Delhi District Court
State vs . Leela Ram @ Bache & Another on 4 April, 2019
SC/129/17
State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK JAGOTRA,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC/129/17
CNR No.DLNE010069872016
State Versus 1. Leela Ram @ Bache
S/o Late Shri Prahlad Dutt
R/o House No.394, Gali No.12,
Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi
2. Kanhaiya Lal
S/o Late Shri Prahlad Dutt
R/o House No.18, Gali No.2,
Phase4, Shiv Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi
FIR No.727/14
PS Karawal Nagar
under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC
Date of institution of case : 22052017
Reserved for judgment on : 15022019
Judgment passed on : 04042019
FIR No.727/14
PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 1 /27
under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC
SC/129/17
State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another
JUDGMENT
1. The present case has been filed on behalf of State whereby prosecution is seeking conviction of accused (1) Leela Ram @ Bache and (2) Kanhaiya Lal, who both in furtherance of their common intention had committed house trespass by entering into House No.B 400, Gali No.12, Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi for causing hurt to complainant Rai Singh and caused hurt to complainant Rai Singh with knives and sticks for the offences punishable under Section 452/34 & 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter shall be referred as "IPC").
2. I have heard both the sides and meticulously 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 offences charged against them.
FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 2 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another
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 a reasonable doubt against the accused persons and further prays for the acquittal of the accused persons.
5. The facts of the case in concise format are that on 2308 2014 at about 9 pm, accused persons Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal, both in furtherance of their common intention have committed trespass by entering in House No.B400, Gali No.12, Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi for causing hurt to complainant Rai Singh and they in furtherance of their common intention had caused hurt to complainant Rai Singh by knives and sticks.
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;
The present case has been committed for trial and the FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 3 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another charge sheet was received by the Court on 22052017. Charge was framed against the accused persons on 31052017 for the offences punishable under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC to which they plead not guilty and claim trial for the offences charged against them.
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses.
9. Statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused persons were recorded on 19042018.
10. In their defence, one witness has been examined by the accused persons.
11. It is pointed out that the entire case shall be scrutinized and analyzed keeping an eye on the settled provisions of law and judicial precedents.
ANALYSIS OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE OCCULAR EVIDENCE
12. The prosecution in order to prove its case has brought in FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 4 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another the witness box injured Rai Singh as PW3, who has stated that on 23082014 at about 9 pm, he went to his house from his work and 45 persons trespassed into his house and pulled him outside. He has further stated that both accused Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal were carrying knife in their hands and they started beating him. He has further stated that no one came to save him and after assaulting him, all of them ran away from there. He has further stated that he sustained injuries on his head, hand and thighs and he was also given knife blows on his head, hand and thigh by the accused persons. He has further stated that since he was lying outside his house, somebody gave a call at 100 number on which PCR arrived at the spot and he was removed to GTB Hospital and was treated there. He has further stated that his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the police in the hospital.
13. From the cross examination, it has been elicited that he was in his undergarments and was going to take bath. It has been further elicited that he knew accused persons for the past 45 years FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 5 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another prior to the incident. It has been further elicited that his statement was recorded on the second or third day after he regained consciousness. It has been further elicited that he was discharged from the hospital after 8 days and he had seen the accused persons after their arrest in the PS.
14. PW1 Shri Laxman Prasad, who was the landlord of complainant Rai Singh has appeared in the witness box and has stated that Amit @ Rai Singh was his tenant and he used to live with his wife and children as a tenant in House No.400, Gali No.12, Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi94. He has further stated that on 23082014, he was not present in his house and when he returned, he saw a crowd gathered and he came to know that there was a quarrel. He has further stated that police was called and police had picked up Amit@ Rai Singh, who was lying on the road. He has further stated that he had given tenant verification form of the injured to the IO.
15. Nothing material has been asked in the cross examination of this witness worth reproduced herein.
FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 6 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another
16. Few other questions have been asked in the cross examination of these witnesses which are of hardly any importance. Few suggestions in the form of defence have been given which shall be dealt with at a later stage of this judgment.
IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED PERSONS
17. As far as identity of the accused persons are concerned, injured PW3 Rai Singh in his cross examination has stated that he knew the accused persons for the past 45 years prior to the incident. Accused persons are identified in the Court as well. Hence, as far as identity of the accused persons are concerned, it is established that accused Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal are the same accused persons, who had caused injuries on the person of Rai Singh.
RECOVERY OF WEAPONS OF OFFENCE
18. As far as weapons of offence i.e. knives are concerned, it has come on record that nothing could recover either at the instance or from the possession of accused persons. PW9 SI Abodh Kumar, FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 7 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another who is the second IO of this case has stated that no recovery could be effected from any of the accused.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
19. PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Senior Resident, ESI Hospital, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi has appeared in the witness box and has stated that on 17112014, he opined the nature of injuries sustained by injured Rai Singh as grievous on his MLC on the basis of NeuroSurgical Record and his endorsement in this regard is Ex.PW7/A. He has further stated that as per CT Report No.CT ID 11972, there was features suggestive of hemorraghic contusion in left temporal region with subdural hemorraghe of patient Rai Singh.
20. In the cross examination, he has stated that he cannot comment that injuries to the patient may be caused due to fall.
21. PW8 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, DMS, GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi has appeared in the witness box and has stated that he had been deputed by MS, GTB Hospital to depose on behalf of FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 8 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another Dr.Manik Tikko, the then JR, GTB Hospital, who had left the service of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. He has further stated that he had worked with him and he had seen him writing and signing during their course of duty. He has further stated that as per record on local examination of injured Rai Singh, following injuries were found on the person of injured; (1) Incised wound three in number on right thigh.
5X3 cm laterally 3X1.5 cm laterally 3X2cm medially (2) Patterned Bruis 10X2 cm on right side of chest. (3) Incised wound 2.5X1 cm on the back of left middle finger. (4) Incised wound 3X .5 cm on right parietotemporal area. (5) Laceration 5X1 cm on right parietofrontal area of head.
22. He has further stated that after examination, patient was referred to neurotrauma ward surgery emergency and MLC No.3514/2014 of injured Rai Singh is Ex.PW8/A bearing signatures FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 9 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another of Dr. Manik Tikko at point A.
23. In the cross examination carried out on behalf of accused Leela Ram, he has stated that alcohol smell was found present.
DEPOSITION OF OTHER FORMAL PROSECUTION WITNESSES
24. Besides these witnesses, prosecution has also examined other formal witnesses to prove as follows;
S.No. Name of witness To prove 1. PW2 Ct. Ram Chander FIR Ex.PW2/A, Rukka Ex.PW2/B and
certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.PW2/C
2. PW4 Ct. Boby Singh Arrest Memo and personal search memo of accused Leela Ram Ex.PW4/A and Ex.PW4/B respectively, disclosure statement of accused Leela Ram Ex.PW4/C and Ex.PW4/D and pointing out memo Ex.PW4/E
3. PW6 SI Shrichand DD No.56A Ex.PW6/A, site plan Ex.PW6/C CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE
25. From the evidence, it is evinced that on 23082014, PW3 Rai Singh, who was a tenant at House No.B400, Gali No.12, Prem Nagar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi came to his house after his work. At FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 10 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another about 9 pm, he saw 45 persons entered into his house and pulled him outside. Both accused persons Kanhaiya Lal and Leela Ram @ Bache were armed with knives and they started beating him. PW3 Rai Singh was given knife blows on his head, hand and thighs by the accused persons and no one came to rescue him. After the assault, accused persons ran away from the spot. Somebody called the police at 100 number and police arrived at the spot and removed injured Rai Singh to GTB Hospital. His statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded by the police in the hospital. It has come in his evidence that he has no previous enmity with the accused persons and he does not know the reason of physical assault on him.
26. The fact that PW3 Rai Singh was a tenant is corroborated by the statement of PW1 Laxman Prasad, who had stated that Amit @ Rai Singh was his tenant from August, 2013 to August, 2014 and he used to live in tenanted premises along with his wife and children. On 23082014, he was not present in his house and when he returned, he saw a crowd gathered there and he came to know that there was a FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 11 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another quarrel and he made a call at 100 number. Police arrived at the spot and picked up Amit @ Rai Singh, who was lying on the road and removed him to GTB Hospital.
27. From the cross examination, nothing material could be elicited from the aforesaid witnesses. Some questions were asked about the tenanted premises, as to when his statement was recorded, when he was discharged and how many times, he had visited the police station. All these questions were answered by PW3 Rai Singh in his cross examination. The answers to the questions put are not worthy reproducing here. Few suggestions were given in the cross examination which shall be dealt with at a later stage in the judgment.
28. As far as identity of the accused persons are concerned, in the cross examination, PW3 Rai Singh has clearly stated that he knew accused persons 45 years prior to the incident and he clearly identified both the accused persons in the dock as well.
29. The entire case rests on the sole statement of PW3 Rai Singh. In this regard, in a judgment titled as Alagupandi vs. State of FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 12 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another Tamilnadu reported in AIR 2012 SC 2405, the Apex Court has observed that : "In the case of Govindaraju @ Govinda vs State of Sriramapuram P.S. and Anr., (Crl. Appeal No. 984 of 2007 decided on March 15, 2012), this Court held as under :
11. Now, we come to the second submission raised on behalf of the Appellant that the material witness has not been examined and the reliance cannot be placed upon the sole testimony of the police witness (eyewitness). It is a settled proposition of law of evidence that it is not the number of witnesses that matters but it is the substance. It is also not necessary to examine a large number of witnesses if the prosecution can bring home the guilt of the accused even with a limited number of witnesses. In the case of Lallu Manjhi and Anr. vs. FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 13 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another State of Jharkhand MANU/SC/0004/2003 : (2003) 2 SCC 401, this Court had classified the oral testimony of the witnesses into three categories :
a. Wholly reliable;
b. Wholly unreliable; and c. Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable
12. In the third category of witnesses, the Court has to be cautious and see if the statement of such witness is corroborated, either by the other witnesses or by other documentary or expert evidence. Equally well settled is the proposition of law that where there is a sole witness to the incident, his evidence has to be accepted with caution and after testing it on the touchstone of evidence tendered by other witnesses or evidence otherwise recorded. The evidence of a sole witness should be cogent, reliable and must essentially fit FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 14 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another into the chain of events that have been stated by the prosecution. When the prosecution relies upon the testimony of a sole eyewitness, then such evidence has to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. Presence of such witness at the occurrence should not be doubtful. If the evidence of the sole witness is in conflict with the other witnesses, it may not be safe to make such a statement as a foundation of the conviction of the accused. These are the few principles which the Court has stated consistently and with certainty. Reference in this regard can be made to the cases of Joseph Vs. State of Kerala, MANU/SC/1084/2002: (2003) 1 SCC 465 and Tika Ram vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2007) 15 SCC
760. Even in the case of Jhapsa Kabari and Ors. Vs State of Bihar MANU/SC/0776/2001 : (2001) 10 SCC 94, this Court took the view that if the FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 15 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another presence of a witness is doubtful, it becomes a case of conviction based on the testimony of a solitary witness. There is, however, no bar in basing the conviction on the testimony of a solitary witness so long as the said witness is reliable and trustworthy."
30. There is no room for doubt that statement of PW3 Rai Singh is clear, cogent and trustworthy. However, for the sake of abundant caution, it could be seen if his case is corroborated by other evidence available on record. In this regard, the medical evidence is worth considering. The case of PW3 Rai Singh is duly supported by the medical record which is proved by PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, Senior Resident, ESI Hospital, Sector 15, Rohini, Delhi and PW8 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, DMS, GTB Hospital, Shahdara, Delhi. PW8 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram has proved the MLC of the injured Rai Singh as Ex.PW8/A and PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar has proved his opinion regarding nature of injuries sustained by injured as grievous on the FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 16 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another basis of NeuroSurgical Record which is Ex.PW7/A.
31. From the cross examination of PW7 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, it has been elicited that he cannot comment that injuries to the patient may be caused due to fall.
32. The number of injuries received by PW3 Rai Singh are proved by PW8 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram which are as under; (1) Incised wound three in number on right thigh.
5X3 cm laterally 3X1.5 cm laterally 3X2cm medially (2) Patterned Bruis 10X2 cm on right side of chest. (3) Incised wound 2.5X1 cm on the back of left middle finger. (4) Incised wound 3X .5 cm on right parietotemporal area. (5) Laceration 5X1 cm on right parietofrontal area of head.
33. From the above, it is amply clear that there are 5 incised wounds, viz. 3 on the right thigh, one on the back of left middle finger and one on the right parietotemporal area. Apart from these injuries, FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 17 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another there is also one laceration wound of 5X1 cm on right parietofrontal area of head.
34. All these injuries clearly point out to the fact that the said injuries should have been caused by some sharp weapon and one injury is caused on the head which is crucial.
35. From the cross examination of PW8 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, it has come out that as per record, smell of alcohol was found present from the injured. At the same time, he has denied the suggestion that so many injuries can be received by a person by just falling on the road.
36. The case of the prosecution also find support from the police witnesses when PW4 Ct. Boby Singh has proved the fact that on 11042017, accused Leela Ram @ Bache was arrested vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW4/A. He identifies him in the dock as well.
37. PW6 SI Shrichand, who is the first IO of the case has stated that on 23082014, he had received DD No.56A Ex.PW6/A regarding quarrel and he along with HC Illyas went to the spot where FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 18 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another he found that accused persons had beaten Rai Singh and they admitted the injured in GTB Hospital. He recorded statement Ex.PW3/A of the injured and FIR was registered.
38. PW9 SI Abodh Kumar, who is the second IO of the case has proved the fact that on 06012017, he has been assigned the investigation of the case. On 08042017, he arrested accused Kanhaiya vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW3/B. On 11042017, he had arrested accused Leela Ram vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW4/A. He has further stated that he had made efforts to arrest other accused persons but no clue could be gathered. He has also identified the accused persons in the dock.
39. Nothing material could be elicited from the cross examination of the aforesaid police witnesses and very brief cross examination has been carried out on behalf of the accused persons.
40. 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;
FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 19 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another (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.
41. It is a settled law that in order to bring a case within the ambit of Section 308 IPC, it is of utmost importance that as to on which part of the body, accused had chosen to hit. Apart from this, it is also of importance as to how many blows were given and the nature of weapon used by the accused.
42. In the present case, the accused had chosen head to hit which is one of the most vital and sensitive part of the body and any injury to it may prove fatal.
43. From the evidence, it is clearly revealed that the weapon of offence i.e. knives were neither recovered from the possession of accused persons nor at their instance. This would not weaken the case FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 20 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another of the prosecution in any manner whatsoever as PW3 Rai Singh had clearly stated that he was attacked with knives which the accused persons were carrying at the time of incident and they have inflicted injuries on his head, hand and thighs.
44. From the MLC, it could be clearly discerned that number of incised wounds found on the person of injured and one injury was on the vital part of the body, which clearly shows that accused persons had sufficient knowledge that their act would have caused serious injuries on the person of injured.
45. In defence, DW1 Pradeep Kumar had come in the witness box and stated that on 23082014 at about 9 pm, he had gone to the house of Padam Chacha in Prem Nagar for doing electricity work where he saw Rai Singh in drunken condition. He has further stated that he fell down on the road where some stones were lying and received injury and blood oozed out from his injury on head. He has further stated that thereafter, police came there and made inquiry from him and other persons, who were present there. He has further stated FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 21 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another that no quarrel took place in his presence at the spot.
46. In the cross examination, this witness has admitted that he has come to the Court on the instructions of accused Leela Ram and Kanhaiya Lal and they told him to narrate the facts. He has also admitted that he does not have any knowledge with regard to the present case against accused Leela Ram and Kanhaiya Lal and he had not given any complaint in writing or oral to the police with regard to any alleged false implication of the accused persons.
47. As regards the fact as alleged that injured was in a drunken condition at that time, DW1 in his cross examination had admitted that he did not go near Rai Singh in order to assess if he was drunk or not. He had stated that it was only his perception. Moreover, so many injuries found on the person of injured cannot be sustained due to fall.
48. From the above, it clearly emerges that this witness is not at all a reliable witness as he has based his opinion that Rai Singh got injured due to his perception that he was drunk and he was not sure FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 22 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another about the condition of injured. The fact that he had no where lodged any complaint to the police with regard to any alleged false implication of the accused persons clearly shows that the witness is not worthy of any credence.
49. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW3 Rai Singh, two defences in the form of suggestions were taken on behalf of the accused persons. One that injured had taken alcohol and fought somewhere else and named the accused persons falsely. This in itself completely belies the theory of the accused persons put forth by them. By bringing DW1 Pradeep Kumar as witness that he saw injured fell down on the road and received injuries whereas the above said suggestion given by the accused persons that he fought somewhere else and received injuries is completely contradictory in itself. At the same time, another defence has been taken on behalf of the accused that there was a quarrel between the children of the accused and the injured and that is why, he had named them is altogether a new defence concocted by the accused persons. FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 23 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another
50. From the above, there emerges three defences which go in three different directions and are not at all consistent and worthy of any credence. Therefore, the defences taken by the accused persons are not tenable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
51. On the other hand, the prosecution by way of testimony of injured Rai Singh himself coupled with the testimonies of doctors and police officials completely tightens the case of the prosecution against the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
52. As far as benefit of doubt is concerned, reliance is placed on a judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court titled as Ramakant Rai Vs. Madan Rai & others reported in AIR 2004 SC 77 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under;
"The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it cannot obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. There is an unmistakable subjective element in the FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 24 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quantum of proof. Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust common sense and, ultimately, on the trained intuitions of the judge. While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused persons is not to be eroded, at the same time, uninformed legitimization of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal justice."
53. Thus, no benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused persons as far as their guilt under Section 308/34 IPC is concerned.
54. From the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is amply clear that both the accused persons had committed trespass in the house of Rai Singh for assaulting him.
55. The defence by cross examination of prosecution witnesses or by leading defence evidence has completely failed to discredit, denounce or demolish the case of the prosecution in any manner.
56. The prosecution has given a clear account of events and FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 25 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another has proved that accused persons Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal had assaulted PW3 Rai Singh. The prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case within the ambit of provisions of Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC beyond a reasonable doubt against accused Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal as the accused persons had acted in furtherance of their common intention of causing hurt to injured Rai Singh.
CONCLUSION
57. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of injured Rai Singh which is duly supported and corroborated by other prosecution witnesses, the only irresistible conclusion points out a guilt towards accused persons Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal.
58. In view of the entire conspectus of facts and circumstances of the matter, the prosecution has been successfully able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against accused Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal for the offences under Section 452/34 & 308/34 of FIR No.727/14 PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 26 /27 under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC SC/129/17 State Vs. Leela Ram @ Bache & Another the Indian Penal Code.
59. Accused persons Leela Ram @ Bache and Kanhaiya Lal are hereby convicted for the offences under Section 452/34 & 308/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT Digitally signed
ON 04th APRIL, 2019 by DEEPAK
JAGOTRA
DEEPAK Location:
KARKARDOOMA
JAGOTRA COURTS, DELHI
Date:
2019.04.04
15:28:15 +0530
(DEEPAK JAGOTRA)
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No.727/14
PS Karawal Nagar Page No. 27 /27
under Section 452/34 & 308/34 IPC