Delhi District Court
State vs 1.Jai Parkash, on 20 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN; ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI
Sessions Case No: 44/2008
FIR No : 406/05
Police Station : Sultanpuri
U/s : 308/341/34 IPC
State Versus 1.Jai Parkash,
S/o Shri Lal Chand,
R/o D1/49, Aman Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2. Ashok,
S/o Shri Jai Parkash,
R/o D1/49, Aman Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
3. Shiv Kumar,
S/o Shri Braham Prakash,
R/o 1/61, Aman Vihar, Delhi. ... Accused
Date of Institution : 3.7.2008
Date of Decision: 16.12.2011
JUDGMENT
Jai Kumar is residing at D50, Aman Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi. Narender is the son of Jai Kumar. Jai Parkash is residing at D1/49, Aman Vihar, Delhi. Ashok is the son of Jai Parkash. Shiv Kumar is friend of Ashok. Jai Kumar on 17.3.05 at about 3.30 pm was present in his house State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri and at that time Narender had gone to bring water from water tank. Narender when coming back asked Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar to give way to him as all of them were sitting in the gali on the chairs. Thereafter Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar gave beatings to Narender. Jai Kumar came outside from his house after hearing the cries of Narender and thereafter Jai Parkash along with Naresh and Pappu entered inside the house of Jai Kumar and hit a brick on the head of Jai Kumar. Jai Kumar was removed to SGM Hospital.
2. HC Kulbir Singh after receipt of DD no.52B regarding the quarrel at D50 Aman Vihar along with Ct. Rakesh Kumar reached at the informed placed and came to know that the injured has already been removed to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. Statement of Jai Kumar was recorded. Rukka was prepared. FIR bearing no.406/05 u/s 323/341/34 was got registered. The accused Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar were arrested. Subsequently the case was converted into u/s 308 IPC and investigation was handed over to SI Prabhanshu. The accused after completion of investigation were charge sheeted for the offences punishable u/s 308/341/34 IPC. The charge sheet was submitted before the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The accused were put to trial.
State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri
3. The accused were supplied with the copies of charge sheet along with annexed documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed to the court of Sessions vide committal order dated 11.6.05 and thereafter assigned to the Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law.
4. The charge for the offences punishable u/s 341/308/34 IPC was framed against the accused Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar vide order dated 11.8.08 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. The prosecution examined HC Bhagirath as PW1; Jai Kumar as PW2; Ct. Rakesh Kumar as PW4; HC Kulbir Singh as PW5 and HC Bhagwan Singh as PW6.
PW1 HC Bhagirath recorded the FIR bearing no.406/05 on the basis of rukka sent by HC Kulbir Singh. PW2 Jai Kumar is the injured. PW5 HC Kulbir Singh along with PW4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar went to the place of quarrel after the receipt of DD no.52B and thereafter the PW5 HC Kulbir Singh conducted the investigation. PW6 HC Bhagwan Singh also remained the Investigating Officer of the case.
6. The prosecution proved the copy of FIR as ExPW1/A; endorsement on rukka as ExPW1/B; statement of PW2 Jai Kumar as ExPW2/A; arrest memos of accused Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri as ExPW4/A to ExPW4/C and their personal search memos as ExPW4/D to ExPW4/F; DD no.52B as ExPW5/A; rukka as ExPW5/B; site plan as ExPW5/C. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 16.12.2011.
7. The respective statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein the accused pleaded innocence and denied the incriminating evidence. The accused preferred not to lead defence evidence.
8. Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Sudhir Shoken, advocate for the accused heard. Record perused.
9. In brief the case of the prosecution is that the accused in furtherance of their common intention on 17.3.05 at about 3.30 pm in the street in front of house no D49, Aman Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi with the jurisdiction of PS Sultanpuri voluntarily and wrongfully restrained PW2 Jai Kumar and also caused injuries which would have been caused the death of PW2 Jai Kumar not amounting to murder. The prosecution in support of its case examined PW2 Jai Kumar who is the injured. PW2 Jai Kumar supported the case of the prosecution and deposed that on 17.3.05, the accused Jai Parkash has inflicted injuries by brick on his head.
10. The defence counsel argued that the prosecution could not prove State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri its case beyond reasonable doubt as there are material contradictions in the deposition of PW2 Jai Kumar and in statement ExPW2/A recorded by PW5 HC Kulbir Singh and further another eye witness Narender is not examined by the prosecution. APP argued that the testimony of PW2 Jai Kumar is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused in accordance with law.
11. PW2 Jai Kumar deposed that on 17.3.05 at about 3.3.0 pm when he was present in his house at that time his son Narender had gone to take water from water tank and when he was coming back the accused were sitting in the gali on chairs and when Narender asked for the way then he was beaten by the accused. PW2 Jai Kumar further deposed that when he came out after hearing the cries of his son Narender, then the accused Jai Parkash along with Naresh and Pappu entered inside the house and gave beatings to him. PW2 Jai Kumar further deposed that the accused Jai Parkash hit a brick on his head. PW2 Jai Kumar in statement ExPW2/A stated that on 17.3.05 at about 3 pm the accused Jai Kumar, Ashok and Shiv Kumar caused injuries to him but in deposition he only implicated the accused Jai Parkash along with Naresh and Pappu. As per the testimony of PW2 Jai Kumar the accused Jai Parkash hit brick on his head and no act was attributed to accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar when the injuries were State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri inflicted to PW2 Jai Kumar. PW2 Jai Kumar in statement ExPW2/A did not implicate Naresh and Pappu but implicated the accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar. There are material contradiction in the deposition of PW2 Jai Kumar and statement ExPW2/A regarding the participation of accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar in the offence i.e infliction of injuries to PW2 Jai Kumar by using a brick which could not be seized or recovered during the investigation. Although as per the prosecution the nature of injuries received by the PW2 Jai Kumar is grievous but the prosecution has not examined the concerned doctor or any other doctor to prove the MLC of PW2 Jai Kumar nor proved the nature of injuries as grievous. The prosecution also examined PW5 HC Kulbir Singh and PW4 Ct. Rakesh Kumar who after receipt of DD no.52B went to the informed place and where PW5 HC Kulbir Singh conducted the investigation. Initially the case was registered u/s 323/341/34 IPC but subsequently the charge sheet was filed u/s 308/341/34 IPC. The testimony of PW2 Jai Kumar cannot be rejected on the ground that another eye witness Narender is not examined.
12. After considering the quality and quantity of evidence, the prosecution could proved that accused Jai Parkash has caused injuries on the head of PW2 Jai Kumar by using a brick but the prosecution could not State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar. The accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar are acquitted for offence u/s 308/341/34 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar are cancelled and respective sureties discharged. The accused Jai Parkash is convicted for offence u/s 325 IPC. Announced in open court (Dr.Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 16.12.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri
FIR No.406/05
PS Sultanpuri
16.12.2011
Present : Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State.
Accused Jai Parkash, Ashok and Shiv Kumar on bail. Shri Sudhir Shokeen, advocate for all accused.
PW6 HC Bhagwan Singh examined and discharged. No other PW is present today. B/W against accused Narender received back unexecuted with the report that the given address is not traceable. Dr. Hitesh Kumar has left the service. Ct.Inderjeet is stated to be on leave.
APP stated that one application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. is pending for consideration. PW2 Jai Kumar in his deposition implicated Naresh and Pappu. The prosecution could not examine Narender. In statement ExPW2/A no incriminating allegation are made against accused Naresh and Pappu by PW2 Jai Kumar. It is settled preposition of law that power u/s 319 Cr.P.C. should be used in exceptional circumstances and sparingly and after considering all facts, the application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.
APP requested for adjournment. The FIR pertains to year 2005. State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri the prosecution has been granted sufficient opportunity to lead 2 evidence. After considering all facts, the prosecution evidence stands closed.
S/A recorded. The accused preferred not to lead defence evidence.
Final arguments heard.
Vide separate judgment, accused Jai Parkash is convicted for offence u/s 325 IPC and the accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar are acquitted for offences for which they were charged. The bail bonds of the accused Ashok and Shiv Kumar are cancelled and respective sureties discharged. The original documents, if any, be returned back after cancellation of endorsement and proper verification. Put up on 20.12.2011 for order on sentence in respect of accused Jai Parkash.
(Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain) ASJ01, Outer, Rohini, Delhi.
State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri IN THE COURT OF DR. SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN; ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE01 (OUTER), ROHINI, DELHI Sessions Case No: 44/2008 FIR No : 406/05 Police Station : Sultanpuri U/s : 308/341/34 IPC State Versus Jai Parkash, S/o Shri Lal Chand, R/o D1/49, Aman Vihar, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
.... Convict ORDER ON SENTENCE Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State and Shri Sudhir Shokeen, advocate for convict heard on the quantum of sentence. The convict Jai Parkash also made submission.
2. The convict Jai Parkash is stated to be aged about 48 years and his family is comprising of his four children and wife. The convict is facing the agony of trial for the last six years. No other criminal case is pending against the convict and is not a previous convict. The convict after this case did not indulge himself in any other criminal activity. The convict as State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri well as counsel prayed for a lenient view by stating that the convict had already reformed himself and if any imprisonment is awarded to him it will bring his family on the verge of starvation and prayed that the convict be released on probation.
APP stated that the convict has caused the injuries to the injured which would have been caused their death not amounting to culpable homicide and prayed that under given facts and circumstances, the convicts are given maximum punishment.
3. The convict Jai Paraksh had appeared to reform himself and become the part of main stream of the society. No other criminal case is pending against the convict Jai Parkash and he is not a previous convict. The convict did not indulge himself in any other criminal case after the present case.
4. After considering all facts, the convict Jai Parkash is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety with the condition to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The fine of Rs.5000/ is imposed on the convict as cost of litigation. Fine paid. Surety bond furnished. Accepted. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the state. State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri Previous bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open court (Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain) on 20.12.2011 ASJ01 (Outer) Rohini, Delhi. State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri
FIR No.406/05
PS Sultanpuri
20.12.2011
Present : Shri R.A. Yadav, APP for the State.
Convict Jai Parkash in person.
Shri Sudhir Shokeen , Advocate for the convict.
Heard on sentence.
Vide separate order on sentence, the convict Jai Parkash is released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year on furnishing surety bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety with the condition to appear and receive the sentence as and when called upon and in the mean time to keep peace and be of good behaviour. The fine of Rs.5000/ is imposed on the convict as cost of litigation. Fine paid. Surety bond furnished. Accepted. The case property, if any, is confiscated to the state. Previous bail bond cancelled and surety discharged. File be consigned to the record room.
(Dr. Sudhir Kumar Jain) ASJ01, Outer, Rohini, Delhi.
State V Jai Paraksh & Ors.
FIR no. 406/05
PS Sultanpuri