Delhi District Court
State vs ) K. Govinda on 1 December, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 25/01/11
Unique Identification No. 02404R0292452011
State
Versus
1) K. Govinda
Son of Sh. K. Permal
R/o H.No. G938, JJ colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
2) C. Selva Raj
Son of Sh. Chala Muttu
R/o G950, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
3) Tangraj @ Guddu
Son of Sh. Chala Muttu
R/o G950, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
4) Mukesh
Son of Sh. Kalli
R/o H.No. G938, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 199/11
PS - Subhash Palace
U/s. 324/34 of IPC
Date of decision: 30/11/2012
Date of order on sentence: 01/12/2012
SC No. 25/01/11 1
ORDER ON SENTENCE
01/12/2012
Present. Ld. APP for the State.
All the four convicts in person with counsel Sh. Pradeep Singh and Sh.
Piyush Mittal.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict K. Govinda is aged
about 26 years. He is driver by profession. He is having grandmother, parents,
wife and one child of one year to maintain. It is further contended that he is the
sole bread earner of his family. He is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender. No other case is pending against him. It is further contended that
convict K. Govinda also remained behind bars in this case for seven days.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict C. Selva Raj is aged
about 32 years. He is driver by profession. He is having parents, wife and two
children, aged about 6½ and 2½ years, who are school going, to maintain. It is
further contended that he is the sole bread earner of his family. He is not a
previous convict nor habitual offender. No other case is pending against him. It
is further contended that convict C. Selva Raj also remained behind bars in this
case for seven days.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Tangraj @ Guddu is
aged about 28 years. He is working as a car cleaner. He is having parents, wife
and one daughter of one year to maintain. It is further contended that he is the
sole bread earner of his family. He is not a previous convict nor habitual
offender. No other case is pending against him.
Learned defence counsel has contended that convict Mukesh is aged
about 29 years. He is working in a private office as peon. He is having
SC No. 25/01/11 2
parents, wife and two children, aged about 2 years and 4 years, who are school
going, to maintain. It is further contended that he is the sole bread earner of his
family. He is not a previous convict nor habitual offender. No other case is
pending against him.
It is further contended by learned defence counsel that in view of
above facts and circumstances, a lenient view be taken by admitting the convict
persons on probation of good conduct. In support of his contention, learned
defence counsel has relied upon 116 (2005) DLT 344 titled as Suresh Kumar
& Ors. V. State and has further contended that in this case, the accused
persons were convicted U/s. 324/325/34 of IPC instead of U/s. 307/34 of IPC
and were given benefit of probation.
Learned defence counsel has further relied upon Brahm Singh V.
State, Criminal appeal No. 28/2008 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi,
wherein it has been held that:
"The concept of releasing a person, who is 21 years of age, on
probation arises out of reforming youthful offenders, who are first convicts and
commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 7 years. Such offenders
have to be necessarily granted probation as such offenders, if kept in the
company of hardened criminals, there is likelihood of their turning into
obdurate criminals. Releasing of such a convict on probation always keeps him
on the tenderhook as he is always conscious of the fact that if he indulges in
any criminal activity during the period of probation, no more option is left with
the Court than to send him to jail for serving sentence."
An application also filed U/s. 4 of Probation of offenders Act , 1958
read with Section 360 of Cr.P.c.
On the other hand, learned APP has contended that if the Court is of
SC No. 25/01/11 3
the view that the convicts are to be released on probation of good conduct, then
injured persons be compensated for their injuries sustained at the hands of
convicts.
All the four accused persons have been convicted for the offence
U/s. 324/34 of IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to three years or with fine or with
both.
According to Section 360 of Cr.P.C., a person not under 21 years of
age is convicted for an offence, which is punishable with fine or imprisonment
for a term of 7 years or less and no previous conviction is proved, then
considering the age, character and antecedents of the offender, he can be
released on probation of good conduct.
In this case also, the convicts are above the age of 21 years. They
are not previous convicts nor habitual offenders. The offence U/s. 324/34 of
IPC proved against them is punishable with imprisonment for three years only
and/ or with fine , so, being their first offence, I think it appropriate after
considering the facts and circumstances of the case with age, character and
antecedents of all the convicts, that they should be given benefit of probation of
good conduct.
Accordingly, all the four convicts are admitted to probation of good
conduct for a period of three years on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of
Rs. 10,000/ with one surety each in the like amount. During the period of
probation, all the convicts will maintain good behaviour and keep peace, in
default of which, they will produce themselves before the Court for acceptance
of sentence.
Compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/ each convict is also imposed
SC No. 25/01/11 4
payable to the injured persons after expiry of one month, if no appeal is
preferred. In case of default of deposit of compensation amount, each convict
shall undergo six months simple imprisonment.
Bond furnished. Accepted for three years.
Compensation amount also deposited.
Announced in the open court
On 1st of December, 2012
(Virender Kumar Goyal)
Additional Sessions Judge
Fast Track court, Rohini/Delhi
SC No. 25/01/11 5
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
SC No. 25/01/11
Unique Identification No. 02404R0292452011
State
Versus
1) K. Govinda
Son of Sh. K. Permal
R/o H.No. G938, JJ colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
2) C. Selva Raj
Son of Sh. Chala Muttu
R/o G950, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
3) Tangraj @ Guddu
Son of Sh. Chala Muttu
R/o G950, J.J. Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
4) Mukesh
Son of Sh. Kalli
R/o H.No. G938, JJ Colony,
Shakurpur, Delhi.
FIR No. 199/11
PS - Subhash Palace
U/s. 308/34 of IPC
Date of institution of the case: 10/10/2011
Arguments heard on: 23/11/2012
Date of reservation of order: 23/11/2012
Date of Decision: 30/11/2012
SC No. 25/01/11 6
JUDGMENT
1. One DD No. 79B was recorded at about 11.24 p.m. on 18/05/2011 about a quarrel at F154, Madrasi Mandir Park, Shakurpur. Case was registered on the statement of one Ajay Kumar U/s. 308/34 of IPC.
2. During the investigation, rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Blood stained clothes of Ajay and Vijay were seized in this case. MLC/ME of Ajay and Vijay were collected. Accused persons K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj were arrested on 25/05/2011. Accused Tangraj @ Guddu and Mukesh were arrested on 21/06/2011. Their personal searches were conducted. Accused K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj pointed out the place of occurrence and accused C. Selva Raj also made disclosure statement.
3. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed U/s. 308/34 of IPC against all the four accused persons and was committed to the Court of Session on 21/11/2011. It was received on 30/11/2011.
4. On 06/01/2012, charge U/s. 308/34 of IPC was framed against all the four accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. To prove its case, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW14 in all.
6. On completion of evidence of the prosecution, statements of all the four accused persons were recorded. They have stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case.
7. I have heard learned APP for the State, learned defence counsel for the accused persons and have gone through the material brought on record with evidence adduced.
8. Complainant Ajay Kumar has been examined as PW2. He has stated that on 18/05/2011, at about 11.30 p.m., he along with his brother Vijay was present in their house. At that time, accused Govind @ Guddu, Selva Raj @ Silva, Tang Raju @ Guddu and Raju came outside his house and started abusing in the name of his SC No. 25/01/11 7 father by saying that "Bada Madrasi Mandir Ka Pradhan Banta Hai, tune Aaj tak kuch nahi kiya". On hearing this, he along with his brother Vijay i.e. PW3 came outside the house and told that their father had met with an accident and asked them not to abuse and will talk about the matter in the morning. PW2 Ajay Kumar has further deposed that at that time, accused persons were under the influence of liquor. Thereafter, accused Selva Raj said that they will firstly see both of them and further said that they were also showing Pradhani and by saying so, accused Selva Raj pulled PW2 Ajay Kumar towards the gali and caught hold him and accused Raju pulled his brother Vijay i.e. PW3 towards the gali and other accused persons caught hold them.
PW2 Ajay Kumar has further deposed that in the meanwhile, accused Selva Raj picked up a piece of brick and hit the same twice or thrice on the head of PW2 Ajay Kumar, due to which, he started bleeding and became unconscious. PW3 Vijay was caught hold by accused Raju and accused Govinda hit on his head with a brick and he also started bleeding. When PW2 Ajay Kumar regained consciousness, he found himself admitted in Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital. He was knowing all the accused persons prior to the occurrence as they were residing in their gali. PW2 Ajay Kumar has also identified all the accused persons before the Court as the same, who had caused injuries to them.
PW2 Ajay Kumar has further deposed that police met him in the hospital and at that time, he could not give his statement to the police and further that he along with his brother PW3 Vijay reached at the PS on the next day, where he gave statement regarding the occurrence, which is Ex. PW2/A. PW2 Ajay Kumar has further deposed that after that, police accompanied them to their house, where rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. Police tried to find out the offending pieces of bricks but the same could not be recovered. At that time, PW2 Ajay Kumar had handed over his blood stained Tshirt to the police and his brother PW3 Vijay had also produced his blood stained Tshirt, which were taken into possession by the police. These were sealed in a pullanda with SC No. 25/01/11 8 the seal of "SD" and were seized. PW2 Ajay Kumar has also identified his blood stained Tshirt as Ex. P1 and of his brother PW3 Vijay's shirt as Ex. P2.
9. PW3 Vijay Kumar has also deposed the same facts and has further deposed that at the time of accident, accused Selva Raj said that "Pehle in dono bhaiyon ko hi lapet lete hain". PW3 Vijay Kumar has further deposed that accused Govind @ Guddu had hit a piece of brick on his head, due to which, he started bleeding and they raised alarm "Bachaobachao", at which, accused persons ran away from there. Somebody informed the police, at which, PCR van came there and took them to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital.
PW3 Vijay Kumar has further deposed that on 25/05/2011, at about 9.30 a.m., he received a call from his friend that accused Selva and Govinda @ Guddu were standing in E Block near Shitla Mata Mandir and he passed this information to IO SI Sanjay Dahiya. After that, SI Sanjay Dahiya along with two Constables accompanied him to Shitla Mata Mandir, E Block. After sometime, both the accused Govinda and Selva were apprehended by the police at his instance. Police had prepared their arrest memos Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/C, which were signed by PW3 Vijay Kumar as a witness. Personal searches of both the accused were also conducted vide memos Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/D. These were also witnessed by PW3 Vijay Kumar. Both the accused had pointed out the place of incident vide memo Ex. PW3/E and his statement was recorded by the police in this case. PW3 Vijay Kumar has also identified the accused persons before the Court as the same,who had caused injuries to them and has also identified the blood stained shirt of himself and of his brother Ajay Kumar as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2.
10. Learned defence counsel has contended that incident had happened at about 11.30 p.m., as deposed by PW2 complainant Ajay Kumar. Both the injured were removed to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital by the PCR, but it is not known why both of them had not given statements to the police, although police had reached in the hospital on receipt of DD entry. Learned defence counsel has further contended SC No. 25/01/11 9 that even in the alleged history, names of accused persons were not given to the doctor, which shows that till that time, both the injured were not knowing about the identity of the accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that on the next day, that too, in the evening, statement was given by PW2 complainant Ajay Kumar to the IO, on which, case was registered and in the said statement, he disclosed the names of accused persons. Learned defence counsel has further contended that delay in giving statement shows that both PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar were not knowing as to who had caused injuries to them and with some ulterior motive, on the next day, they had given names of all the accused persons as assailants, so, they cannot be relied upon.
11. In support of his contentions, learned defence counsel has relied upon AIR 1987 Supreme Court 826 titled as Amar Singh & Ors V. State of Punjab and has contended that in such circumstances, both the injured cannot be relied upon, hence, prosecution has not been able to prove this case against the accused persons in any manner.
12. It has been suggested to PW2 Ajay Kumar that on the issue of raising donations from R.K. Swami, a quarrel had taken place and stones were pelted. It is also suggested that in the said pelting of stones, PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar sustained injuries.
13. After receiving DD No. 79B dated 18/05/2011 Ex. PW6/A, PW13 SI Sanjay Kumar had reached at the spot with Constable Sandeep i.e. in gali near H.No. D942, JJ Colony, Shakurpur, near Madrasi Mandir. He did not see any stones lying there, which allegedly were pelted by the crowd, as suggested to PW2 Ajay Kumar. In the cross examination, PW13 SI Sanjay Kumar has stated that when he reached at the spot, he did not come to know that crowd had pelted stones and due to pelting of stones by the crowd, both these brothers i.e. PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar had sustained injuries. PW13 SI Sanjay Kumar has voluntarily stated that he had come to know that both these two brothers were caused injuries by four boys and SC No. 25/01/11 10 they were removed to hospital by the PCR. So, this suggestion has not found any support from the IO. Had it been so, certainly, PW13 SI Sanjay Kumar could have come to know about the same at the spot from someone or atleast, he could have seen the stones lying here and there, as allegedly pelted by the crowd.
14. Learned defence counsel has contended that according to cross examination of PW2 Ajay Kumar, he did not disclose the names of accused persons to the doctor nor to the police officials at PS Saraswati Vihar, which shows that he was not knowing the names of accused persons as the assailants till that time, hence, he cannot be relied upon.
15. Learned defence counsel has further contended that PW2 Ajay Kumar has stated in the cross examination that he had told the names of the accused persons to the police officials, who accompanied him to the hospital i.e. PCR official, who has been examined as PW11 HC Prakash Veer, who has also not supported this contention that PW2 Ajay Kumar had disclosed as to how the quarrel had taken place and in what manner, they had sustained injuries, so, the witnesses cannot be relied upon about the identity of the accused persons, which could have been disclosed by both of them at the earlier occasion.
16. In my view, PW2 Ajay Kumar has explained in the cross examination that he was in pain. In the same night, he was discharged from the hospital and he came back to his house with his maternal uncle in a vehicle. He had gone to the PS on the next day evening. PW2 Ajay Kumar has denied the suggestion that till next day evening, he was not knowing as to who had caused injuries to him. PW2 Ajay Kumar has also denied that they have falsely implicated the accused persons on the issue of collecting donations.
17. Similarly, PW3 Vijay Kumar has also denied the suggestion in the cross examination that quarrel or altercation had taken at the time of collection of donation from R.K. Swami and they sustained injuries due to pelting of stones by the crowd. PW3 Vijay Kumar has also explained that due to injuries, he did not disclose the SC No. 25/01/11 11 names of accused persons to the PCR officials. Even he did not disclose the names of accused persons to the doctor concerned and further due to his bad condition, he did not disclose the names of accused persons to even SI Sanjay Dahiya, who had reached in the hospital.
PW3 Vijay Kumar has also denied the suggestion that he was not knowing the names of the persons, who had caused injuries to them, so, he did not disclose the names of assailants to the PCR official, doctor or to SI Sanjay Dahiya or to the police in the morning. PW3 Vijay Kumar has also denied the suggestion that they named the accused persons falsely to implicate them in this case on the issue of collection of donations. In such circumstances, the contentions of learned defence counsel are not tenable and witness cannot be disbelieved in any manner.
18. PW1 HC Sahib Singh was working as duty officer on 19/05/2011 from 5.00 p.m. to 1.00 a.m. night. At about 9.05 p.m., SI Sanjay Dahiya handed over rukka to him. Accordingly, he got recorded FIR of this case through computer operator , copy of which is Ex. PW1/A. He also made endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW1/B.
19. It is suggested to PW1 HC Sahib Singh that FIR and endorsement are antedated and ante time. It is not the case of the prosecution that statement was given later on showing the same to be of 19/05/2011, hence, this suggestion is not helpful to the accused persons in any manner. DD was recorded by PW6 Constable Ram Bharose, who was working as DD Writer on 18/05/2011, on receipt of information at about 11.24 p.m. as DD No. 79B, copy of which is Ex. PW6/A. It was handed over to SI Sanjay Dahiya for necessary action. PW6 constable Ram Bharose has not been cross examined by learned defence counsel in any manner. Had it been a case of pelting of stones by the crowd, someone must have informed the police on 100 number. Even if we assume that there was pelting of stones by the crowd, then it seems to be improbable that only PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar have sustained injuries and nothing else was found damaged.
SC No. 25/01/11 12
20. PW8 HC Praveen, on 19/05/2011, was posted at PS Saraswati Vihar. He received copy of FIR and rukka from duty officer and handed over the same to IO SI Sanjay Kumar at the spot i.e. G942, JJ Colony, Shakurpur. Thereafter, he joined the investigation with SI Sanjay Kumar and in his presence, complainant Ajay Kumar had produced blood stained Tshirt, which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "SD" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/A. Vijay, brother of complainant Ajay, had also produced another blood stained Tshirt, which was sealed in a pullanda with the seal of "SD" and was seized vide memo Ex. PW8/B. PW8 HC Praveen has further deposed that complainant Ajay had told about the addresses of accused persons as G938 and G950, JJ Colony, Shakurpur and they reached there with both the injured, but no one was found present there, so, they came back to PS. PW8 HC Praveen has also identified the Tshirts of both the injured as Ex. P1 and Ex. P2 before the Court. PW8 HC Praveen has not been cross examined about the addresses of the accused persons, as disclosed by complainant Ajay as G938 and G950, JJ Colony, Shakurpur. According to the chargesheet also, accused K. Govinda and Mukesh are resident of G938 and accused C. Selva Raj and Tang Raju are resident of G950. This unrebutted and unshaken fact itself demolishing the defence of the accused persons that they had not caused injuries to both the injured Ajay and Vijay. Had it been so, then their addresses could not have been disclosed by complainant Ajay to the IO after the registration of the FIR on 19/05/2011.
21. PW11 HC Prakash Veer was on duty at PCR. They reached at H.No. F154, JJ Colony, Sakurpur, and came to know that two injured Ajay and Vijay were present there. He took both the injured to Bhagwan Mahavir Hospital and got them admitted there.
22. PW12 HC Ravinder Nath has corroborated with the fact that SI Sanjay got deposited with him two sealed pullandas with the seal of "SD". PW12 HC Ravinder Nath has produced original register No. 19 in proof of the same. Copy of SC No. 25/01/11 13 the entry is Ex. PW12/A. PW12 HC Ravinder Nath has also not been cross examined in any manner.
23. According to PW3 Vijay Kumar, one of the injured, accused C. Selva Raj and K. Govinda were apprehended by the police on his pointing out. He also signed their arrest memos and personal search memos Ex. PW3/A, Ex. PW3/B, Ex. PW3/C and Ex. PW3/D. PW3 Vijay Kumar has not been cross examined about the date, time and place of arrest of both the accused. PW7 Constable Bachhu Singh was also with the police party and IO on 25/05/2011 and PW10 Constable Dilawar also accompanied them. They joined PW3 Vijay Kumar with them, who disclosed about the presence of accused K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj, who were arrested on the identification of PW3 Vijay. Only suggestions have been given to PW7 Constable Bachhu Singh that he did not join the investigation and his signatures were obtained on the documents. PW10 Constable Dilawar has also deposed the same facts as of PW3 Vijay Kumar and PW7 Constable Bachhu Singh regarding arrest of accused persons on the pointing of PW3 Vijay Kumar. PW10 Constable Dilawar has also deposed that accused C. Selva Raj had also made disclosure statement Ex. PW10/A. In the cross examination, only suggestion has been given that both accused K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj wee not arrested in the manner, as deposed by him.
24. PW13 SI Sanjay Kumar has also deposed the same facts regarding arrest of accused K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj, as by other witnesses. In the statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C., accused K. Govinda has denied the manner, in which, he was arrested on the date, time and place, but he has not disclosed or explained as to in what manner, he was arrested in this case, if not in the manner, as deposed by the witnesses. After the arrest, medical examination of both the accused was got conducted and at the time of arrest, one Raju, brother of accused K. Govinda was informed about the arrest and also about the arrest of accused C. Selva Raj. Similarly, accused C. Selva Raj has also denied the manner of arrest but has failed to disclose as to in what manner, he was arrested by the police in this case. SC No. 25/01/11 14
25. In view of above, the witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the arrest of accused persons K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj are inspiring confidence and they are trustworthy, so, they all can be relied upon and it is proved that accused K. Govinda and C. Selva Raj were arrested on the date, time and place, as deposed by the witnesses, on the pointing of PW3 Vijay Kumar.
26. Accused Tangraj @ Guddu and Mukesh were formally arrested by the IO and were released on bail. PW9 HC Ram Rattan has deposed about the same. Their arrest memos are Ex. PW9/A and Ex. PW9/B. PW9 HC Ram Rattan has not been cross examined in any manner to controvert his deposition, which shows that both these accused have not disputed their formal arrest in this case in any manner.
27. To prove the injuries and nature of injuries, PW4 Dr. Mamta Verma and PW5 Dr. Abhishek have been examined. According to PW4 Dr. Mamta Verma, on 18/05/2011, she had examined patient Ajay, brought by HC Prakash Vi with alleged history of assault and found CLW over left parietal region measuring about 3 cm x .5 c.m. The injured was complaining pain in wrist and palm of left hand and further referred the injured to SR (Ortho). She prepared MLC Ex. PW4/A of injured.
28. PW4 Dr. Mamta Verma has further deposed that she had also examined another injured Vijay brought by PCR. She found CLW on occipital region measuring about 3 cm x .5 cm. and also found CLW on parietal region of same measurement. She prepared his ME, which is Ex. PW4/B. According to PW4 Dr. Mamta Verma, injury sustained by patient Vijay were simple. PW4 Dr. Mamta Verma has not been cross examined in any manner, so, her testimony is unrebutted and unshaken.
29. PW5 Dr. Abhishek has identified the writing and signing of Dr. Deepak on the MLC Ex. PW4/A of injured Ajay. According to this MLC, Dr. Deepak has opined that no fracture was seen as per radiological opinion, hence, injuries were opined as simple. PW5 Dr. Abhishek has not been cross examined in any manner by learned defence counsel, hence, testimony of this witness is also unrebutted SC No. 25/01/11 15 and unshaken.
30. In view of above discussion, from the depositions of PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that all the four accused reached to quarrel with the father of both these injured and they took a quarrel with both these injured, who came outside the house and during said process, in furtherance of their common intention, accused C. Selva Raj caught hold injured PW2 Ajay and meanwhile, he picked up a piece of brick and hit the same twice or thrice on his head, due to which, he started bleeding and became unconscious. This fact is corroborated with the MLC, wherein only one injury has been shown on the parietal region and no fracture was seen. Injuries of PW2 Ajay Kumar has been opined as simple in nature.
31. At the time of incident, according to PW3 Vijay Kumar, his brother Ajay i.e. PW2, was caught hold by accused Tangraj and accused C. Selva Raj caused injuries to his brother. According to the depositions of PW2 Ajay Kumar and PW3 Vijay Kumar, accused Rajju caught hold PW3 Vijay Kumar and accused K. Govinda hit a brick on the head of Vijay, so, he sustained injury. PW3 Vijay has sustained two injuries i.e. on occipital and parietal region and injuries sustained by him were opined to be simple in nature and PW2 Ajay Kumar did not sustain any fracture in any manner, which shows that all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had reached at the house of injured persons just to teach them a lesson and were not having any intention to kill them not amounting to culpable homicide nor from these circumstances, any inference can be drawn that accused persons were having any knowledge that by their acts, death could be caused of both the injured. There is no opinion that injuries caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, so, in my view, offence U/s. 308/34 of IPC is not proved beyond reasonable doubts, rather prosecution has been able to prove offence U/s. 324/34 of IPC beyond reasonable doubts as all the accused persons SC No. 25/01/11 16 have caused injuries voluntarily with dangerous weapon i.e. brick piece to both the injured, for which, all the accused persons are held guilty and convicted for the same.
Announced in Open Court on dated 30th of November, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court /Rohini : Delhi SC No. 25/01/11 17