Delhi District Court
State vs Sanju & Ors. on 27 August, 2018
STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15
U/S 308/34 IPC
PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PANKAJ GUPTA: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.53381/16
CNR No.:DLNW01-005697-2016
State
Vs
1. Sanju
S/o Sh. Lala Ram Gupta
R/o H.No.655, Gali no.7, Ambedkar Nagar,
Delhi.
2. Kamal
S/o Late Sh. Dinesh Kumar
R/o H.No.655, Gali no.7, Ambedkar Nagar,
Delhi.
3. Inderjeet @ Sonu
S/o Sh. Vakil Yadav
R/o H.No.632, Gali no.7, Ambedkar Nagar,
Delhi.
4. Smt. Rajni
W/o Sh. Rajesh Jha
R/o H.No.639, Gali no.7, Ambedkar Nagar,
Delhi. ........Accused
FIR No. : 394/15
Police Station : Shalimar Bagh
Under Section : 308/34 IPC
Date of committal to Sessions Court : 08.08.2016
Date on which judgment reserved : 27.08.2018
Date on which judgment pronounced : 27.08.2018
Page no. 1 of 17
STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15
U/S 308/34 IPC
PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
JUDGMENT
1. This is a case under section 308/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
2. On 20.03.2015, at about 9:00pm, Suman (the complainant) was present at her home. That time, the complainant heard some noises coming from outside. She came out and saw that all the accused were standing outside her house and on seeing her, they started abusing her. She tried to make them understand but Inderjeet @ Sonu (the accused no.3) stated "tu gali ki pardhan banti aaj hum tujhe sabak sikha dete hai" and hit the danda, which he already carried in his hand, on her head. Sanju (the accused no.
1) and Kamal (the accused no. 2) caught hold of her. The accused no. 3 and Rajni (the accused no. 4) started beating her. The accused no. 4 gave blow on her head with the sharp object. The complainant raised alarm. In response thereto, her minor children i.e. her son Jai Prakash @ Babloo and her daughter Pooja came outside her house and tried to rescue her but all the accused started beating them also. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot. Complainant made a call at phone no. 100.
CHARGE
3. Charge under section 308/34 IPC qua Suman and charge under section 323/34 IPC qua Jai Prakash @ Babloo and Pooja were settled against all the accused. All the accused plead not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE Page no. 2 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
4. In order to discharge the onus, the prosecution has examined 09 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
5. PW3 Suman Tiwari (the complainant) deposed that on 20.03.2015, at about 9.00 pm, she was present at her house. That time, the accused no. 1 to 4 were abusing her outside her house. She tried to make them understand but all the accused started saying "tu gali ki pardhan banti aaj hum tujhe sabak sikha dete hai". The accused no. 1 and 2 caught hold of her and the accused no. 3, who was having danda, gave the danda blow on her head. Meanwhile, the accused no. 4, who was having some sharp object, gave blow on her head with said sharp object. She raised alarm. In response thereto, her minor children i.e. her son Jai Prakash @ Babloo (PW7) and her daughter Pooja (PW8) came outside her house and tried to rescue her but all the accused started beating them also. Thereafter, all the accused ran away from the spot.
6. PW3 also deposed that she made call to police at 100 number. Police arrived at the spot and took her and her children to BJRM Hospital where they got treatment. She was in pain. Next day in the evening, she went to the police station where Investigating Officer (PW6) recorded her statement Ex. PW3/A. At her instance, the police prepared site plan Ex. PW3/B. All the accused were residing in the same locality where she was residing.
7. PW-3 further deposed that she asked the police official to seize the blood stained shirt of PW7, her blood stained kurta and blood stained top of PW8 which were worn by them at the time of incident but the police official did not seize the same. That day, she brought the blood stained shirt of her son PW7, her blood stained kurta and Page no. 3 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH blood stained top of PW8 and the same was tendered in evidence as Shirt Ex. P-1, Kurta Ex. P-2 and Top Ex. P-3.
8. PW-3 also deposed that she had filed a complaint in the court of learned CMM and along with two photographs of PW7, PW8 and of herself showing them in injured condition. Both the photographs are marked as Mark PW3/C and Mark PW3/D.
9. PW-7 Jai Prakash (son of the complainant) deposed that on 20.03.2015, at about 9.00 pm, he alongwith his younger sister PW8 was present at home. He heard the noise of abuse coming from outside. He alongwith PW8 came out in the street and saw that the accused no. 1 to 4 were beating PW3. Accused no. 4 was carrying the iron rod which was sharp pointed and the accused no. 3 was having the danda. They were beat- ing his mother with the iron rod and the danda. When he and PW8 tried to rescue their mother, all the accused started beating him and PW8. He sustained injury on his head. Thereafter, all accused ran away from the spot. PW3 dialed at 100 number. Police of- ficials came at the spot and took them to BJRM Hospital. PW-6 recorded his statement at his home. He also identified the shirt Ex.P1, Kurta Ex.P2 and Top Ex.P3.
10. PW-8 (daughter of PW-3) deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW7 and identified the clothes.
POLICE/OFFICIAL WITNESSES
11. PW-5 Ct. Sunil Dutt deposed that on 20.03.2015, at about 9.00 pm, SI Krishan Kumar (PW6) received DD no. 50-A regarding the quarrel at Gali No. 7, Haiderpur. He alongwith PW6 reached at the spot where they came to know that the injured persons had been taken to BJRM hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith PW6 reached at Page no. 4 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH BJRM hospital, Jahangir Puri. PW6 obtained the MLC of injured persons. PW3 told PW6 that due to severe pain, she was not able to get recorded her statement.
12. PW-1 HC Bhupender proved the copy of FIR Ex.PW-1/A, endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW-1/B and certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW-1/C.
13. PW-4 HC Narender deposed that on 21.03.2015, the duty officer handed over him original Tehrir and copy of FIR to hand over to PW6 which he did. Thereafter, he alongwith PW6 tried to search the accused but they could not be found.
14. PW-6 Retd. SI Krishan Kumar (Investigating Officer) deposed that on 20.03.2015, at about 9.00 pm, he received DD no. 50-A regarding the quarrel at Gali No. 7, Haiderpur and proved attested copy of the same as Ex.PW6/A. He also deposed on the similar lines as deposed by PW-5. He further deposed that concerned doctor opined the nature of injury on the MLC of PW7 and PW8 as simple and reserved the opinion on the MLC of PW3. All the injured persons met him in the hospital. He asked PW3 to get her statement recorded but she told him that due to severe pain, she was not able to get recorded her statement. PW7 and PW8 were also not ready to give their statements on that day. Thereafter, he alongwith PW5 came back to the police station and DD No. 50-A was kept pending.
15. PW-6 also deposed that on 21.03.2015, PW3 alongwith PW7 and PW8 came to the police station and gave her statement Ex.PW3/A. He prepared the rukka Ex.PW6/B and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he alongwith PW3, PW7 and PW8 reached at the spot and prepared the site plan Ex.PW3/B. He recorded the statement of PW7 and PW8 and supplementary statement of PW3. PW4 came to MAX hospital and handed over him the copy of FIR and original tehrir. Thereafter, he alongwith PW4 visited in Page no. 5 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH the jhuggies situated behind the MAX Hospital in search of the accused persons. But they could not be found on that day.
16. PW-6 further deposed that on 30.03.2015, the accused no. 1 and 2 were granted the anticipatory bail and were formally arrested on 18.04.2015 vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW6/D. He recorded their disclosure statement Mark-PW6/A. Both of them led him to the place of occurrence. At the instance of the accused no. 1, he prepared site plan Ex.PW6/E.
17. PW-6 deposed that later on, the accused no. 3 and 4 were formally arrested on 06.09.2015 as they were on anticipatory bail. They were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/F and Ex.PW6/G. Thereafter, they were released on bail. He collected the MLC of all the injured persons and placed on record. After completion of investigation, challan was prepared and filed in the court.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
18. PW-2 Dr. Mukesh Mandal, CMO, BJRM Hospital deposed that on 20.03.2015, PW3 was brought by W/Ct Sunita for medical examination with alleged history of as- sault and she was found having following four multiple lacerated wounds:
I) CLW in middle parietal region of size 4 x 0.5 c.m. ii) CLW in temporo parietal region of size 3 x 0.5 c.m.
iii) CLW in parieto occipital region of size 3 x 0.5 c.m.
iv) CLW at the root of nose of size 1 x 0.5 c.m.
19. After examination, PW3 was referred for surgery. As per the final opinion, nature of injury was simple. He proved the MLC of PW3 Ex.PW-2/A. Page no. 6 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
20. PW-2 also deposed that that day, PW7 was examined in casualty under his su- pervision and on local examination, he was found having CLW 2 x 1 c.m. in left pari- etal region. Nature of injury was opined as simple. He proved his MLC Ex.PW-2/B.
21. PW2 also deposed that PW8 was found having CLW 3 x 0.5 c.m. in frontal re- gion of head and small abrasion over left shoulder. He proved her MLC Ex.PW-2/C. As per final opinion, she had received simple injuries.
22. PW-9 Dr. Deepak Chugh proved the endorsement at point X on the MLC Ex.PW2/A and deposed that as per final opinion, nature of injury was simple.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
23. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of all the accused was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure in which all the incriminating evidence/material were put to them which they have denied. All the accused have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
24. The accused examined 5 witnesses in their defence.
25. I have heard the ld. Addl. PP for the State and counsels for all the accused and have perused the material available on record.
IDENTITY OF THE ACCUSED Page no. 7 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
26. It is evident from the testimony of PW3, PW7 and PW8 that they knew all the accused persons prior to the date of incident. All the accused are specifically named in the statement of PW3 Ex.PW3/A and FIR Ex.PW1/A. Further, all the accused have not disputed their identity as such. As such, there is no dispute as to the identity of all the accused. Therefore, the identity of all the accused stands proved.
DATE, TIME AND PLACE OF INCIDENT
27. According to the prosecution, the incident took place on 20.03.2015 at about 9.00 pm, in the street situated in front of house no.644, Gali No.7, Haider Pur, Delhi. In the site plan Ex.PW3/B, point 'A' depicts the place of incident. The accused have not disputed the correctness of the said site plan. Further, in cross-examination of PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8, the accused have not disputed the date, time and place of incident. Further, PW-3 in her cross examination denied a suggestion that at the time of incident, about 20 persons had gathered at the spot. Therefore, the date, time and place of incident stand proved.
PRESENCE OF ALL THE ACCUSED AT THE SCENE OF CRIME
28. PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 specifically deposed about the presence of all the accused at the scene of crime at the relevant time. In cross examination of PW-3, counsel for the accused gave suggestions that the accused no.1 and 2 had intervened to pacify the fight or that Rajesh and Bablu (PW-7) had caught hold of the accused no.4 and the accused no.1 and 2 had intervened to save her. As such, the accused no.1, 2 and 4 have admitted their presence at the scene of crime at the relevant time.
Page no. 8 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH 28-A. Regarding the presence of accused no.3, no suggestion was given to PW-3, PW- 7 and PW-8 that he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. Further, the accused no.3 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that on the date of incident, PW-3 was abusing the accused no.4. Accordingly, Rakesh and PW-7 came there and started beating the accused no.4 and he along with other public persons intervened to save him. This statement proves the presence of the accused no.3 at the scene of crime at the relevant time.
29. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the presence of all the accused at the scene of crime at the relevant time stand proved.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
30. PW-2 proved the MLC of PW3 Ex.PW-2/A perusal of which reveals that she sustained following four multiple lacerated wounds:
I) CLW in middle parietal region of size 4 x 0.5 c.m. ii) CLW in temporo parietal region of size 3 x 0.5 c.m.
iii) CLW in parieto occipital region of size 3 x 0.5 c.m.
iv) CLW at the root of nose of size 1 x 0.5 c.m.
31. PW-9 proved the endorsement at point X on the MLC Ex.PW2/A and deposed that as per final opinion, nature of injury was simple.
32. PW-2 also proved MLC of PW7 perusal of which reveals that on local examina- tion, PW7 was found having CLW 2 x 1 c.m. in left parietal region. Nature of injury was opined as simple.
Page no. 9 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
33. PW2 also proved MLC of PW8 Ex.PW-2/B perusal of which reveals that PW8 was found having CLW 3 x 0.5 c.m. in frontal region of head and small abrasion over left shoulder. As per final opinion, she had received simple injuries.
34. The testimony of PW2 and PW9 remained unrebutted to this effect. Further, PW9 in his cross examination denied that the injuries sustained by PW3 could have been caused due to fall. Hence, the injuries sustained by PW3, PW7 and PW8 and their nature stand proved.
35. Now the question arises whether the injuries sustained by PW3, PW-7 and PW8 were attributable to the accused persons or not.
36. Counsel for the accused pleaded that there was delay in lodging the FIR.
37. As held above, the incident took place on 20.03.2015 at about 9:00pm. As revealed from the MLC of PW-3, after the incident, she was removed to the BJRM Hospital. PW-3 in his testimony specifically deposed that on the date of incident, she was in pain, hence, she could not make the statement that day. PW-6 also deposed to that effect. In cross examination of PW-3 and PW-6, no suggestion to the contrary was given by counsel for the accused. Hence, it can be held that on 20.03.2015, PW-3 had not given the statement as she was suffering from pain.
38. It is evident from the record that on 21.03.2015, PW-3 visited the police station and gave his statement Ex.PW-3/A. In cross examination of PW-3 and PW-6, no suggestion to the contrary was given by counsel for the accused. It is no where the case of the accused that PW-3 had deliberately made the statement at belated stage or her statement Ex.PW-3/A was not her voluntary statement or was made by her under pressure or at the instance of PW6 (the Investigating Officer). Hence, it can be held Page no. 10 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH that the statement of PW-3 Ex.PW-3/A was the voluntary statement of PW-3.
39. It is not the case of the accused that PW-7 & PW-8 had deliberately delayed in making their statement.
40. In cross examination of PW3, no suggestion was given to her that she had deliberately delayed in lodging the FIR.
41. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that PW-3 has satisfactorily explained the delay in making the statement which resulted in lodging of the subject FIR. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea raised by counsel for the accused to this effect.
42. Counsel for the accused pleaded that on 22.02.2015, a complaint was lodged by almost 20 persons against PW-3 and being aggrieved by the same, PW-3 falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case. If that was so, the accused has failed to explain why PW-3 lodged the FIR only against the accused persons and not against all the said 22-25 persons. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea raised by counsel for the accused to this effect.
43. PW-3 in her testimony specifically deposed that on 20.03.2015, at about 9.00 pm, the accused no. 1 to 4 were abusing her outside her house; once she tried to make them understand, all the accused started saying "tu gali ki pardhan banti aaj hum tujhe sabak sikha dete hai"; the accused no. 1 and 2 caught hold of her and the accused no. 3, who was having danda, gave the danda blow on her head; meanwhile, the accused no. 4, who was having some sharp object, gave blow on her head with said sharp object. No suggestions to the contrary were given in her cross examination.
Page no. 11 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH
44. PW3 also deposed that once she raised alarm, PW7 and PW8 came and tried to rescue her but all the accused started beating them also. The said testimony of PW-3 is corroborated with PW-7 and PW-8 in material particulars. Further, in cross examination of PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8, no specific suggestion to contrary was given by counsel for the accused.
45. Counsel for the accused pleaded that Rajesh and PW-7 had caught hold the accused no.4 and accused no.1 and 2 intervened to save him. In the cross examination of PW-3, counsel for the accused gave a suggestion to that effect which was denied by her. However, in cross examination of PW-7 and PW-8, no such suggestion was given.
46. Accused no.1 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC in reply to question no.20 stated that a dispute was going on between PW-3 and the accused no.4 and he along with the public persons had intervened to pacify the situation. However, no such suggestion was given to PW-3. Further, he remained silent about the intervention of the accused no.2.
47. Accused no. 2 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC remained completely silent to this effect.
48. Accused no.3 in his statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that on the date of incident PW-3 was abusing the accused no.4. Accordingly, Rakesh and PW-7 came there and started beating the accused no.4 and he along with other public persons intervened to save him. No such suggestion was given to PW-3 and PW7. Further, the said statement is contrary to the statement made by PW-1.
49. To this effect, the accused no.4 in her statement u/s 313 CrPC stated that when she was passing through the street, PW-3 along with her children started abusing her.
Page no. 12 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH Her statement is completely silent about the fact that Rakesh /Rajesh and PW-7 had caught hold of her and beaten her and that the accused had intervened to save him along with the public persons. As such, the said statement is contrary to the statement made by accused no.1to 3 also.
50. DW-1 Sonia deposed to the extent that on 20.03.2015, when she came out of her house, she saw that some dispute was going on between PW-3 and some persons who were unknown to him. That time, the accused no.4 came in the street and PW-3 and her family members started beating her. Accordingly, the accused no.4 sustained ear injury and that time the neighbours intervened and resolved the dispute. Firstly, the said statement of DW-1 is completely contrary to the stand taken by the accused persons. Secondly, DW-1 in her cross examination stated that once she came out of the house she saw that accused no.4 had already sustained ear injury. It implies that no such incident as deposed by her, had taken place in her presence. As such, testimony of DW-1 is not reliable in nature.
51. DW-2 also deposed on the lines of DW-1. For the reasons mentioned above, the testimony of DW2 is also not reliable in nature.
52. DW-5 (the accused no.4) examined herself and deposed that, that day PW-3 was abusing some persons and once she objected Rakesh and PW-7 intervened and told that as to why she was interfering as the accused no.3 was not abusing her. That time, Rakesh and PW-7 caught hold her and PW-7 attempted to tear her cloths and Rakesh has forcibly removed her Kundal (ear rings). However, no such suggestion was given to PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8. Even she has not stated the said fact in her statement u/s 313 CrPC. As such, statement of DW-5 is not reliable in nature.
53. According to the site plan Ex.PW-3/B, the incident took place in front of house Page no. 13 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH of PW-3. As held above, presence of all the accused at the scene of crime at relevant time stands proved. The accused have failed to justify their presence at the scene of crime i.e. in front of house of PW-3. As such, it can be held that the accused were the aggressor and had initiated the quarrel.
54. According to the accused, PW-3 had the motive to falsely implicate them in the present case because of the complaint dated 22.02.2015, the rent litigation and an FIR u/s 376 (D) IPC lodged against the accused no.4. Firstly, the accused has failed to prove the same. Secondly, it is admitted that an incident had taken place that day and as held above, the accused visited in front of house of PW-3 and they have failed to justify their presence that time. As such, if PW-3 had any motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case then she would have visited their place to quarrel. In view of the submissions, it can be held that PW-3, PW-7 and PW-8 had no motive to falsely implicate the accused in the present case.
55. Counsel for the accused pleaded that the weapon of offence i.e. the iron rod and the dandas are not recovered in the present case. Further, PW-3 in her examination deposed that it was some sharp object, however, in her cross examination, she deposed that it was an iron pipe. Further, PW-7 and PW-8 both deposed that accused no.4 was carrying an iron rod with sharp point. As such, there exists contradiction as to the weapon of offence.
56. In cross examination of PW-7 and PW-8, no suggestion was given that the accused no.4 was not carrying an iron rod with sharp point. The accused have not disputed the injury sustained by PW-3. As held above, the injuries sustained by PW3 and their nature stand proved. The injuries sustained by PW-7 and PW-8 also stand proved. PW-9 deposed to the extent that the injury sustained by PW-3 were not result of fall. Therefore, non recovery of the weapon of offence are not fatal to the case of Page no. 14 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH prosecution.
57. Counsel for the accused pleaded that in the DD no.50A one phone no. 7053710405 is mentioned. But the said number does not belong to PW-3. Further, IO has not done any investigation to this effect. Vide the said DD, information regarding the incident was given by the informer. PW3, PW7 and PW8 in their testimony specifically deposed that it was PW3 who made the phone call at 100 number. Their said testimony remained unrebutted. Further, as held above, the incident stands proved. Therefore, merely because IO has not made any investigation to this effect is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
58. Counsel for the accused pleaded that PW-3 stated that there was no neighbourer. However, PW-7 and PW-8 deposed that neighbourers were present at the time of incident. As such, there exists contradiction in their testimony. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that the said contradiction is not the material contradiction to discredit their testimony.
59. Counsel for the accused pleaded that the police has not taken the action on the complaint filed by the accused no.4 against the complainant side. It was the complainant side who inflicted injuries upon her. To this effect, the accused have examined DW3 and DW4.
60. DW-3 HC Azharuddin proved the DD entry no.51B Ex.DW-3/A lodged by the accused no.4. DW-4 Dr. V.K. Jha, CMO, BJRM Hospital proved the emergency registration card Ex. DW4/A stating to be that of one Rajni.
61. Firstly, the accused have not proved the alleged complaint. Secondly, no suggestion was given to PW-6 to this effect. Thirdly, if the accused no.4 was aggrieved Page no. 15 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH by the same, she would have initiated the appropriate action against the defaulting police officials but nothing was done.
62. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that presence of all the accused at the scene of crime and their purpose, on the given date and time stand proved. It is also proved that all the accused gave beating to PW3, PW7 and PW8 on their vital body part. All the accused aided each other in commission of the offence. As such, the active participation of all the accused in the incident stands proved. Therefore, it can be held that all the accused shared the common intention to beat PW3, PW7 and PW8 and in furtherance of their common intention, they had beaten them and inflicted injuries on them. Hence, the injuries sustained by PW3, PW7 and PW8 were attributable to all the accused persons. Reliance is placed upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Virendra Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh", in reported in (2010) 8 SCC 407.
63. Now the question arises whether all the accused did the acts with such intentional and knowledge and under such circumstances that, if they by that act caused death, they would be guilty of murder.
64. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that PW3, PW7 and PW8 and all the accused were known to each other prior to date of incident and all of them were present at the scene of crime on the given date and time. That time, firstly, all the accused had gone to the house of PW3 and abused her. There was no instigation on the part of PW-3. Thereafter, the accused inflicted injuries on vital body parts of PW3 i.e. head and nose. The accused did all that knowing fully well the nature of their acts. All the accused ran away after the incident. In view of the foregoing discussions, it can be held that all the accused inflicted the injuries on the vital part of PW3 with intentional and knowledge and under such circumstances if they by that act caused death of PW3, Page no. 16 of 17 STATE VS SANJU & ORS.
FIR NO.394/15U/S 308/34 IPC PS: SHALIMAR BAGH they would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of PW1. In the said process, they had caused hurt of PW-3. As such, the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of section 308 IPC. Therefore, all the accused are held guilty u/s 308/34 IPC.
65. As held above, once, PW7 and PW8 intervened to save PW3, all the accused also beaten them due to which they also sustained injuries on their vital body part. As such, the prosecution has proved the essential ingredients of section 323 IPC. Therefore, all the accused are held guilty u/s 323/34 IPC.
66. Accordingly, all the accused are convicted for the offence under section 308/34 IPC and under section 323/34 IPC Digitally signed by PANKAJ PANKAJ GUPTA Announced in the open court GUPTA Date:
2018.08.28 14:32:24 +0530 on this 27th day of August, 2018.
(Pankaj Gupta) ASJ (FTC), North-West Rohini: Delhi Page no. 17 of 17