Delhi District Court
State vs . Vasdev Arora on 6 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
FIR No. 251/13
STATE Vs. Vasdev Arora
U/SEC : 324/506 (I) IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R0368792013
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 2749/II/13 Date of commission of offence 18.06.2013 Date of institution of the case 25.07.2013 Name of the complainant Sh. Gaurav Sehgal
Name of accused, parentage & address Vasdev Arora, s/o Sh. Laxman Dass, r/o H.no. 1/229, Subhash Nagar, Delhi.
Offence complained Sections 324/506(I) IPC Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty Date of arguments 30.09.2015 Final order Convicted Date of Judgment 06.10.2015
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by ASI Amar Singh (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of Sh. Gaurav Sehgal (hereinafter referred as complainant) against accused Vasdev Arora (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing offences under section 324/506(I) of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 11 BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 18.06.2013 DD no.23PP which is Ex.PW6/A was registered at about 07.30 PM to the effect that a boy has been injured with the knife near bus stop of bus route no.73 near MIG Flats. DD entry was handed over to PW6 IO/ASI Amar Singh who proceeded to the spot with PW5 Ct. Ajeet. They came to know that injured/complainant PW1 Gaurav was already shifted to DDU hospital. IO proceeded to the hospital and found that PW1 Gaurav was admitted in hospital. He was examined vide MLC no.15104 which is Ex.PW3/A by Doctor Ashish Kumar Jain. IO recorded the statement of the complainant which is Ex.PW1/A. PW1 stated that he used to work in shop no.BE334 as a mobile Mechanic. On 18.06.2013 at about 7.25 pm, he reached the shop and parked his motorcycle bearing no.DL4S NA6209 in front of his shop. Accused was running a juice shop in the name of Nanak Fruit Juice in the adjacent shop. As soon as complainant parked the motorcycle, accused asked him to park his motorcycle at some other place. When the complainant stated that he had parked the motorcycle in front of the shop then accused started abusing him. When complainant objected for the same, the accused threw a wooden hatha used for extracting juice on the right shoulder of the complainant. When the complainant stated to accused as to why he was beating him, accused came out of the shop with a knife in his hand and stated "mein tere ko FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 11 chakku maar dunga". Accused proceeded towards the complainant having knife in his hand and in an effort to save himself, complainant tried to caught hold of the knife and suffered injuries on his right hand finger. IO prepared rukka and handed it over to PW5 for registration of FIR. PW5 took the rukka to PS and the FIR which is Ex.PW2/B was registered by PW2 HC Jai Parkash after making his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/A. IO prepared site plan which is Ex.PW6/B at the instance of the complainant. Accused was arrested at the instance of the complainant vide arrest memo which is Ex.PW1/B and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/C. IO also recovered the knife from the shop of the accused. He prepared sketch of the knife which is Ex.PW1/D and seized the same vide seizure memo which is Ex.PW1/E. IO also collected MLC of the injured from the hospital and recorded the statement of the witnesses. The injury suffered by the complainant is simple and sharp in nature.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 324/506(I) IPC against the accused on 25.07.2013. Charge for offences under section 324/506(I) IPC was framed against the accused on 24.09.2013 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 11
4. Prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Sh. Gaurav Sehgal is the complainant and he deposed on the lines of his complaint given to the police. He exhibited his complaint as Ex.PW1/A, arrest memo as Ex.PW1/B, personal search memo as Ex.PW1/C, sketch of the knife as Ex.PW1/D, seizure memo of knife is Ex.PW1/E and exhibited the knife as Ex.P1.
6. PW2 HC Jai Prakash is the duty officer.
7. PW3 Dr. Pallavi Borah is the Medical Officer at DDU Hospital and she exhibited the MLC of the complainant as Dr. Ashish Kumar Jain who had prepared the MLC, has left the services of the hospital.
8. PW4 Sh. Sandeep Khurana deposed that he is running a mobile shop at BE334, Street no. 2, Hari Nagar. Complainant Gaurav Sehgal used to work as a mobile mechanic in his shop. It is stated that the complainant Gaurav Sharma came from Karol Bagh on his motorcycle and he parked his motorcycle in front of his shop at around 7.00 PM. It is further stated that accused, who is the owner of the adjoining shop, asked Gaurav Sehgal to remove the motorcycle but Gaurav refused to remove the same.
Altercation took place between Gaurav and Vasdev. It is further stated that accused tried to hit Gaurav with a wooden tool used to squeeze out juice which he was having in his hand. Thereafter, accused came out of his shop and took a knife from his shop and tried to stab Gaurav but FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 11 Gaurav stopped the blow with his hands and resultantly, he sustained injury on his finger.
9. PW5 Ct. Ajit deposed that he went to PS and got the FIR registered. He deposed about the investigation carried out by the IO in his presence.
10. PW6 ASI Amar Singh deposed about the investigation being carried out by him. He exhibited DD no. 23PP as Ex.PW6/A and site plan as Ex. PW6/B.
11. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 21.02.2015. Statement of accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.08.2015 in which all the incriminating evidence was put to him to which he denied in toto. He stated that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case. He stated that he is running a juice shop and complainant used to drink in front of his shop on regular basis. When he objected towards the conduct of the complainant, he threw a juice glass towards him but the glass shattered in the pieces and complainant suffered injuries on his finger by one piece of broken glass. He did not throw any handle upon the complainant as alleged and he did not inflict injury on the fingers of the complainant with the help of a knife. Complainant has lodged FIR against him as he had objected to his conduct of drinking liquor in front of his juice shop. He opted not to lead any defence evidence.
12. I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and by FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 11 Ld. defence counsel Sh. Devender N.Grover.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
13. It is alleged against the accused that he inflicted injury on the person of the complainant with the help of a knife and also extended threats to him during the commission of offence. Accused is facing trial U/S 324/506(I) IPC.
14. It is argued on behalf of accused that star witness of the prosecution is complainant. In his examination inchief he has stated that he was taken to the hospital by the police. He has not stated whether accused was also taken to the hospital with him or not. Whereas in his crossexamination he has stated that police took him as well as accused to the hospital. He also added that his family members, who came at the spot after the incident, were also present in the hospital. Secondly, PW1 has improved his version before the court in his examination in chief when he stated that accused stated to him during the incident "dekh lunga and Jao Jao Jo complaint karni hai kar lo mein dekh lunga" . These words are not present in Ex.PW1/A and complainant has improvised his version. Considering his deposition before the court and his statement given to the police, there are glaring contradictions in his version and this witness is not reliable.
The contradictions pointed out by the defence counsel are correct. The words which were allegedly used by the accused to FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 11 intimidate the complainant during the commission of offence are different in Ex.PW1/A and statement of complainant as PW1. In Ex.PW1/A it has been mentioned that accused used words "mein tere ko chaku mar dunga" but these words have not been stated by the complainant as PW1. He has stated "dekh lunga and Jao Jao Jo complaint karni hai kar lo mein dekh lunga". These words are not present in Ex.PW1/A. Complainant has substituted the words used by the accused during the commission of the offence. Moreover, complainant has not clarified as what was the effect of the alleged criminal intimidation by the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that complainant came under imminent threat or danger after hearing the alleged words of intimidation from the accused. To bring home the charge U/S 506 IPC, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the fact that complainant was intimidated and an alarm was caused by the accused and in absence of any such alarm/emergency, prosecution is bound to fail to prove its case against the accused U/S 506(I) IPC. As complainant has not stated in so many words whether any alarm was caused or not, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations against the accused U/S 506(I) IPC.
15. It is argued on behalf of the accused that complainant is not a reliable witness as his testimony is suffering from various contradictions. The contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel fall into the category FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 11 of minor contradictions. It has been argued that complainant has stated that he was taken to the hospital by the police and he has not stated whether accused was also taken to the hospital with him or not in his examinationinchief. Whereas in his crossexamination he has stated that police took him as well as accused to the hospital. He has also stated that police took his signatures on site plan whereas same are not present.
16. Now, these contradictions are not enough to shake the foundation of the case. The fact in issue of this case is that complainant was injured by a knife by the accused and this is the most important aspect in the deposition of the witness. The anomalies in the deposition of the complainant are minor contradictions which are bound to occur in the testimony of a honest and truthful witness. If a person is deposing as it is on the lines of complaint given to the police then, it has to be presumed that he is a tutored and planted witness. An honest witness may add or subtract a thing or two in his deposition before the court but same should not be material in nature. In the present case, complainant has specifically and categorically stated that accused injured him with a knife and that is enough to rely upon the testimony upon this witness. If a witness is supporting the prosecution version on material aspect then he has to be termed as reliable, credit worhtly and an honest witness. Therefore, contradictions qua the presence of accused in the hospital and family members of the complainant, are of no consequence to the merits FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8 of 11 of this case and are of no avail to the accused.
17. It is further argued by ld. defence counsel that it is highly improbable that a person who had attacked a person with a knife, would remain present in his shop even after the injured was taken by the police. He could have fled away from the shop, if he was involved in the incident. Another glaring aspect is that why would the accused hand over the weapon i.e. knife to the IO of his own. The knife sized by the police was having no blood stain over it. Therefore, the conduct of the accused after the incident projected by the IO seems to be highly unnatural and improbable which makes the version of the complainant more doubtful. It is admitted case of the prosecution the incident occurred in market place around 07:00 PM, therefore, several public persons would have been present at the time of occurrance but none of them has been named by the complainant and has been examined by the prosecution to provide a support to the version of the complainant and his employer Sandeep. Non examination of eye witnesses from the public is also pointing towards false implication of the accused.
The argument put forth qua the conduct of the accused by the defence counsel is having no substance in it. No straight jacket formula can be prepared as to how would an accused behave after commission of an offence. If accused was present on his shop after the incident, this fact can be taken as accused was not perturbed or perplexed by the incident. FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9 of 11 Had it been the case, he would have become nervous but his presence on the shop reflect that he was calm and composed after the incident and for his coolness, the version of the complainant cannot be disbelieved.
18. The main crux of the defence is that accused has been falsely implicated and all these aspects of the conduct of the accused have been tried to be connected with false implication. In the cross examination of the complainant, it has been suggested to the complainant that cut mark on the middle finger of the victim was of minor nature but has been given a proportion of major knife due to aggressive behaviour and verbal altercation. By giving the suggestion, the occurrence of the incident has been admitted by the accused and this suggestion is fatal for the defence of the accused. In the light of this suggestion, it is clear that the incident took place as stated by the complainant. Therefore, the story of false implication sounds hollow and without any substance in it.
19. As far as non examination of other public persons is concerned, who might be present at the time of incident, is also insignificant in this case. Prosecution has examined complainant and another independent witness PW4 Sandeep Khurana to prove its allegations. These two witnesses have fully supported the case and have deposed against the accused. Law is settled in this regard that it is the sole prerogative of the prosecution examine as many as witnesses to prove its case against the accused. It is also worth to note that nobody in a city like Delhi would like to indulge FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10 of 11 in the police and court proceedings until and unless his personal interest is involved. Police is not expected to force the public persons to be a witness in a police case. Therefore, non examination of any other public witness is not going to help the accused.
20. Considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, unblemished testimonies of PWs and absence of motive for false implication, prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused. The incident has been proved through testimonies of PW1 and PW4 and more over, incident has been admitted by the accused also. The injury of the victim has been proved through PW3 and MLC has been exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. The injuries suffered by the victim are simple and sharp in nature. Accordingly, this court is of the considered view that accused inflicted injury on the person of the victim with a knife. He is held guilty for committing an offence under section 324 IPC.
21. Put up for arguments on sentence on 20.10.2015.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 6th October, 2015 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 251/13 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11 of 11