alongwith his neighbour Jasbir Singh to his factory and threatened him to vacate the tenented premises or else he would have to suffer dire consequences. He further stated that he consulted his neighbours and requested them to talk to accused to make him see reason but he was told that it would be a futile to do so as accused was an anti social persons and his neighbour suggested that he (complainant) should lodge complaint with the police.
22. As regards the incident, complainant stated on 08.04.2000 accused came alongwith his son Prince and his employ Acchey Lal and 56 goondas came inside factory and accused Joginder Kumar Heera shouted to his accomplices "aaj goyal ko jaan se maar do". FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 9 Accused Joginder Heera was carrying an iron saria in his hand and caught him by the scruff of his neck and his accomplices give him beatings fists blow. Thereafter, accused Joginder Kumar Heera with intention of killing him hit with iron saria on his head the saria blow landed on his left temple an as a result of which he lost his vision of both eyes and hearing power and he fell down on the ground. Complainant further stated that his workman Pramod Kumar @ Pappu shouted "goyal mar gya... goyal ko maar diya" and accused and his accomplices presuming him to be dead and run away from the spot/ factory premises. Complainant further stated that his workman Pramod Kumar/PW4 rang up the PCR by dialing 100 number but PCR did not arrive at the spot. He was taken to PS by his customer Tejender Kumar where SI N.C Thakur met. Complainant further stated the PCR van reached and SI N.C. Thakur realizing he was seriously injured and instructed Ct. Satbir Singh to take him to DDU hospital in PCR van when he was medically examined and was admitted. Complainant further stated that on 09.04.2000 at around 3.00 pm SI N. C. Thakur came to him at DDU hospital and he narrated the entire incident to him. Complainant further stated that SI N. C. Thakur wrote down something on a paper and told him to put signature below on the same FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 10 and when he requested SI N.C. Thakur to kindly read over his statement to him and he told him "goyal ghabrao nahi, vishwas rakho..mai joginder kumar heera ko dekh lunga, bada neta bana firta hai. Vishwas karo aur sign karo". He stated that he put his signature below the said written material on the complaint on the assurance of SI N.C. Thakur. Complainant further stated that ENT specialist examined his left ear and gave the report of no response. Complainant further stated that he thereafter visited the PS several times and made request to SI N.C. Thakur to get register the FIR and had also met SHO Inspector C.L Jatav and made request to register FIR who told him that till receiving the opinion of doctor in respect of the nature of injury and no FIR was registered. Complainant further stated that after few days FIR was registered and one illegible photocopy of FIR was supplied to him and after going through the FIR, he came to know that names of the eye witness i.e. PW4/ Pramod Kumar @ Pappu and Tejender were not mentioned therein neither the names of accused persons namely Prince Heera and Acchey Lal were mentioned. It was also revealed that the place of incident has been shown outside his factory. Complainant further stated that he gave statement on 09.04.2000 at about 3.00 pm however, it was shown to be recorded on FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 11 08.04.2000. He further stated that he had thereafter filed complaint case.
23. To establish the injury sustained by complainant prosecution examined PW1 Dr. Ravi, Specialist (Medicine), DDU hospital who stated that on 08.04.2000 he was working as CMO in DDU hospital when one Nirmal Kant was brought by PW6/Ct. Satbir Singh of PS Anand Parbat with alleged history of assault. He further stated that the patient (complainant) was examined by Dr. Prit Anand, Jr. Resident (Casualty) under his supervision vide MLC No. 2673 and he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Prit Anand as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of his duties. He proved the MLC of complainant Ex.PW1/A and stated as per the MLC complainant had suffered / sustained left orbital swelling and tenderness over the orbital area with abrasion. He stated that the patient was then referred to DOD, surgery/ opthalmology and was advised for Xrays of skull, spine and chest. He stated that he could identify the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Prit Anand as he had seen her writing and signing during the course of duties.
24. Ld. counsel contended that the doctor Prit Anand who examined the complainant was not examined. It was also alleged that PW1 FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 12 stated in his crossexamination that he did not remember what patient had told Dr. Prit Anand about the incident. Ld. defence counsel further alleged that as Dr. Prit Anand was not examined that it was not proved injury was grievous in nature. Ld. defence counsel also alleged that as per the MLC of complainant he was conscious and oriented, his blood pressure was 120/80 mm. Ld. defence counsel stated in support of said contention placed reliance upon judgment 1998 II AD (Cr.) Delhi 21 titled as Om Prakash Vs. The State wherein it has been held as under: "Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec. 307 - Attempt to murder - stabbed knife on left side of chest -
Nonexamination of doctor - difficult to say that the injury was grievous or was capable of causing death - Altered to one only u/s 324 IPC."
25. Reliance was also placed upon judgment 1195 (I) AD Delhi 1237 Azizul Rehman Vs. The State wherein it has been held as under: "Whereby by appellant was convicted u/s 326 of IPC the evidence of Doctor does not suggest that the injuries were dangerous to lifewhether the conviction u/s 326 can be sustained?"
"The act of the appellant falls under S. 324 and the appellant is liable to be convicted u/s 324 of the IPC."
26. Ld. defence counsel further contended that had the complainant FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 13 been hit with a saria / iron rod which was 34 feet long as deposed by complainant blood would have oozed and he would have sustained lacerated wound, but in the instant case complainant sustained only abrasion. It was also alleged that abrasion could have sustained by fall and had PW1 been examined he would have asked him if the said injury could have caused by falling.
27. ON the other hand, Ld. Addl. PP contended as per the endorsement on MLC Ex.Pw1/A the nature of injury was opined to be grievous.
28. Section 307 IPC which relates to attempt to murder is as follow: " 307. 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 caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either or imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
29. The evidence of complainant shows that accused Joginder Heera caught hold of him by his neck and his accomplices had beaten him with fists, kicks blows, and accused Joginder Heera hit him with a iron saria on his head.
FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 14
30. The question whether there was intention to kill or knowledge that death will be caused is a question of fact and would depend on that facts of the case. The determinative factor is intention or knowledge and not the nature of injury.
31. To justify a conviction under this section, it is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. Although the nature of injury actually caused may often give considerable assistance in coming to a finding as to the intention of the accused, such intention can be gathered from other circumstances. The section makes a distinction between an act of the accused and its result. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim should be sufficient under ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the person assaulted. What the court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the section.
32. In my view the medical evidence in the instant case does not lead to the conclusion that injury was dangerous to the life of complainant, particularly since the weapon of offence was not recovered and the doctor was not examined.
33. It is to also be noted that complainant had deposed that only one FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 15 injury was inflicted on his head which landed on his left temple. According to the complainant after the single blow there were no further attack on him, thus in my view the intention on part of accused to kill is ruled out.
34. It is to be noted that complainant deposed that after discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2000 he went to ENT department DDU hospital as advised. The discharge summary of the complainant was proved by PW10 Dr. Gupteshwar Prasad, Department of Surgery, DDU hospital as Ex.PW3/H.
35. Ld. defence counsel next contended that PW8 was a diploma holder in audiology and not an expert as such her report Ex.PW3/J covered not the determining factor regarding the nature of injury.
36. In my view it was the duty of prosecution to adduce evidence with regard to the post discharge condition of complainant so that the scope of any intervening ailment unconnected with the injury was ruled out. This way all more necessary as complainant was discharged from the hospital on 11.04.2000 and referred to audiometrist on 13.04.2000. Thus prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the grievous injury was inflicted on complainant by accused persons.
FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 16
37. According to the complainant, the incident occurred on 08.04.2000 at about 7.45 pm but the FIR was registered on 22.04.2000 at about 7.05 pm. The statement of complainant was recorded on 08.04.2000. There is a delay of 14 days in registration of FIR.
38. As regards delay in registration of FIR it has been held in Thulia Kali V. State of Tamil Nadu 1972 (3) SCC 393 as follow: "First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offenec is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eyewitness present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained." Contradiction in the statement given before the police and in the deposition before the court were marked as Exts. D1 and D2.
FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 17
39. The complainant had deposed in this regard that he had visited the PS several times and requested SI N.C. Thakur to get FIR registered, he also met C.L. Jatav (the then SHO) and requested him to register FIR, SHO told him that till opinion om MLC was not received FIR could not be registered. Thus the delay was not on account of his fault.
40. It is to be noted that the complainant stated in his cross examination that FIR was registered on his statement Ex.PW3/DA. He further stated that police/ IO N.C. Thakur did not allow him to read his statement Ex.PW3/DA and he had signed the same on the assurance of the police. The complainant was confronted with the contradictions and omissions in his previous statement. Ld. counsel for complainant stated that contradiction and omission occurred as the true version of complaint was not recorded.
41. According to the prosecution the motive was to get the tenanted premises vacated from complainant. Ld. defence counsel contended that complainant was not a tenant of the mother of accused Joginder Kumar Heera but was tenant under his father. It was also alleged that complainant stated in his crossexamination that dispute between him and accused Joginder Kumar Heera arose on account of premises FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 18 taken on rent form mother of accused Joginder Kumar Heera. He also stated that he could not remember if he (complainant) had sub let the premises and that complainant admitted that the licence agreement Ex.PW3/DA3 was executed between him and Roshan Lal father of accused Joginder Kumar Heera and further stated that no rent agreement was executed between him and mother of accused. Ld. defence counsel contended that the motive was thus not proved.
42. Ld. defence counsel contended that complainant Kalandras were not duly proved as the concerned officials who prepared the same was not examined. Moreover, the kalandra had no concern with this case.
43. In my view the competent person to prove the Kalandra was official who prepared it. No reason has been assigned by prosecution why the said official was not examined.
44. Admittedly, the statement of complainant on the basis of which FIR was was registered was recorded by SI N.C. Thakur, which is Ex.PW3/DA. For the sake of repetition it is stated that complainant stated that his true version was not recorded by IO. It is to be noted that the SI N.C. Thakur, who prepared the rukka on the statement of complainant was not examined, thus the rukka Ex.PW3/DA cannot be taken proved, particularly, since complainant had stated FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 19 that his correct version was not recorded. In this regard it has been held in 1998 Cri LJ 2118 Chitrasen Goala & Another V. State of Assam.
"If the man who wrote the ejahar has not been examined, it is not possible to ascertain what was the version of the informant at the time when the ejahar was written or whether the writing represented a genuine version given by informant himself or a coloured version from other sources."
45. The rukka was exhibited in the crossexamination of complainant. The competent person who could prove this rukka was the scribe of this document, but SI N.C. Thakur.
46. As regards the common intention. It is also to be noted that the version of complainant was that accused Joginder Heera assaulted him with an iron saria once on his head and accused Prince Heera and other accused had given beating him with fists and blow. In my view Section 34 IPC cannot be invoked against accused Prince Heera as he did not instigate Joginder Heera to assault complainant with a deadly weapon / iron saria. Prince Heera was not responsible for the injury on his scalp, benefit of doubt is thus given to accused Prince Heera. It is also to be noted that the deadly weapon was not recovered, neither the doctor was examined to prove the nature of injury. FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 20
47. From the MLC of complainant it is evident that the complainant did not disclose the names of assailant to the doctor when he was taken to the hospital. Moreover, the medical evidence also does not establish the injury was likely to cause death.
48. Ld. counsel contended that another circumstance which throws doubt on the case of prosecution is that it failed to examine an eye witness Tejender Kumar who took complainant to PS. It was alleged that Tejender Kumar was a material eyewitness to the incident. I find merits in the said contentions of Ld. defence counsel.
49. Ld. counsel further alleged that according to the complaint, incident took place inside the factory premises whereas as per the version of eyewitness /PW4 and site plan, incident took place outside the factory of the complainant. Ld. counsel for accused further contended that the site plan had not been proved. Ld. defence counsel also alleged that the site plan was not a mere formality but a vital part in the investigation. Thus the version of complainant that accused persons came inside his factory and restrained him threatened him was also not proved beyond doubt.
50. It is to be noted that it has been held in State V. Sunil Kumar @ Sagar @ Rahul & Others 2015 (3) LCR 380 Delhi DB that site plan FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 21 is a vital part of investigation and it should give a clear picture / description of the spot and whether accused had committed the offences.
51. Ld. defence counsel further alleged that PW4 was a planted witness, as no proof of his employment was filed. It was also alleged that complainant stated in his crossexamination that he had not filed any documentary proof to show that PW4 has his employee and was present at the spot. He also stated that premises was lying locked since 22 1/2 years from the date of his deposition. He further stated that he did not remember if he was maintaining wage resigter ESI register. Ld. defence counsel further alleged that complainant was not running any factory and had not employed any workers.
52. Ld. defence counsel submitted that accused Prince Heera was a minor on the date of commission of offence. Accused Prince Heera had examined a witness in his defence / DW1 Sh. Nitin, Jr. Secretariat Assistant from Kendriya Vidyalaya, Pitampura, Delhi who stated that as per their record the date of birth of Prince Heera was 27.09.1983, he was admitted in their school in 6 th standard on 10.02.1995. He proved Admission Form Ex.DW1/A and also proved the Admission Register Ex.DW1/B. FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 22
53. It is to be noted that offence was committed on 08.04.2000 when the Juvenile Act 1996 was applicable according to the said Act definition of Juvenile Act in Section 2 (h) is as follows; " 'Juvenile' means a boy who has not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who has not attained the age of eighteen years."
54. It is to also be noted that amendment in the Juvenile Act came into force by virtue of amendment Act no. 33 of 2006 and after the definitions of juvenile are as under; Section 2 (K) 'juvenile' or 'child' means a person who has not completed eighteen year or age;
Section 2 (l) 'juvenile in conflict with law' means a juvenile who is alleged to have committed an offence and had not completed eighteen year of age as on the date of commission of such offence:"
55. Thus in my view accused Prince Heera was not a juvenile on the date of commission of offence ie 08.04.2000.
56. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view, prosecution succeeded in proving the Joginder Kumar Heera voluntarily caused hurt tot he complainant. Accused Joginder Kumar Heera is accordingly convicted u/s 324 IPC. However, prosecution failed to prove its case against Joginder Kumar Heera u/s 452/341/506/34 IPC, he is accordingly acquitted of the said offences. Accused Prince Heera FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 23 is given benefit of doubt and is acquitted for the offences u/s 452/341/307/34 IPC. Accused Prince Heera is directed to furnish bond under Section 437A Cr.P.C. for a sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
57. File be consigned u/s 299 CrPC. Accused Joginder Heera to be heard on the point of sentence on 19.12.2018.
Digitally signed by POONAM
Announced in the open court POONAM CHAUDHRY
on this 17th day of December of 2018.
CHAUDHRY Date: 2018.12.22
13:13:21 +0530
(Poonam Chaudhry)
ASJ: Central02:Delhi/17.12.2018
FIR No. 105/2000 State Vs. Joginder Heera etc. 24