Delhi District Court
State vs . Kuljeet Singh Etc. on 18 May, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SHRI POORAN CHAND
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
FIR No.502/94
P.S. Tilak Nagar
U/s 326/34 IPC
State vs. KULJEET SINGH ETC.
Sl. no of the case : 25/2
Date of commission of : 20.09.1994
offence
Name of Complainant : Sh. Tahal Singh Kumar S/o Harbansh
Singh R/o H.No.WZ-E-14, Sant Garh
Delhi
Name, parentage and : 1. Kuljeet Singh s/o Balvinder Singh
address r/o H.No. WZ-89 Purana Sahib Pur Sant
Garh Delhi
2. Narender Singh @ Nirmal Singh @
Happy s/o Preetam Singh R/o H-60
Sant Nagar Extention Delhi (DIED)
3. Gurcharan singh @ Bablu s/o
Harbhajan singh r/o WZ-36 Sant Nagar
Extention Delhi
Offence complaint of : U/s 326/34 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Convicted
Date of order : 11.5.07.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. Accused Kuljeet Singh, Narender Singh and accused Gurcharan Singh were charged on the allegations that on 20.9.94 at about 8.30 PM at Mandir Wali Gali near Raja Saheb Gurdwara Old Shahpur Delhi all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused grievous injuries with sharp edged weapon to complainant Tahal Singh thereby they all committed an offence punishable u/s 326/34 IPC. During trial accused Narender Singh has expired and proceedings against him stands abated.
2. In order to prove its case prosecution examined PW1 Tahal Singh who is the complainant in this case he has stated that on 20.9.94 at about 8.30 PM he had gone to market to take medicines near Aggarwal Sweet shop all the accused persons present in the court stopped him and started abusing him as they were all drunken . He asked them not to abuse but they did not relent They started beating him with fist and kick and also used one knife . He fell down .
Police came and took him to DDU Hospital and recorded his statement which is ex.PW1/A which bears his signature at point A. All the accused persons were correctly identified by the witness.
3. PW2 HC Surat Singh who has proved the copy of FIR as ex.PW2/A.
4. PW3 Ct . Sushil who has stated that on 20.9.94 he was posted in PS Tilak Nagar DD No.21 was received by IO Ram Kumar and he accompanied with IO and one another Ct. Shalender Kumar also accompanied with them and they reached at Aggarwal Sweet Shop, injured Kuljeet and Tahal Singh met them. Those were sent for medical examination with him mean while IO also reached at DDU Hospital . Kuljeet admitted in the hospital and Tahal was discharged. IO recorded statement of Tahal Singh and prepared rukka and he got the case registered and came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. Thereafter Bablu and Nirmal Singh were searched but they were not found. On 23.9.94 Kuljeet was being brought to Police chowki . Kuljeet accused present in the court was arrested and his personal search was taken vide memo ex.PW3/A. One Kirpan was also recovered from the Gurdwara Raja Saheb at the instance of accused Kuljeet which was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B and sketch of the same was prepared which is ex.PW3/C and same was sealed with the seal of RKY thereafter Gurcharan Singh and Narender Singh @ Nirmal Singh were also arrested vide personal search memo ex.PW3/D and E. Both the accused persons were also correctly identified by this witness. Kirpan was also identified as ex.P1.
5. PW4 Ct. Ram Dev who has stated that he was posted at PP Tilak Vihar as Munshi and he make entry 21 at about 9.15PM where in he had received an information from control room through ASI Babu Nandan that there is a quarrel at Aggarwal Sweet Shop he reduced the same in writing and said DD was marked to ASI Ram Kumar for further investigation who left with Ct. Sushil and Shalender. Copy of the same is ex.PW4/A. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel.
6. PW5 HC P.P. Vargis who has stated that on 20.9.94 he was posted as duty constable in the DDU Hospital. One Tahal Singh was brought for medical examination by Ct. Sushil Kumar PS Tilak Nagar. After his medical examination he handed over one sealed parcel with the seal of CMO of DDU Hospital along with sample seal. He handed over the same to Ct. Sushil and IO recorded his statement and IO taken into possession the said parcel vide memo which is ex.PW5/A which bears his signature at point A. This witness was not cross examined by the Ld. defence counsel.
7. PW6 SI Ram Kanwar who has stated that on 20.9.94 he was posted at PS Tilak Nagar. He received DD no.21 which is ex.PW4/A . He along with Ct. Sushil and Shalender reached at the spot near Gurdwara Sahib Pura . There they found one Kuljeet Singh and Tahal Singh in injured condition and they were shifted to DDU Hospital. He left Ct. Shalender at the spot and went to DDU hospital and collect the MLC. He recorded the statement of complainant/injured Tahal Singh and prepared rukka ex.PW6/A on the statement of PW1 and got the case registered through Ct. Sushil. He prepared site plan which is ex.PW6/B. Before he left from the hospital Ct. P.P. Vargis handed over sealed parcel with the seal of CMO of DDU Hospital and he seized the same as ex.PW5/A. On 23.9.94 he along with Ct. Sushil Kumar joined the investigation and went to hospital to record the statement of Kuljeet but he was discharged from the hospital and he could not met them. He again went to the spot and accused Kuljeet met them at the spot He correctly identified accused Kuljeet. He took Kuljeet to the PS and interrogated him and arrested him and he made disclosure statement vide memo ex.PW6/C , Accused Kuljeet got effected the recovery of kirpan from the roof of gurdwara Langar Hall. He prepared the sketch of kirpan which is ex.PW3/C. He measured the kirpan and taken into possession vide memo ex.PW3/B. He identified the Kirpan as ex.P1. Accused Kuljeet was arrested and his personal search was taken vide memo ex.PW3/A. Other accused Gurcharan Singh and Nirmal singh were arrested vide memo ex.PW3/D and E.
8. PW7 Dr. P.S. Sarangi who has stated that on 29.9.94 patient Tahal Singh was brought to the casualty by Ct. Sushil Kumar at about 9.45 PM. The patient was initial examined and MLC was prepared by Dr. Sunika Goel and was further referred to doctor on duty surgery. The patient was further examined by Dr. Mansoor and findings were mentioned in the MLC. He identified the signature of Dr. Sunika at point A and Dr. Mansoor at point B on the MLC ex.PW7/A.
9. PW8 Dr. Yash Pal who has stated that he has examined X-ray plate of patient Tahal Singh on 28.9.94 and according to his report there was fracture of second rib of right side and he proved his detailed report ex.PW8/A.
10. Thereafter all the accused persons have been examined U/s 313 Cr.PC in which they denied the prosecution version and claimed to be innocent and further deposed that they have been falsely implicated in this case. They do not want to lead evidence in their defence.
11. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused persons and perused the material on record carefully.
13. On the other hand Ld. APP has stated that the contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the accused persons are minor in nature and the same is not effected the prosecution version. Testimony of PW1 injured remained unimpeach. Hence all the accused persons be convicted for the offence charged.
12. In the present case main arguments addressed on behalf of all the accused persons that Ct. Sushil stated that the sword was recovered from the roof of Raja Saheb Gurdwara whereas IO has stated that Kirpan was recovered from the Gurdwara Langar Hall. Hence it is stated on behalf of accused that prosecution witnesses are clearly on the point that weapon recovered from the possession of accused Kuljeet as a kirpan or a sword. It is stated that at the time of recovery of weapon of offence no permission was sought by the IO from the Management of the gurdwara . As no permission was sought no recovery was effected from the said gurdwara and same is planted one. It is also stated that doctor who has conducted the MLC of injured has not brought in the witness box due to the reasons best known to the prosecution and hence question which could have been put to the witness remained unimpeached. It is also stated that no public witness has been examined by the prosecution despite the availability hence in the absence of non examination of any public witness accused cannot be convicted as all the witnesses are interested witnesses and accused persons may be acquitted in this case.
14. It is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution has to prove its case on the judicial file beyond reasonable doubts and such doubts in the prosecution story entitle the accused to acquittal. In a case reported as Rama Kant Rai V/s. Madan Rai 2003 (8) Scale 243 it has been ruled that a person has, no doubt, a profound right not to be convicted of an offence which is not established by the evidential standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Though this standard is a higher standard, there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability amounts to 'proof' is an exercise particular to each case. Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth. To constitute reasonable doubt, it must be free from an over emotional response. Doubts must be actual and substantial doubts as to the guilt of the accused person arising from the evidence, or from the lack of it, as opposed to mere vague apprehensions. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely possible; but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in the case. The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot obviously, be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how may of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analyze, rest on a trust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuition of judge.
15. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed ligitimization of trivailities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice. In Sucha Singh and Anr V/s State of Punjab J.T. 20- 3 (6) S.C. 248 it has been ruled that: exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and St. Vs. Sita Ram. sxw thereby destroy social defence, Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let hundred guilt escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according to law. (See: Gurbachan Singh V/s. Satal Singh and others J.T. 1989 (4) S.C. 38; A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 209. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesis put forwarded by the accused. (See: State of U.P. V/s Ashok Kumar Srivastava J.T.1992 (1) S.C. 340; AIR 1992 S.C. 840. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt based upon reason and common sense. It is must grow of the evidence in the case. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether if the meticulous hypersensitivity for eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish. (See: Inder Singh and Anr. Vs. State of (Delhi Admn.) AIR 1978 S.C. 1091). Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. " A judge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely see that no innocent man ins punished. Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are his public duties." Per Viscount Simon in Stirland V/s. Director of Public Prosecution, 1994 AC (P.C.) 315 quoted in State of U.P. V/s. Anil Singh JT. 1988 (3) SC 491; A.I. R 1988 S.C. 1998 . Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from am zest for abstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other than truth".
16. In Visveswarn V/S. State 2003 Rajdhani Law Reporter 350 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has ruled that in a criminal trial duty of the courts is not to let off criminals on petty discrepancies of minor contradictions. They must show responsibility. Ground realities must be appreciated. Accused be not allowed the benefit of defective investigation. Prosecution lapses cannot be allowed to become escape route of criminals. If there is sufficient proof of guilt by border probability, court must ignore technical objections.
17. In the present case PW1 Tahal Singh is the injured as well as eye witness of the occurrence. During his chief examination he categorically stated that he was beaten by all the accused persons by fist and kicks and they also used knife/kirpan and later on kirpan was recovered at the instance of accused Kuljeet. PW1 received grievous injuries by the accused persons. He has also identified all the accused persons correctly. It is also admitted by the injured that he has some altercation with the accused persons. During cross examination this witness has replied to the question of defence stating that it is correct that accused Kuljeet received injuries at the time of incident. This question put to this witness and answer shows that incident as alleged by the prosecution has been occurred hence defence of all the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated int his case is of no use and baseless. During cross examination certain questions put to this witness and the reply given by the witness prove the presence of accused persons at the spot. I can hold without any hesitation that all the accused persons caused injury to the complainant with fist, kick and also with the help of knife/kirpan in furtherance of their common intention.
18. On behalf of defence it is also pointed that accused persons cannot be convicted on the sole testimony of injured but from the perusal of testimony of this witness which remained unimpeached even during cross examination I am of the view that testimony of this witness trust worthy, I find no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1 Tahal Singh. It is the quality of evidence and not the -quantity of evidence to be seen by the court. With these observations I am of the view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, hence all the accused persons are held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 326/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY DT.11.05.07.
(POORAN CHAND) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI ROHINI IN THE COURT OF SHRI POORAN CHAND METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI FIR No.502/94 P.S. Tilak Nagar U/s 326/34 IPC STATE vs. KULJEET SINGH ETC.
ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE
1. I have heard arguments on point of sentence from both sides today.
2. It is stated on behalf of the convict Kuljeet Singh that at the time of committing of offence he is below 21 years old and now he is married and having two minor children, who are fully dependent on him. He is first offender. No previous conviction is enforced against him. He is facing trial since 1994 i.e for about 13 years and during the trial the conduct of convict Kuljeet Singh remained upto the mark. Hence he may be released on probation on good conduct.
3. It is argued on behalf of convict Gurcharan Singh that at the time of committing of offence he is about 18 years old . Now he is married and having three minor daughters and old age parents who are fully dependent on him. He is sole bread earner of his family.
He is first offender and no previous conviction is enforced against him. Hence it is prayed on his behalf that he be released on probation.
4. On the other hand, Ld. APP for the State has argued that keeping in view the circumstances of the case and the conduct of convict persons and the manner in which the injury has been caused on the chest of the injured, convict persons are not entitled for release on probation as they have pre- determination of the mind to cause injury to the injured/ complainant Sh. Tahal Singh and request is made to give maximum punishment to the convict persons. It is also argued on behalf of State that the sentence U/s 326 IPC may be awarded upto life imprisonment as Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders, Act specifically bars not to release the offender who are punishable for the offence in which the punishment is death or life imprisonment. Therefore, in this case Probation of Offenders Act is not applicable.
5. I have heard arguments from both sides and also gone through the case laws relied by convict persons in which Hon'ble High Court has released the accused on probation even in offences punishable U/s 304 part II .
6. Perusal of Section 326 IPC shows that the maximum punishment which can be awarded to the accused is life imprisonment and Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act debars to release the convict on probation. Therefore, the request of convict persons to release on probation is declined. It is also pertinent to mention here that no formal application to release on probation moved on behalf of convict persons and only oral request has been made.
7. AS discussed in my judgment, it is admitted by the PW1 Tahal Singh - injured/ complainant when specific questions put to him in his cross examination to the effect that he was beaten by all the convict persons by fist and kicks and they also used knife. Kirpan and lateron kirpan was recovered at the instance of Kuljeet.
Convict persons caused injury to the injured in his chest, which is very vital part of the human body. The nature of the injury which is clear from the MLC shows that convict persons were pre - determination of mind to cause injury to the injured. Hence I am of the opinion that they have caused injury to the injured with a view to cause grievous injury to the injured. It is not the case of sudden fight. The complainant warned to mind their language but they did not stop themselves and started beating the complainant with fists and kicks and caused grievous injury meaning thereby that the convict per sons were went at the spot only to cause injury to the injured. The intention of the convict persons are clear from the manner by which injury has been caused. In the circumstances of the case it is clear from the testimony of injured that they were pre determination to cause injury to the injured. Therefore, in view of my above reasons, I am of the considered view that it will serve in the interest of justice that if both the convicts are sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine three ! "
months SI.
8. As injured has sustained injury by the act of convict persons therefore at the time of awarding punishment to convict persons it is duty of the Court that injured be also compensated so that he should not feel that while giving justice he has been ignored by this Court. Therefore, the amount of fine imposed on the convict persons shall be paid to injured/complainant Shri Tahal Singh S/o Harbansh Singh or his legal heirs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Hence order accordingly. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY DT.18.05.07.
(POORAN CHAND) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE DELHI ROHINI #%$ FIR no:502/94 Ps Tilak Nagar U/s 326/34 IPC 18.5.07 Present: APP for the State.
Convict Kuljeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh in person with their counsels.
Convict Narender Singh already died.
Arguments on point of sentence heard from both sides. Vide my seprate order on point of sentence announced today in open court, the convict Kuljeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh are sentence to one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- each and in default of payment of fine three months SI. Fine deposited in State account today vide receipt no. 0919878 & 0919879. Fine deposited by both the convicts in the State account today shall be paid to injured/ complainant Shri Tahal Singh S/o Harbansh Singh or his legal heirs as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Copy of order be given dasti to each of convicts today.
Two applications for interim bail of convict Kuljeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh moved today as they intend to go in appeal against the instant order. Both the convicts Kuljeet Singh and Gurcharan Singh are admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety of like amount. Bail bonds furnished and accepted till 08.06.07.
Previous bail bonds are cancelled. Surities are discharged. Let C/N be sent to injured/ complainant Shri Tahal Singh S/o Harbansh Singh through concerned SHO for 26.5.07.
(POORAN CHAND) MM/ ROHINI/DELHI.
18.5.07.
&('