Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Kumar & Others on 21 April, 2018
SC/44492/2015
State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/44492/2015
DLKA040001432012
State Versus 1. Amit Kumar
S/o Satyaveer Singh
2. Sumit Kumar
S/o Satyaveer Singh
3. Satyaveer Singh
S/o Tej Pal Singh
All R/o House No.H49,
Gali No.16, Jai Prakash Nagar,
Delhi
FIR No.356/2011
PS New Usmanpur
under Section 308/34 IPC
Date of institution of case : 28092012
Reserved for judgment on : 27032018
Date of passing of Judgment : 21042018
JUDGMENT
1. The present case has been filed by the State seeking FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 1 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others conviction of accused (1) Amit Kumar S/o Satyaveer Singh (2) Sumit Kumar S/o Satyaveer Singh (3) Satyaveer Singh S/o Tejpal Singh, who all had caused brick injuries on the heads of the persons namely Ram Singh and Sonu for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and assiduously gone through the record of the case.
3. Learned Chief Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further prays that accused persons may be convicted for the offence charged against them.
4. On the other hand, it has been submitted on behalf of the accused persons that they have been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further prays for the acquittal of the accused persons.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 2 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 0610 2011 at around 10 pm, accused Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh in their common intention had assaulted victims Ram Singh and Sonu by hitting bricks on their heads from the third floor roof top of their house when the victims were present on the second floor balcony of their house in the same gali.
6. The detailed facts of the case shall be appreciated at the relevant stages of the judgment.
7. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to recapitulate the sequence of events which are as under;
8. The present case has been committed for trial and the charge sheet was received by the Court on 28092012. Charge was framed against the accused persons on 24112012 for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC. Accused persons have pleaded not guilty and claimed trial for the offence charged against them.
9. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 3 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
10. Statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of accused persons were recorded on 15092017.
11. In their defence, 2 witnesses have been examined by the accused persons.
ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case has brought in the witness box injured Sonu as PW2. Before the Court, he has stated that the incident had taken place on 06102011 and on that day, he was residing in the house of one Ram Singh which is situated in Gali No.23, Jaiprakash Nagar, Delhi. He has further stated that he had come to the house of Ram Singh only 2 or 3 days prior to the incident to learn stitching. He has further stated that on the day of incident at about 10 pm, he along with other workers were present on the second floor of the house of Ram Singh and at that point in time, Ram Singh arrived on the second floor and they went towards balcony of that FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 4 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others floor. He has further stated that he saw accused Amit and Sumit present on the roof of the third floor of their house which was just across in front of house of Ram Singh and they were giving abuses to Ram Singh and soon accused Amit and Sumit started throwing brick and brick pieces towards them. He has further stated that two or three other persons were also present with Amit and Sumit. He has further stated that Ram Singh was hit by a brick piece on his head and as soon as, he tried to see who had thrown the brick, he was also hit by brick on his head and he then became unconscious and when he regained consciousness, he found himself in GTB Hospital where police had recorded his statement as Ex.PW1/A.
13. In the cross examination carried out on behalf of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, he has disclosed that the reason of incident was that accused had taken liquor and then threw empty glasses of liquor in front of the gate of Ram Singh and on that issue, accused picked up the quarrel and assaulted them.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 5 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
14. In the cross examination on behalf of accused persons, it has been further elicited that PW2 Sonu has admitted the fact that some sound of stitching machine used to go outside when they work during night time as the machines were operated through electric motor. In the cross examination, he has also stated that he had come to work at the place of Ram Singh two months prior to the incident and earlier he had also worked at the same place for about a year and further that Ram Singh is not related to him except that he belongs to his native village.
15. In the cross examination, certain suggestions have been given for creating defence which shall be discussed at the later stage.
16. PW3 Ram Singh has stated that incident happened on 06 102011 at about 10 pm when accused Amit and Sumit along with their 23 friends were taking liquor on the roof top of their house which is across their house. He has further stated that accused persons threw their empty liquor glasses and left over eatings in front of their house and when his wife saw the garbage, she had lodged a protest FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 6 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others with Smt. Pushpa, mother of accused Amit and Sumit, who reacted violently and started abusing her and in the meanwhile, accused persons came downstairs in the gali and started assaulting him and his family members. He has further stated that accused Satyaveer was exhorting his sons in that assault and they were abusing them and accused Satyaveer gave him punch blow by his fist on his face. He has further stated that he then went to the second floor of his house and when came out in the balcony and his worker Sonu was also present in the balcony, accused persons started throwing bricks and brick pieces aiming towards them and one such brick hit him on his head and another brick hit Sonu on his head and they both became unconscious and regained consciousness at GTB Hospital where he was discharged on the next day.
17. In the cross examination, certain suggestions have been given for creating defence which shall be dealt with at the later stage.
18. PW5 Ms. Babita has stated that on 06102011, she saw accused persons taking liquor at the roof of their house and while FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 7 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others enjoying their drinks, they started to throw their empty glasses, bottles and bones of meat in front of the gate of their house. She has further stated that her mother objected to the conduct of the accused persons and on being objected, they started giving abuses. Accused persons along with their friends then came downstairs and started quarreling, fighting with her mother and assaulting her. She has further stated that she herself and her mother when tried to intervene, accused persons assaulted her father as well. She has further stated that they came inside their house and closed the main entry gate and when her father reached the roof of their house, he was hit by a brick which was thrown by accused persons and that brick had hit the head of his father and in the meanwhile, Sonu reached at the roof of the house and he was also hit by a brick being thrown by the accused persons. She has further stated that police arrived at the scene and they took both the injured persons to GTB Hospital and police had also seized the blood stained clothes of her father.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 8 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
19. In the cross examination, it is elicited that garment manufacturing work is carried out in their residential house and there are 56 sewing machines being used for that work. They had gone to the roof of their house when they heard brick hitting against grill of their first floor of the house which created sound and she was at a distance of around four to five steps when brick had hit her father. Police had not seized those brick pieces but only took photographs of the scene. It is further elicited in the cross examination that she was with her mother at the roof for about half an hour before the incident. The accused were accompanied by 56 other boys. About 2530 persons had collected outside their house when the accused had started abusing them.
20. PW7 Veerwati had stated that on 06102011 at about 10 pm, accused persons were taking liquor at their house along with their friends and they had thrown empty glasses and bones of the meat in front of her house and when she objected to the same and asked them not to do so, they started quarreling with them and wife of Satyaveer FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 9 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others Singh called her son, husband and their friends and they started quarreling with her husband. She has further stated that they pushed her and gave fist blows to her husband. She has further stated that thereafter, they went to the roof of their house and accused persons had also went to the roof of their house and accused persons started to throw brick pieces in their house which hit her husband and Sonu.
21. In the cross examination, she has admitted that tailoring work was being carried out in their house and number of persons work there. A large number of public persons had collected at the spot. The police had taken the photographs of the brick pieces lying on their roof.
22. Nothing has been asked in the cross examination which could discredit the testimonies of these witnesses in any manner.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
23. PW2 Sonu has identified accused Amit Kumar and Sumit Kumar in the Court, who had thrown bricks and brick pieces towards him and Ram Singh. However, he fails to identify accused Satyaveer FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 10 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others Singh and on being cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on this aspect, he has stated that he had not seen third accused Satyaveer Singh as one of the assailants in the incident.
24. PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Ms. Babita and PW7 Veerwati, all have identified accused Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh in the Court as the persons who had thrown bricks and brick pieces towards Sonu and Ram Singh. They have also described the sequence of events that had led to the accused persons throwing bricks and brick pieces at Sonu and Ram Singh.
25. Nothing has been asked the cross examination of these witnesses discrediting their testimonies regarding identification of the accused persons.
26. Thus, as far as, identity of accused persons are concerned, PW2, PW3, PW5 and PW7 have unambiguously and unequivocally identified the accused persons to be the same persons, who had assaulted them.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 11 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others IDENTIFICATION OF CLOTHES OF THE INJURED
27. PW3 Ram Singh had identified his shirt and grey colour pant having blood stains as Ex.P1 collectively.
28. No suggestion has been given to PW3 if the clothes are not of Ram Singh.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
29. PW1 Dr. Ravinder Singh has proved the MLC No.5802/2011 of injured Sonu as Ex.PW1/A and has stated that on local examination of the injured, a lacerated wound over scalp measuring 4 X 2 cm was found.
30. PW1 has also proved the MLC No.5803/2011 of injured Ram Singh as Ex.PW1/B and has stated that on local examination of the injured, a lacerated wound over scalp measuring 6 X 1 cm was found.
31. PW1 has identified the signatures of Dr. Ayush Singhal as he has worked with him and seen him writing and signing during the course of his official duties.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 12 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
32. In the cross examination, he has admitted that there is alleged history of RTA in the MLC.
33. PW6 Dr. Ayush Singhal himself has come in the witness box and proved the MLC of injured Sonu Ex.PW1/A and MLC of injured Ram Singh Ex.PW1/B.
34. In the cross examination of PW6, it has been elicited as under;
"If a person falls from stairs, injuries as found recorded in the present case MLC are possible, but then there must be some further injuries also and thus injury as appearing in MLC in the present case can be ruled out as suffered from fall from stairs."
35. From the above, it is amply clear that the injury caused on the person of Sonu and Ram Singh were not due to fall from the stairs as the injured persons may have suffered other injuries as well in the body if fallen from the stairs.
36. PW12 Dr. Rahul Miglani, Associate Consultant, Neurosurgery, Fortis, Gurgaon has opined the nature of injury of FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 13 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others injured Sonu as grievous as the injured had sustained head injury - comminuted fracture right parietal bone with underlying contusion as mentioned in CT Report Mark A/PW12.
37. The nature of injuries on the head of Ram Singh were also opined as grievous as the injured had sustained head injury right parietal region fracture and left parietal SAH and SDH as mentioned in CT Report Mark B/PW12.
38. In the cross examination of PW12, it has been elicited that the injury sustained by injured Sonu and Ram Singh can also be caused by falling from stairs and accident.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
39. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove 1. PW4 Sunil Kumar Gave call at 100 number regarding quarrel 2. PW8 HC Rajender Kumar Proved FIR as Ex.PW8/A 3. PW9 Ct. Azad Singh Proved Arrest Memo, personal search memo
and disclosure statement of accused Amit and Sumit as Ex.PW9/A to Ex.PW9/E FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 14 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
4. PW11 SI Amit Kumar Proved endorsement Ex.PW11/A, site plan Ex.PW11/B, arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Satyaveer Ex.PW11/C and Ex.PW11/D DEFENCE EVIDENCE
40. In defence, the accused persons have brought in the witness box Shri Diwan Singh as DW1, who has stated that on 06 102011 at about 77.30 pm, he reached the office of accused Satyaveer, who was working in MTNL, Tis Hazari, Delhi. He has further stated that they both used to come and go together. He has further stated that he along with accused Satyaveer and Jagbir left for Mori Gate where Dusshera Mela was going on and they remained there for about 34 hours and at about 11.3011.45 pm, they reached their houses where he heard the noise coming from the locality that one child namely Sonu met with an accident.
41. DW2 Jagbir Singh has also stated that on 06102011 which was a day of Dusshera, he along with Satyaveer and Diwan Singh were present in the Mela at Mori Gate and they returned home FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 15 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others at around 12 mid night and came to know that accident of one Sonu had taken place.
CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
42. The present incident had happened when on 06102011, the accused persons were taking liquor on the roof of their house and they threw their empty liquor glasses and left over of their eatings at the front gate of the house of PW3 Ram Singh. When PW7 Veerwati objected to the same, accused persons came down in the gali and started assaulting PW3 Ram Singh. They were also hurling filthy abuses. In that process, accused Satyaveer also gave a fist blow on the face of PW3 Ram Singh. He was also exhorting his sons by giving threats to kill. Somehow they managed to save themselves and came inside their house. Suddenly, accused persons started throwing bricks and brick pieces on the grill of first floor of their house and on hearing the noise, PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Ms. Babita and PW7 Veerwati went upstairs and they saw accused persons throwing bricks and brick pieces at them. One brick hit Ram Singh and other one hit FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 16 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others Sonu and both of them fell unconscious. Police had arrived at the spot and both of them were removed to GTB Hospital and when they regained their consciousness, their statements were recorded by the police.
43. PW2 Sonu has clearly identified accused Amit and Sumit as the persons, who had thrown brick pieces at them whereas PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati have clearly identified all the accused persons to be the same persons, who had thrown bricks and brick pieces from the roof of their house.
44. The statement of PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati have been clearly supported and corroborated by the medical evidence given by PW6 Dr. Ayush Singhal, who had proved the MLC and clearly stated that there was a lacerated wound measuring 4 X 2 cm on the head of Sonu which is recorded in the detailed report Ex.PW1/A and a lacerated wound measuring 6 X 1 cm on the head of Ram Singh which is recorded in detailed report Ex.PW1/B. FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 17 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
45. PW12 Dr. Rahul Miglani had opined both the injuries as grievous considering the fact that there were fractures on the right parietal bone of the injured persons.
46. PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati have supported and corroborated the statement of each other and the defence has completely failed to discredit their testimonies. However, minor discrepancies were found as PW2 Sonu did not name accused Satyaveer and both PW2 Sonu and PW3 Ram Singh have stated that they had received injuries when they were on the second floor balcony of their house. Whereas PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati had stated that PW2 Sonu and PW3 Ram Singh had received injuries on the roof of their house. Moreover, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State had confronted PW2 Sonu with the fact that in his previous statement, he has mentioned the use of danda like object thrown at him by the accused.
47. The blood stained clothes Ex.P1 also corroborated the case of the prosecution. At the same time, police had not seized the brick FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 18 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others pieces in order to further strengthen the case of the prosecution. Having said that, these minor discrepancies do not go to the root of the offence. The prosecution has successfully proved its case through PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita, PW6 Dr. Ayush Singhal, PW7 Veerwati and PW12 Dr. Rahul Miglani.
48. PW9 Ct. Azad Singh, PW10 Ct. Pawan and PW11 SI Amit Kumar have conducted the investigation of the case and PW11 being the IO of the case has clearly stated that he has recorded the statement of Sonu Ex.PW1/A and accused Amit and Sumit were arrested on 07102011 and he seized the clothes of injured Ram Singh Ex.P1.
49. The first defence raised in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is that the accused persons used to raise objection of creating sound in the night by the sewing machines of PW3 Ram Singh.
50. It may be true that accused persons had raised objections against the family of PW3 Ram Singh due to sound of sewing FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 19 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others machines during night time. Having said that, it does not give the right to the accused persons to have taken law into their own hands. Instead of filing complaint against PW3 Ram Singh before appropriate authority or even moving the court, the accused persons themselves wanted to settle the score by inflicting grievous injuries on the head of PW2 Sonu and PW3 Ram Singh.
51. The second defence raised in the form of suggestion is that on the day of incident, accused Satyaveer was not present and he was attending the Dusherra Mela at Mori Gate.
52. This defence is absolutely fake defence for the simple reason that firstly, DW1 says that they returned home at about 11.30 11.45 pm whereas DW2 says that they returned home at about 12 mid night. Moreover, this defence was neither raised in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. nor having been put to material prosecution witnesses in their cross examination. The natural consequence is that this is an after thought defence and is absolutely feeble. FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 20 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
53. The third defence raised in the form of suggestion given in the cross examination of material prosecution witnesses is that since small children used to work in the factory of PW3 Ram Singh and on a rumour that officials of Anti Child Labour Department had arrived to raid their place, they started running and received injuries by falling from stairs.
54. The aforesaid defence is unworthy of credence for the simple reason that firstly, merely by falling from the stairs, the injured persons would not have received single injury on the head alone and having no other injury on any other part of the body. Moreover, no officials from Anti Child Labour Department would make a raid late at night as alleged.
55. The next defence raised is that there used to be exchange of words between Ram Singh and his family members with the accused persons that their sewing machines were creating sounds in the night and causing disturbance to neighbouring people. FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 21 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
56. The aforesaid defence has got no legs to stand for the simple reason that no one would self inflict the injuries causing fracture on their head in order to falsely implicate the other side. The type of injuries caused on the head of the injured persons can never be said that they were self inflicted one's. It is believable that they may be caused due to hit by bricks or brick pieces.
57. Another defence raised in the form of suggestion is that Sonu had met with an accident on the day of incident and had sustained injuries. Similar, suggestion has been given to PW7 Veerwati but with a slightly modified defence that Ram Singh had quarreled with the person, who had caused accident of Sonu and in that quarrel, Ram Singh had sustained injuries.
58. Two different suggestions clearly show that the said defences are fictitiously made with a view to wriggle out of the criminal liability. Moreover, there is no question of similar type of injuries having been caused on the head of Sonu and Ram Singh. Moreover, this defence has not been raised in statement under Section FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 22 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others 313 Cr.P.C. nor have been given in the cross of PW2 Sonu and PW3 Ram Singh. Whereas different suggestions have been given in the form of defence which are denied by the witnesses.
59. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused persons has submitted that in the rukka, the place of occurrence is different than the place of occurrence deposed by the witnesses.
60. There is absolutely no force in the submission made by learned counsel for accused persons for the simple reason that the deposition made by the witnesses shall be of utmost importance than what has been recorded in the rukka. Moreover, this fact has not been put to the material witnesses at the time of their cross examination and further, in the site plan Ex.PW11/B, correct address of the place of occurrence has been mentioned.
61. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for accused persons has relied upon the judgment titled as Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh & Others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 23 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others in 2008 [1] JCC 542.
62. I am in complete agreement with the proposition of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, the aforesaid judgment is not at all helpful to the case of the accused herein as the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are absolutely distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case.
63. At this stage, it would be appropriate to have a glance at provisions of Section 308 IPC. The essential ingredients of which are as follows;
(1) Accused committed an act; (2) The act was committed with the intention or knowledge of
committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder; (3) The act was committed in such circumstances that if the accused by that had caused the death of the victim, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide.
FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 24 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others
64. It goes without saying that head is one of the most crucial and sensitive part of the entire body and any damage to it may prove fatal to a person. Especially considering the fact that fractures were suffered on the head of both the injured persons which were opined by the doctor as "Grievous", it clearly go to show that the accused persons had thrown the bricks on the heads of injured persons with such force that had caused fractures in the heads of the injured persons. Fortunately, both the injured persons had survived the impact. Accused persons had given the blows with the knowledge that it may prove fatal for the injured persons and injured persons may have died as a consequence of the blow.
65. The prosecution by way of evidence of PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati have clearly established that the accused persons had voluntarily thrown bricks and brick pieces on the persons of PW2 Sonu and PW3 Ram Singh. As a result of which both Sonu and Ram Singh had received grievous injuries on their heads having fracture. The fact that the injuries were caused on FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 25 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others the most vital part of the body i.e. head and may have been proved fatal for the injured persons show that the accused persons had the knowledge that it can undoubtedly prove fatal. Considering the fact that all the accused persons firstly attacked Ram Singh at the ground floor and when Ram Singh and his family saved themselves by coming inside their house and locking the door, accused persons then climbed on to the roof of their house and threw brick pieces at injured persons clearly show that they have voluntarily thrown bricks and brick pieces on the person of Sonu and Ram Singh in furtherance of their common intention having clear knowledge that their action may prove fatal for the injured persons. Though in the cross examination of PW2, PW5 and PW7, they have admitted that some sound of sewing machines could be heard during night time which may have disturbed the others but this does not give them the right to set right the other side by taking law into their hands.
66. All the accused persons have carried out an overt act in furtherance of their common intention thereby making all the accused FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 26 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others persons liable for the offence. All the accused persons have been clearly identified being the neighbours of the injured persons.
67. The defence either by way of defence evidence or by cross examination has completely failed to discredit, denounce or demolish the case of the prosecution in any manner.
68. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and has proved that accused persons Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh had assaulted Sonu and Ram Singh by throwing bricks and brick pieces at them and had caused grievous injuries on their heads. The prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case within the ambit of provisions of Section 308/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
CONCLUSION
69. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements of PW2 Sonu, PW3 Ram Singh, PW5 Babita and PW7 Veerwati which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points FIR No.356/2011 PS New Usmanpur Page No. 27 /28 under Section 308/34 IPC SC/44492/2015 State Vs. Amit Kumar & Others out a guilt towards accused persons namely Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh.
70. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
71. Accused persons namely Amit Kumar, Sumit Kumar and Satyaveer Singh are hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
ON 21st APRIL, 2018 by DEEPAK
JAGOTRA
DEEPAK Location:
JAGOTRA KARKARDOOMA
COURTS, DELHI
Date: 2018.04.21
16:06:27 +0530
(DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.356/2011
PS New Usmanpur Page No. 28 /28
under Section 308/34 IPC