Delhi District Court
State vs . Naveen on 31 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE02/WEST : DELHI
STATE Vs. Naveen
FIR No. : 85/2005
U/SEC : 341/325 IPC
PS Hari Nagar Delhi
Unique Case ID Number : 02401R1288912005
JUDGMENT
Serial No. of the case 1432/II/05
Date of commission of offence 15.02.2005
Date of institution of the case 21.07.2005
Name of the complainant Tajender Singh Bhatia
Name of accused, parentage & address Naveen s/o Sh. Om Prakash r/o
WZ169, IIIrd Floor, Gali No. 5,
Virender Nagar, Delhi
Offence complained or proved Section 341/325 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Date of arguments 22.04.2013
Final order Convicted
Date of Judgment 31.05.2013
1. Vide this judgment I shall dispose off the present case filed by ASI Ram Singh (hereinafter referred as IO) on the complaint of Sh. Tajender Singh Bhatia (hereinafter referred as complainant) against Naveen (hereinafter referred as accused) for committing offences FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 1 of 12 under sections 341/325 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC).
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 15.02.2005 a DD entry No. 70B was registered at PS Hari Nagar regarding quarrel. DD entry was handed over to ASI Ram Singh for investigation, who reached the spot alongwith Ct. Babu Lal but nobody was present at the spot when they reached there. Another DD No. 73B was registered around 23:55 hours regarding admission of one person in the hospital namely T. S. Bhatia, who was having injury on his eye. That DD entry was also given to ASI Ram Singh. IO reached at Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and recorded the statement of injured. Eye witness Smt. Kamini Singh was also present in the hospital. Rukka was prepared and FIR was got registered through Ct. Babu Lal under section 323/341 IPC. The injury was opined as grievous and section 325 IPC was added by the IO.
3. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed under sections 341/325 IPC IPC against accused on 21.07.2005 and copies under section 207 CrPC supplied to accused on the same day itself.
Charge for the offences under section 341/325 IPC was framed against accused on 04.02.2008 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was put up for prosecution evidence. FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 2 of 12 EVIDENCE RECORDED DURING TRIAL:
4. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Smt. Kamini Singh is the eye witness of the incident. She stated that on 15.02.2005 around 10:35 PM, she had an altercation with accused Naveen. Accused abused and slapped her. Meanwhile, complainant Tajender Singh Bhatia came at the spot and accused inflicted injury on his left eye with fist blow. She exhibited the site plan as Ex. PW1/A and deposed on the lines of prosecution's case.
6. PW2 Tajender Singh Bhatia is the complainant. He also supported his initial version and exhibited his complaint as Ex. PW2/A.
7. PW3 HC Babu Lal accompanied the IO to the spot and took the rukka for registration of FIR.
8. PW4 Ct. Virender Singh exhibited the arrest memo and personal search memo of accused as Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B respectively.
9. PW5 SI Mahipal Singh exhibited the copy of FIR as Ex. PW5/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW5/B.
10.PW6 Dr. Rakesh Kapoor exhibited MLC No. 1060 of injured T. S. Bhatia as Ex. PW6/A and stated that injuries suffered by the victim were grievous in nature.
11. PW7 SI Ram Singh deposed on the lines of investigation being carried FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 3 of 12 out by him.
12.PW8 Dr. A. C. Shukla exhibited original emergency OPD ticket of the victim as Ex. PW8/A. He also exhibited record of operation and continuation sheet of the victim as Ex. PW8/B and Ex. PW8/C respectively.
13.Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 14.03.2013. Statement of accused under section under section 281 read with section 313 CrPC was recorded on 23.03.2013 wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to him in toto and he pleaded his false implication in the present case. He opted not to lead defence evidence.
14. I have heard the final arguments put forth by ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Defence Counsel Sh. Digvijay Singh.
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
15.Accused has been charged under section 325/341 IPC as he allegedly inflicted injuries on the person of late Sh. T. S. Bhatia when he tried to intervene between the quarrel between the eye witness and accused.
Before proceeding further I would like to reproduce section 325 and 341 IPC.
Section 325 IPC. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt. "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 4 of 12 liable to fine."
Section 341 IPC. Punishment for wrongful restraint. "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
16.It is argued on behalf of defence that victim was the patient of blood pressure and sugar and the alleged injuries were old in nature and were not suffered by him at the hands of the accused. Had it been the reality that complainant had suffered injuries, some part of earth would have been seized by the IO as blood was oozing out from the eye of the victim. But in absence of that it cannot be said that injuries were fresh in nature.
DD No. 70B was registered at 10:52 PM regarding quarrel and another DD No. 73 B was registered at 11:55 AM regarding admission of the victim in the hospital. The incident allegedly occurred around 10:30 PM, therefore, the incident was promptly reported to the police and the victim was taken to the hospital immediately. Patient was examined by Dr. Shiv Shankar Kamat on the said day. It is mentioned in the continuation sheet of the victim that he suffered injury in a brawl by the person who was a young boy. Patient was bleeding at that time. Patient was later on operated and he lost his eye sight FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 5 of 12 subsequently. All these facts reflect that injury was fresh and was suffered by the victim during the incident as alleged by the prosecution. Therefore, argument put forth by the defence is useless and is of no avail.
17. Ld. Defence Counsel has pointed out some contradictions between the statement of eye witness Kamini Singh and victim T. S. Bhatia to suggest that accused has been falsely implicated. It is argued that victim stated in his deposition that he was on night walk whereas eye witness Kamini Singh stated that victim was going to get medicine at that time. Furthermore, victim deposed that he informed Kamini about the incident whereas Kamini Singh stated that she was present at the spot. Version of complainant reflects that she was not present at the spot and that is why she was informed by him. All these contradictions reflect that Kamini Singh was not present at the spot. It is also doubtful that she accompanied the victim to the hospital. Had it been the case, her statement should have been recorded by the IO at hospital itself which is not done by the IO.
18.The contradictions pointed out by the defence are correct but the question is whether minor contradictions can be allowed to dismantle the whole prosecution case which is otherwise duly proved against the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Gangadhar Behera and others Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 6 of 12 381 has talked about the major and minor discrepancies in a criminal trial. It was held that:
"Normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there however honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepancies do so".
19.A person is not expected to have a mirror image like memory. The witnesses deposed before the court after a lapse of considerable amount of time. The incident occurred in the year 2005 and witness were examined in the year 2009. Therefore, the contradictions pointed out by the defence are of minor nature and does not go to the roots of this case. Therefore, contradictions are of no help to the accused. The fact in issue in this case is that whether accused inflicted injuries on the person of victim or not. PW1 and PW2 have clearly stated it was accused who gave fist blow to the victim. Their depositions are of utmost importance and these cannot be ignored in the light of minor contradictions.
20.The next argument put forth by the defence is that eye witness Kamini FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 7 of 12 Singh stated in her deposition that she was accompanied by her daughter as they were going to the GPO for deposition of a form. But her daughter has not been examined as the prosecution witness by the prosecution. If she was present with Smt. Kamini Singh at that time then she is another eye witness and her deposition is of utmost importance in this matter. It is further argued that incident occurred in a residential colony but no eye witness from the neighbourhood has been examined by the IO for the purpose of corroboration of the prosecution story.
21. It is the sole prerogative of the prosecution to examine as many as witnesses to prove its case and it is the quality and not the quantity of the witnesses which is material in a criminal trial. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act says that no specific number of witnesses are required to be examined in a case. A person can be convicted on the sole testimony of a witness provided he is reliable and trustworthy. As far as number of witness to be examined to prove the allegations against the accused is concerned, this point has been deliberated over by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Ramesh Krishna Madhusudhan Naiyar Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2008 Supreme Court 927 has considered this argument and held as under:
"Coming to the question whether on the basis of a solitary evidence conviction can be maintained, a bare FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 8 of 12 reference to Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872 would suffice. The provision clearly states that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish the case. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
22. Prosecution has examined eye witness Kamini Singh and Victim T. S. Bhatia during the trial and both of them apart from minor contradictions, have supported the prosecution version. They deposed in an unequivocal manner that accused Naveen quarreled with them and inflicted injury on the person of Sh. T. S. Bhatia. Therefore, non examination of daughter of Kamini Singh and any other person from the vicinity, is not so strong a ground so that accused can be acquitted on this ground alone.
23.Another argument put forth by the defence is that it was eye witness Kamini Singh who started quarrel as it is stated by her that she asked the accused not to come at her home when the accused passing through Gali No. 4, Virender Nagar. Accused did nothing to start the quarrel and it was Kamini Singh who was responsible for the same. It is further argued that if we accept the story of the prosecution as it is, even then it is not proved that assault on T. S. Bhaita and Kamini FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 9 of 12 Singh was premeditated because no weapon was used by the accused and only one fist blow was given to him. All these facts reflect that accused has been falsely implicated by the connivance of Kamini Singh and victim.
The reason given for false implication is that Kamini Singh and T. S. Bhatia were in illicit relationship which was objected by the family of the accused. The fact that no weapon has been recovered from the possession of the accused and only one fist blow was given is of no consequence. It is proved from the deposition of PW1 and PW2 that accused inflicted injury on the person of Sh. T. S. Bhatia and which proved to be grievous in nature and that is enough to prove charge under section 325 IPC against the accused. Charge under section 341 IPC is also substantiated by the deposition of PW1 and PW2. However, reason for false implication is also unbelievable. Reason being if PW1 and PW2 had illicit relationship with each other, then how the family of the accused was concerned with that because their families are not connected with the family of the accused. Defence has also failed to disclose even a single instance when any altercation took place between the family of the accused and PW1 and PW2. It seems that defence is confused about the manner in which the injury was suffered by the victim. In the cross examination of PW1 it has been suggested that victim suffered injuries as he fell from the FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 10 of 12 stairs of his house but no such suggestion has been given to the victim himself. Therefore, reason of false implication seems to be cropped up into the mind of the accused to safeguard himself but he is not consistent enough to put up his case to the witnesses during the trial. It is argued by the Ld. Defence Counsel that eye witness Kamini Singh threatened the accused for false implication as she had an altercation with the accused some days prior to the incident and that is how accused has been framed by her with the help of the victim.
24.Even for the sake of argument if we accept that Kamini Singh threatened the accused then why would the victim suffer injuries on his body which resulted into total loss of his eye sight. Defence has also failed to bring on record any fact or evidence that they were in connivance with each other. A person would not go to so much extent that he would loose his eye sight just to falsely implicate a person at the instance of another person.
25.The incident occurred at 10:30 PM and same was reported to the police at 10:52 PM, injured was taken to hospital immediately and the FIR was registered at 12:35 AM. PW1 eye witness Kamini Singh and PW2 complainant/injured T. S. Bhatia have thoroughly supported the prosecution case. It is duly proved by the prosecution that accused wrongfully restrained the victim and the eye witness and inflicted grievous injury on the person of the victim. In my considered view, FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 11 of 12 prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and I hereby convict the accused for committing offences under section 325/341 IPC.
26.Relist the matter for arguments on sentence on 07.06.2013.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DHIRENDRA RANA
ON 31st May, 2013 MM02/WEST DELHI
FIR No. 85/2005 PS Hari Nagar Page No. 12 of 12