Delhi District Court
State vs . Hori Lal & Ors. on 9 June, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR PANDEY,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-07, SHAHDARA
DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
STATE Vs. Hori Lal & Ors.
FIR No. 70/2009
PS: Karawal Nagar
U/S:307/452/34 IPC
09.06.2023
ID No. : 478/2016
CNR No. CNR No. DLSH01-
000036-2010
Date of commission of offence : 15.03.2009
Date of institution of the case : 19.01.2010
Name of the complainant : Sh. Nem Singh S/o
Raghubir Singh
R/o:- H.No. G-29 (Old G-
95), Gali No. 6, Phase-
VIII, Shiv Vihar, Karawal
Nagar, Delhi.
Name of accused persons and : 1. Hori Lal S/o Sh Chhiter
addresses Singh R/o:- G-32, Gali No.
6, Phase-8, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2. Sonu S/o Sh. Birpal
Singh r/o:- G-32, Gali No.
6, Phase-8, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
3. Ram Kishan @ Bablu
S/o Hori Lal R/o:- B-32,
Gali No. 6, Phase-8, Shiv
Vihar, Karawal Nagar,
Delhi.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 1
4. Gyatri Devi W/o Hori
Lal, R/o G-32, Gali No. 6,
Phase-8, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
5. Aslam Khan S/o Bundu
Khan, R/o:- H.No. B-122,
Gali No. 4, Babu Nagar,
Mustafabad, Delhi.
6. Dharambir S/o Mohan
Lal, R/o:- G-32, Gali No.
6, Phase-8, Shiv Vihar,
Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
(already expired during
the trial)
Offence complained of against : U/s 147/148/149/307/308/
the accused persons 452/506/323/325/34 IPC
Offence for which accused U/s 307/452/34 IPC
persons were charged
Plea of the accused persons : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted for offence
punishable U/s 307/452/34
IPC
Date of judgment : 09.06.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 15.03.2009 at about 09.35 am at Street No. 6, Phase-VIII, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi within jurisdiction of PS Karawal Nagar, a complaint was received from complainant Nem Singh S/o Raghbubir Singh and same was recorded in PS Karawal Nagar as DD No. 36-A (Ex.PW19/B) and same was marked to State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 2 Inspector Ashok Kumar (PW19) for necessary action.
2. It is averred in the complaint Ex. PW1/A that on 14.03.2009, complainant returned to his home from his work and his wife Savitri had informed him that accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu who is son of the Hori Lal had send a message through one girl namely Poonam D/o Yogender while saying that he likes to Savitri and he had asked to the Poonam to manage the intimate relationship between Savitri and accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo while saying that " Meri Is Se Setting Kara Do". It is further averred in the complaint that the said girl Poonam had cautioned the accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu that he should look at his age and relationship while saying that "Apni Umar (age) aur rishtey ka Dhayan Rakhna Chahiye" and despite that accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu had asked to the Poonam that he does not have any fear and he further asked the girl Poonam that he was ready to see the consequences. It is further averred that accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu had asked to the girl Poonam to give this message to Savitri.
3. It is further averred in the complaint Ex. PW1/A that above mentioned facts were disclosed to him by his wife Savitri while saying that she was informed in that regard by the girl namely Poonam. It is further averred that after hearing the above mentioned facts from his wife, complainant had asked his wife to have patience and he told her that he would complaint regarding the same with the parents of the accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu. The wife of the complainant was very annoyed and upset at that time. It is further averred that he asked his wife that he would talk to the parents of the accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu as they were neighbours of the complainant.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 3
4. It is further averred in the complaint Ex. PW1/A that on the next day morning, at about 09.00 am, while complainant was reading the newspaper at the corner of the street (gali) while sitting on kot (charpai), he saw that in the front of the gate of his house, accused Hori Lal, his son accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu, JCL (R ) and accused Gaytri Devi (wife of Hori Lal) were giving beating to his wife Savitri and his nephew Virender. It is further averred that someone had called him while informing him about the quarrel at his house and thereafter, complainant went to his house and tried to intervene and he pushed his wife Savitri Devi and his nephew Virender inside his house and he himself also went inside his house.
5. It is further averred that during that time, accused Sonu and accused Aslam came towards the house of the complainant while shouting and accused Sonu was having hockey stick in his hand, accused Aslam was having wooden stick in his hand and they shouted by saying that "Maro In Saalo Ko".
6. It is further averred in the complaint that all the accused persons entered into the house of the complainant and accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu who was already having axe (Kulhadi) had hit at the head and waist of his nephew Virender. It is further averred that when complainant had tried to stop the accused Ram Kishan @ Bablu, then accused Bablu also hit at the head of the complainant.
7. It is further averred that accused Hori Lal had hit the complainant with iron rod on his ribs (chest). It is further averred that accused Sonu had hit with hockey at the waist of the State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 4 complainant. It is further averred that accused Hori Lal had hit on the hand of the wife of the complainant by rod. It is further averred that accused Gayatri Devi had hit to the wife of the complainant and to the complainant by wooden stick.
8. It is further averred in the complaint that his nephew Satbir who had came there from his shop was also attacked by accused Dharambir (son in law of accused Hori Lal) by hockey stick and JCL(R) had attacked upon Satbir by iron rod on his head and on his mouth and accused Dharambir had hit on the shoulder of Satbir by hockey stick.
9. It is further averred in the complaint that accused Dharambir and Sonu had hit to Virender by hockey stick and accused Bablu had pressed the neck of the complainant and also caused injury on his eye.
10. It is further averred in the complaint that accused Gayatri and accused Hori Lal had pushed the wife of the complainant in the drain and had attacked upon her by rod and stick.
11. It is further averred in the complaint that complainant had called at 100 number and police came and took the complainant, his wife Savitri, his nephew Virender, and his nephew Satbir to the hospital where they were medically examined. Complainant had prayed in the complaint to take action against the accused persons. Complainant also stated that due to his injuries, initially he could not gave statement to the police.
12. On the basis of the statement of complainant Ex. PW1/A, FIR bearing no. 70/2009 PS Karawal Nagar was State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 5 registered. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court.
13. After compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the case committed to the Court of Sessions and during the trial the present case was assigned to this Court.
14. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, the accused persons namely 1. Hori Lal, 2. Sonu, 3. Ram Kishan @ Bablu, 4. Aslam Khan, 5. Dharambir and 6. Gayatri Devi, were charged vide order dated 02.07.2013 in respect of offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the trial, accused Dharambir had expired and proceedings against him was abated.
15. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined twenty one witnesses namely PW1 Nem Singh, PW2 Ms. Savitri, PW3 Dr. Harish Raheja, PW4 Sh. Satvir Singh, PW5 Sh. Virender Kumar, PW6 Sh. Jagpal, PW7 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, PW8 Smt. Poonam, PW9 Dr. Rahul Spara, PW10 Sh. Chanderpal Singh, PW11 Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, PW12 HC Raj Kumar, PW13 Dr. Deepak Chahar, PW14 Ct. Sandeep, PW15 ASI Vijay Singh, PW16 ASI Devender Kumar, PW17 Ct. Rattan Kumar, PW18 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, PW19 Inspector Ashok Kumar, PW20 Inspector Parmod Kumar and PW21 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, (Biology) FSL, Rohini, during the trial.
16. After the conclusion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence which came on the record, were put to the accused persons. The accused persons denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. However, the accused State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 6 persons opted not to lead any evidence towards their defence.
17. I have heard Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Sh. Arvind Kumar, Ld. Counsel for accused persons and Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Ld. Counsel for complainant. I have also gone through the material available on record.
18. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses examined during trial. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses are detailed as under:-
PUBLIC WITNESS:-
19. PW-1 Sh. Nem Singh:- He deposed that on 14.03.2009, when he return to his home from his work place, his wife had informed him that the girl namely Poonam D/o Joginder who resides in the front of his house had informed to her about the message of accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo to develop intimate relationship with the accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo and his wife Savitri. He deposed that accused Babloo had asked his wife through Poonam to become a friend of accused Babloo. He further deposed that Poonam had further told his wife that accused Babloo had asked her not to be afraid from that matter and he would see the consequences. The accused Babloo also asked the Poonam to deliver his message to Savitri i.e. wife of the complainant.
19.1 He deposed that his wife was of similar age to the age of mother of the accused Babloo. The said girl Poonam had informed to the complainant's wife that she had asked to the accused Babloo to look towards her age, but accused Babloo did not mend his ways. The complainant's wife was very annoyed State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 7 on that issue. He deposed that he asked his wife to sleep in the night and he further assured her that he would talk to the parents of the accused in the next morning as to why accused Babloo had told such words through Poonam.
19.2 He further deposed that in the next morning after taking his bath, he was reading the newspaper at the corner of his street and at that time, his wife had told to accused Hori Lal and his wife (parents of accused Babloo) that accused Babloo had asked friendship with his wife through Poonam, on which accused Hori Lal and his wife rebutted the above-said facts while saying that their son Babloo could not talk in such manner. He deposed that his wife had asked them to call Babloo and at that time, accused Babloo came there while holding a glass of tea in his hand while sipping the same.
19.3 He deposed that his wife had enquired from the accused Babloo as to why he had asked for her friendship through the Poonam, on which accused Babloo got infuriated and abused her by saying that " Behan Ki Lodi Main Tere Liye Aisa Bolunga" and he threw the tea of his glass on the face of his wife. He deposed that his nephew (son of sister) Virender who was also living in his house was also present there. He deposed that accused Babloo, JCL (R) the younger brother of Babloo, Hori Lal (father of Babloo) and his wife Gayatri started quarreling with his wife and nephew Virender. He deposed that someone from the neighbourhood had called him loudly and he rushed there and saved his wife and nephew Virender from the above-said accused persons and took them inside his house.
19.4 He deposed that after sometime, accused Babloo @ State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 8 Ram Kishan, Hori Lal, Gayatri, JCL (R), Sonu, Aslam and Dharambir had tress-passed in his house and accused Babloo was having an axe (Khuladi) in his hand, accused Hori Lal and Rajender were having iron rods in their hands and accused Sonu and Dharambir were having hockeys in their hands and accused Aslam and Gayatri were having wooden sticks in their hands.
19.5 He further deposed that as soon as accused Babloo entered in his house, he hit axe blows on the head and wrist of Virender. He deposed that he intervened and tried to save his nephew Virender, on which accused Babloo had also hit axe on his hand. He deposed that accused Hori Lal hit with the iron rod on his ribs. He deposed that accused Sonu had hit with the hockey blow on his wrist. He deposed that accused Hori Lal had also hit with iron rod on the left hand of his wife due to which she suffered fracture in her hand. He deposed that accused Gayatri had hit with wooden stick blows on the witness and his wife.
19.6 He deposed that in the meantime, his nephew Satvir (son of his Saadu) came from his shop and entered into his house and accused Dharambir ( son in law of accused Hori Lal) had hit with hockey on his back, hand, and his body.
19.7 He deposed that accused JCL (R ) had hit with iron rod on the head of the witness and on his mouth. He further deposed that accused Dharambir and Sonu gave hockey blows on the person of his nephew Virender. He further deposed that accused Babloo had caught his neck and caused injury on his eyes. He deposed that accused Hori Lal and his wife Gayatri had thrown his wife in the Naali (drain) and gave her beatings with State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 9 the wooden sticks and iron rod.
19.8 He deposed that he informed the police on 100 number and PCR came there and ambulance was called and he, his wife Savitri, his nephew Virender and Satbir were shifted to GTB Hospital. He further deposed that police came at the hospital and wanted to record their statements but they were not in a position to give their statements, so he could not gave his statement to the police in the hospital.
19.9 He further deposed that after discharge from the hospital, he went to the police station on 17.03.2009 and gave his statement Ex. PW1/A before the police. He deposed that he had shown the place of occurrence to the police and they might had prepared the site plan of the place of the incident.
19.10 He deposed that police had inspected the scene of crime and witness had identified his signature on the site plan Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that he had handed over his blood smeared clothes, clothes of his nephew Satbir to the police. He further deposed that he had handed over his baniyan, shirt, white handerchief to the police. He deposed that police had sealed the parcel. Witness identified his signature on seizure memo Ex. PW1/C. 19.11 He deposed that after the occurrence, the accused persons had thrown the weapon of offence on the street. He deposed that he had collected the same and kept the same in his house. He further deposed that on 23.03.2009, said weapon of offence i.e. an axe, an iron rod, a piece of broken hockey and a wooden stick (batten) were produced by him to the police and police sealed the same in parcel and seized and prepared seizure State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 10 memo as Ex. PW1/D. He had identified the case property as Ex. P1 (colly) as well as Ex. P-2 (colly.).
19.12 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that he has been residing at H.No. G-29, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 for the last 8-10 years from the date of incident. He replied that he knew accused Hori Lal since he has been residing at the above said address. He further replied that the house of accused Hori Lal situates at a distance of 20-22 feet from his house. He replied that he had visiting terms with the family of accused Hori Lal prior to the date of incident.
19.13 He replied that he was reading the newspaper in the gali just prior to the incident. He further replied that he came to know about the incident on raising alarm by someone. He further replied that the person who informed him by raising alarm was a lady, perhaps residing in the front of his house. He replied that he had not stated to the police in his statement about the information of incident being given to him by the above said lady. He replied that after receiving the said information, he immediately went to his house and found that accused persons namely Hori Lal, Gaytri, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Sonu, Dharambir, Aslam Khan and JCL (R ) were present there and they were manhandling and exchanging hot words with his wife and his nephew Virender ( son of his sister). He replied that he had stated the said fact to the police.
19.14 Witness denied the suggestion that he had not stated the above-said fact to the police or that only accused Hori Lal, Gayatri, Babloo and JCL (R ) were present at his house. He State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 11 further replied that after reaching at the spot, he took his wife and bhanja (Virender) inside his house and many persons of the street had gathered there. He further replied that public persons also helped to pacify the matter at that time. He again replied that at that time, when he reached at his house, no public person intervened in the matter. He replied that while he had taken his wife and bhanja inside his house, accused persons remained present there.
19.15 He replied that quarrel again started immediately, when he took his wife and bhanja inside his house when accused Hori Lal instigated to his associates by saying that "Maro Salo Ko". He replied that he had not specified the name of accused Hori Lal in his statement to the police. Witness denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place when he took his wife and bhanja inside the house. Witness further denied the suggestion that when he had reached at the spot, accused persons were not having any weapon and he had stated the said fact to the police in his statement. He replied that at that time, besides him, his wife and his bhanja Virender were present with him. He replied that initially accused Babloo had assaulted his bhanja Virender with axe (Khuladi). Witness denied the suggestion that no such attack was done by accused Babloo.
19.16 He further replied that there was no previous enmity between accused Babloo and his banja Virender. Witness further denied that accused persons did not enter his house on the date of incident. Witness further denied the suggestion that accused Aslam was not having any wooden stick in his hand or that he came there only to intervene the matter or that accused Aslam had made a call to the police at 100 number. Witness voluntarily State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 12 replied that he made the call at 100 number to the police through his mobile phone number 9968206598. He replied that PCR police had reached at the spot within 10-15 minutes after his call at 100 number and PCR took him and other injured to GTB hospital.
19.17 He further replied that accused persons were not taken to GTB hospital by the PCR. He further replied that he had not stated to the doctor in the hospital as to who had caused injuries as the doctor did not ask him. He further replied that his statement was not recorded in the hospital by the police. He replied that police of PS Karawal Nagar asked him to give his statement but he was not in a position to give his statement to the police at that time. He replied that police obtained his signatures on some of the papers at that time and he was not aware about the contents of papers which he had signed in the hospital. He replied that at that time, his wife was not present with him as she was admitted in the hospital in a separate room. He replied that he has no knowledge whether his wife had made statement to the police on 15.03.2009.
19.18 He replied that he was discharged from the hospital in the evening on the same day. Witness denied the suggestion that he was fit for statement at the time when police officials of PS Karawal Nagar had come in the hospital.
19.19 He replied that he went to the Police Station on 17.03.2009 to give statement. He further replied that he has no knowledge whether accused Hori Lal and his son were arrested in a Kalandara U/s 107/151 Cr.PC or they were produced in the Court of SEM, Seelampur on 16.03.2009. He replied that he was State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 13 called by the police to appear in the Court of SEM, Seelampur. He replied that he did not gave any statement to the police on that day also. He replied that on 17.03.2009, he went to the police station in the evening but he cannot specify the exact time. He replied that IO had recorded his statement which he had been read over. He replied that he do not remember today whether he had signed other documents except his statement on that day. He replied that after getting his statement recorded at PS, he returned back to his home.
19.20 He replied that on the same day, when his statement was recorded by the police, police visited his house from where police had collected their blood stained clothes and recorded his statement. He replied that police might have recorded his statement on 17th, 20th and 23rd March, 2009. He replied that on 23.03.2009, police had come to his home. He further replied that after the assault, accused persons had thrown away the weapons of offence in the street in front of his house, which he had got recovered to the police. He replied that he had not stated to the police in his statement recorded on 17th and 20th March, 2009, that accused persons had thrown away the weapon of offence in the street as the police did not ask him.
19.21 He denied the suggestion that accused persons had not thrown away weapon of offence in the gali in front of his house. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons were not carrying the weapon of offence. He voluntarily replied that they were carrying the weapon of offence and had assaulted them. He denied the suggestion that he had handed over the weapon of offence from his own house and stated to the police that these were left by the accused persons in the gali in the front State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 14 of his house. He replied that he had stated to the police in his statement iron rod instead of iron pipe.
19.22 He further replied that after receiving injuries on his head with the axe, caused by accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo, blood was oozing from his head injury but he was not unconscious. He denied the suggestion that he became unconscious after sustaining head injury. He further denied the suggestion that he had caused injuries to his family members and himself with the intention to implicate accused persons in this case. He denied the suggestion that he had a monetary dispute with the accused persons.
19.23 He replied that he knew Poonam since she is residing there. He replied that at the time of incident, perhaps she was married in Shiv Vihar, in the next street from his house. He further replied that Poonam had visiting terms with them prior to the incident. He replied that she also had visiting terms with accused Hori Lal. He denied the suggestion that Poonam had disclosed the fact to him that accused Babloo was having illicit relations with his wife. He replied that he had asked Poonam about the said fact after the incident on which she told him that accused Babloo requested her to help him in arranging illicit relationship with his wife for him. He replied that he had not stated said fact to the police. He replied that he knew accused Dharambir as he is son in law (damad) of accused Hori Lal and he was residing at the house of accused Hori Lal at the time of incident.
19.24 He replied that he had handed over blood stained clothes to the police on 17.03.2009. He denied the suggestion State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 15 that police had not visited his house on 17.03.2009 and he had handed over the blood stained clothes to police in the police station. He denied the suggestion that he had not handed over the same blood stained clothes to the police which he was wearing at the time of incident. He replied that police had seized his blood stained clothes and sealed the same and took into possession. He replied that he do not remember the name or specimen of seal. He denied the suggestion that he lodged the FIR after two days of the incident with the connivance of police in order to implicate all the family members of accused Hori Lal.
20. PW-2 Ms. Savitri :- She deposed that Virender is her nephew (bhanja). She further deposed that she knew accused Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Dharambir, Gayatri and Aslam as they were her neighbourers.
20.1 She deposed that on 15.03.2009 at about 08.30- 9.00 am, she was present at her house and she was standing outside her house and accused Hori Lal and Gayatri were passing by and she made a complaint to them regarding their son Babloo to the effect that Babloo had asked her another neighbourer Poonam ( who resides in front of her house) to get a love-affair settled between her and him (mujhse setting karne ke liye keh raha tha). She deposed that on that, accused Hori Lal and Gayatri told her that accused Babloo could not have said such things.
20.2 She further deposed that by that time, accused Babloo also came there while sipping his tea and her nephew Virender was also standing there. She deposed that Virender asked accused Babloo that why did he said such things for her State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 16 (Babloo tune meri mammi ke bare me aisa kyun kaha) and upon hearing this, accused Babloo threw the tea on her face and abused her while saying her that "sali behn ki lodi, tujshe me pyar karunga?" She further deposed that thereafter, accused Hori Lal, Gayatri and Babloo started beating her (mujhse gutham gutha ho gayi) and again said that accused Babloo and her nephew Virender were having a fight. She further deposed that accused Babloo was having an axe in his hand and accused Hori Lal and Rajender were having rod in their hands.
20.3 She deposed that accused Babloo hit Virender with axe and Virender fell down. She further deposed that her another neighbourer namely Manju called her husband at her house and he came there. The accused Hori Lal hit him on his head with rod. She deposed that accused Hori Lal hit her with rod at her left hand and pushed her to a nearby drain (nali). She further deposed that her husband Naim Singh made a call at 100 number.
20.4 The witness had been asked during examination in chief at least four-five times to disclose the specific role played by each accused persons but she had not been able to give any accurate narration and her final version was recorded as "Hori Lal, Aslam, Gayatri and Dharambir 'ne hame maara'". Witness had been asked the question during her examination in chief that how did they hit the witness and her relatives, to which she replied that accused Babloo was having an axe, She again said she is not able to recall everything.
20.5 She further deposed that accused Dharambir and Aslam had hit her nephew Satbir with hockey stick on his head. She deposed that police reached there in around 10-15 minutes.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 17 She deposed that she, her husband, Virender and Satbir were bleeding and police took them to GTB Hospital and where they were treated in the hospital and were discharged on the same day. 20.6 She further deposed that Plaster of Paris was put on her left hand and her husband, Virender and Satbir were having stitches on their head. She further deposed that they all went to PS Karawal Nagar from GTB Hospital. She deposed that police did not hear their complaint and they came back to their house.
20.7 She deposed that on 17.03.2009, one policeman Devender came to their house. Witness was asked question that did the police came of its own to which she which she replied that they had called the police as her husband had visited Police Station again on 16.03.2009. Witness again said that no one had visited from her family to police station on 16.03.2009 and Devender came on his own. She further deposed that policeman Devender recorded statements of all four of them and thereafter, this case was registered.
20.8 During the cross examination, witness replied that she had stated to the police in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC about the abuse in filthy language used by accused Babloo against her. Witness was confronted with the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW2/D1, wherein the exact language has not been used and it is recorded that " Babloo bola ki mein is budhi se baat karunga, va gali galoch karne laga". She further replied that she do not remember whether she had used the term " gutham gutha" in her statement given to the police.
20.9 She further replied that she had stated to the police State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 18 in her statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC that accused Babloo was having axe and accused Hori Lal was having an iron rod. She replied that she had told the police that accused Babloo had hit Virender with axe. Witness was confronted with the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW2/D1, wherein it was not so recorded. She further replied that she had not told the name of Manju in her statement given to police and she had simply stated that her neighbourer had called her husband. Witness was confronted with the statement recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW2/D1, wherein it was not recorded that any neighbourer called the husband of the witness. She further replied that she did not tell police in her statement that accused Dharambir and accused Aslam had hit Satbir on his head.
20.10 She further replied that they were taken to hospital in the ambulance. She further replied that she did not know who had called the ambulance and police officials were also sitting in the said ambulance with them. She replied that they were treated separately in the hospital, therefore, she cannot say that where the other persons were treated. She further replied that they were not kept in one room.
20.11 She further replied that all four of them were in their senses when they reached the hospital. She replied that they remained in the hospital till around 6-7 pm and police had visited her in the hospital and had recorded her statement. She replied that she do not remember whether that statement was signed by her or not. She replied that thereafter, her statement was again recorded by the police at her house. She further replied that after 17.03.2009, her statement was not again recorded by the police.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 19 20.12 She further replied that no one from the neighbourhood came to separate them during the fight. She replied that public persons had assembled at the spot of fight. She replied that she was not bleeding. She further replied that they had entangled and fight had taken place on the gate of her house which opens towards the gali. She replied that police did not come to them to find out the place of fighting. She replied that she can sign in Hindi and police had obtained her signatures on certain documents, however, she do not remember the number of such documents.
20.13 She further replied that she did not tell the names of the assailants to the doctor who treated her in the hospital and she had only told him that the injuries were there because of the fight. She further replied that the drain in which she was pushed lies in the gali, rather than inside her house.
20.14 She replied that she told the police that accused Babloo had thrown tea on her face. Witness was confronted with the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.PC as Ex. PW2/D1, where it is not so recorded. She further replied that she had told police about Poonam. She replied that police did not record the statement of Poonam in her presence.
20.15 Witness denied the suggestion that they had initiated fight with the accused persons or that she fell down in the drain on her own due to which she sustained injuries.
20.16 She further replied that her husband works as mason. She denied the suggestion that self injuries were inflicted with axe and rods by them. She replied that the axe and rods were recovered by the police from her house. Witness voluntarily State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 20 clarified that accused persons had thrown those articles and they had kept them with them so as to preserve them. She replied that she did not tell police on 15.03.2009 that accused persons had thrown the weapons on the spot or that they had kept it with them. She replied that no person from the neighbourhood was present there when the weapons were handed over to the police. 20.17 She denied the suggestion that they had inflicted injuries upon accused Hori Lal and Ram Kishan @ Babloo, using these axe and iron rods and thereafter, they went inside their house. She further replied that the weapon were taken in sack from their house and same were sealed in her presence.
21. PW-4 Sh. Satvir Singh:- He deposed that he knew all the accused persons as they resides in his gali for the last about 10 years. He further deposed that on 15.03.2009, he was residing at H.No. 29, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar, Phase-VIII, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-94 and on that day at around 9.00 am, he went to take breakfast (Pape) from a shop situated at the corner of the gali. He deposed that he had purchased the items from that shop and returned to his home and when he entered his house, he saw that all the accused persons were present inside his house and were engaged in causing physical assault to his uncle Nem Singh (Mausa), aunt namely Savitri (Mausi) and cousin Virender.
21.1 He deposed that the moment he entered his house, JCL ( R ) had hit him on his head with iron rod. He further deposed that thereafter, accused Sonu had hit him on the left side of his face with a hockey stick. He further deposed that he became unconscious and fell down and therefore, he could not recollect what had happened further at that spot. He further deposed that he regained his consciousness at GTB Hospital and State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 21 he was treated there and was discharged on the same day. He deposed that he was given six stitches on his head and three stitches on his face. He further deposed that police had recorded his statement.
21.2 During cross examination, he replied that his statement was recorded by the police on 17.03.2009 at his residence at about 10.00 pm. He replied that he had stated to the police that his uncle, aunt and cousin were being physically assaulted by all accused persons. Witness was confronted with statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.PC Ex.PW4/D1, wherein he has not mentioned the specific names of the family members who were being physically assaulted by all accused persons.
21.3 He replied that he had stated to the police that JCL (R) had hit him with iron rod. Witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW4/D1, wherein it is recorded that JCL had hit the witness with hockey stick. He further replied that he had stated to the police that accused Sonu had hit him with hockey stick. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW4/D1, wherein it is recorded that accused Sonu had hit the witness with iron rod.
21.4 He replied that the shop was at a distance of around two minutes walk from his house. He further replied that when he was on his way to the shop, he did not hear any noise of the quarrel from his house. He replied that he did not see the accused persons entering his house and his house is not being visible from the shop visited by him. He further replied that around 20-25 public persons had assembled at the gate of his house and 2-3 persons had also tried to intervene inside his State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 22 house. He replied that he is not able to recollect the names of public persons, who were present inside his house.
21.5 He replied that he do not knew the names of the persons who were standing at the gate of his house. He replied that public persons did not sustain any injury in his presence. He further replied that he had regained his consciousness after around 3-4 hours and no policeman met him and made any kind of inquiry at hospital. He replied that he told the treating doctor that he had sustained injuries in a quarrel after regaining his consciousness. He replied that he did not tell the names of assailants to the doctor.
21.6 He replied that police did not record statement of any other person in his presence. He further replied that police recorded his statement once only and he had visited police station once in connection to this case. He replied that police did not obtain any signature on any document in this case. Witness denied the suggestion that accused persons did not enter his house or that they did not fight with his uncle, aunt and cousin or that he was not hit by JCL (R) and accused Sonu or that accused persons were falsely implicated in this case.
22. PW-5 Sh. Virender Kumar:- He deposed that he knew accused persons for the last 8-10 years being neighbourers. He deposed that on 15.03.2009 at about 9.00-9.15 am, he was present at his house at G-95, Phase-VIII, Gali No. 3, Shiv Vihar, Delhi. He deposed that Sh. Satbir and Smt. Satviri were also present at the house who are his relatives. He deposed that Gayatri, mother of accused Babloo was passing by the road in front of their house and Savitri told her that her son was talking State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 23 wrong things about her (Aapka Ladka Mere Bare Me Galat Salat Bol Raha Hai). He deposed that accused Gayatri refuted such allegations while stating that her son could not say anything wrong and on this his aunt Savitri told accused Gayatri to atleast ask from the accused Bablu about the same in order to verify the same. He deposed that on this, accused Gayatri called her son accused Bablu from her house, which situates after one house from their house.
22.1 He deposed that accused Bablu came there and when he was asked about such allegations by accused Gayatri, then he threw tea upon Savitri while abusing her and stating that (Bahin Ki Laudi Ko Mai Aisi Baten bolunga). He deposed that thereafter, a physical altercation took place between accused Bablu, witness and his aunt Savitri. He deposed that by that time, upon hearing noise of their scuffle, JCL (R), accused Sonu, accused Hori Lal, accused Aslam and accused Dharamveer also came there.
22.2 He deposed that his uncle Nem Singh was not present at the house at that time as he was present in a shop at the corner of their gali. He deposed that someone called him. He reached there and took him and his aunt Savitri inside their house. He deposed that when they went inside their house, then accused Bablu exhorted to beat them stating that (Maro Bahin Ke Laudo Ko). He further deposed that thereafter, all the accused persons attacked on them while entering inside their house. He further deposed that accused Bablu was carrying an axe, accused Sonu and accused Dharamveer were carrying hockey sticks, accused Hori Lal and JCL (R) were carrying iron rods and accused Aslam and accused Gayatri were carrying wooden sticks. State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 24 22.3 Witness was put Court questions that when they did bring the aforesaid weapons, to which he replied that when accused Bablu had exhorted to beat them, JCL (R), accused Dharamveer, accused Aslam and accused Hori Lal, who were standing at the gate of their house, immediately took the aforesaid weapons and thereafter, all of them attacked on them. It appeared that they were already ready to attack upon them.
22.4 He further deposed that accused Bablu hit him on his head with axe. He further deposed that however, he could not see whether it was blunt side or sharp side of the axe, by which he was attacked. He deposed that all the accused persons also beat Nem Singh, Satbir and Savitri, but he could not gave attention that which accused persons had hit which of the aforesaid persons. He deposed that all four of them were bleeding and the assault continued for around five minutes. He deposed that the neighbours came there and intervened and they separated them from the accused persons. He deposed that thereafter, Nem Singh made call at 100 number and PCR Van came there and PCR officials called the Ambulance.
22.5 He further deposed that all four of them were taken to GTB Hospital in the Ambulance. He further deposed that they were treated in the hospital and all four of them were discharged on the same day and they return together to their home in the evening.
22.6 He deposed that on the next day, police visited their house to record their statements. He further deposed that however, none of them were in a condition to give their statement, therefore, police returned back. He deposed that he State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 25 could not speak due to nervousness before the police and he cannot explain the condition of other three persons and the reason due to which they could not give statement before the police.
22.7 He deposed that on next day i.e. on 17.03.2009 at around 10.00 pm, police again came to their house and recorded statement of all four of them.
22.8 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that accused Aslam does not reside in the same gali and he resides in Mustafabad. He replied that he had stated before police that Gayatri was passing by in front of their house and his aunt Savitri stopped her to talk to her.
22.9 Witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex. PW5/D1,wherein this fact is not so stated. He replied that he did not state before the police that Savitri asked accused Gayatri to call accused Bablu in order to verify the allegations. He replied that he did not mention the exact words of abuse being given by accused Bablu, in his statement given to the police. He further replied that he had stated to the police that accused Bablu had thrown tea upon Savitri.
22.10 The witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW5/D1, wherein it is not so stated. He replied that accused persons were not taken to GTB hospital in the same ambulance and police did not sit in the ambulance. He replied that he did not mention the names of assailants and the weapon of assault before the treating doctor. He replied that when he reached the hospital, he was conscious.
22.11 He replied that he do not remember whether all four State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 26 of them were treated in same room. He further replied that he do not remember if any police official came to the hospital to record their statement and he cannot tell the exact time of their discharge. He replied that he do not know the name of the police official who had recorded their statement. He further replied that police recorded his statement once only and he do not remember if he had signed his statement. He replied that his uncle Nem Singh is a contractor/messon.
22.12 Court question was put to the witness that whether Satbir was present in the house since beginning of the quarrel i.e. the initiation of altercation between Savitri, Gayatri, Bablu and witness to which, he affirmed that he was present in the house since the beginning of the quarrel.
23. PW-6 Sh. Jagpal:- He deposed that on 15.03.2009 at around 9.00-9.30 am, he was present in Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar and the house number was probably G-33. He deposed that he had gone to the house of his uncle in order to meet his cousin Mahabir. He further deposed that he was sitting in the house of Mahabir and they heard noise coming from the road and then they went out of their house and saw 6 to 7 persons coming/running out a house at a distance of 3-4 houses from them. He deposed that he do not know those persons because he was not the resident of that place, however, he identified those persons.
23.1 Witness pointed out towards all the accused persons while stating that they were the persons who were coming out from that house. He deposed that from the public persons present there, he came to know that the said house was State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 27 belonging to one Mr. Nem Singh. He deposed that he did not know the said Nem Singh also.
23.2 He deposed that he did not visit the house of Nem Singh and he returned back to the house of his uncle. He further deposed that police had come there in his presence but he do not know whether police took anyone from that place. He deposed that he did not see any injured person. He deposed that accused persons were having some articles like iron rod, wooden stick, hockey stick etc. in their hands when they were coming out of that house. He deposed that they threw those articles/weapons outside the house and went away to their house which was situating adjacent to the house of his uncle.
23.3 He deposed that he visited the house of his uncle again after 3-4 days and on that day said Nem Singh met him on the road and he identified him. He deposed that Nem Singh asked him if he could become a witness in this case as he was present at the place of incident upon which witness agreed to depose whatever he had seen. He further deposed that he had given his particulars to Nem Singh. He further deposed that after some days, Nem Singh had called him in order to visit Police Station Bhajanpura and to give his statement. He further deposed that he visited to the Police Station Bhajanpura and Police Station Karawal Nagar and gave his statement to the police.
23.4 Witness was cross examined by Ld. Additional PP for the State.
23.5 During cross examination made on behalf of State by Ld. Additional PP for the State, he replied that he gave his statement to the police. Witness denied the suggestion that he State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 28 saw the accused persons present in the Court while giving beatings to Nem Singh and his family members.
23.6 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, witness replied that he had been visiting the house of his uncle for last 10-12 years. He further replied that he has no relation with Nem Singh. He denied the suggestion that niece of Savitri was married in his family. He replied that he had stated to the police that all accused persons were coming out of the house of Nem Singh. Witness was confronted with statement U/s 161 Cr.PC Ex. PW6/D1, wherein this fact is not so stated.
23.7 He replied that he had stated before police that all accused persons came out with some weapons in their hand and they threw the same outside that house. Witness was confronted with statement Ex. PW6/D1, wherein this fact is not so stated. He replied that he do not remember the date when he had given the statement to the police.
23.8 Witness denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of Nem Singh or his family or that he was not present at the spot on 15.03.2009.
24. PW-7 Sh. Sanjeev Kumar:- He deposed that he knew the accused persons being resident of his Gali. He deposed that on 15.03.2009 at about 9.00-9.30 am, he alongwith his friend Jagpal went to G-33, Gali No. 6, Shiv Vihar and when they were sitting inside the house, they heard noise of crying then he alongwith his friend Jagpal came out of the house. He further deposed that he saw that accused persons were giving beatings to Nem Singh, his wife and one or two boys. He deposed that accused persons were having iron rods, dandas whereas accused State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 29 Sonu was having axe.
24.1 He further deposed that someone had informed police at 100 number and police had arrived there and took both the parties with them. He deposed that thereafter he alongwith his friend Jagpal left that place for their house.
24.2 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that prior to the incident he alongwith his friend Jagpal had visited the House No. G-33 on many occasions. He further replied that he alongwith his friend Jagpal went to the house at G-33, Shiv Vihar on 15.03.2009. He replied that they had reached at the above-said house before 9.00 am. He replied that he cannot tell the exact time of reaching that house. He further replied that on the spot, he remained with Jagpal for the whole time. He replied that the quarrel started from road and continued upto inside the house of Nem Singh. He replied that he did not enter into the house of Nem Singh and he remained outside the house while watching the beating alongwith others. He further replied that he did not count the number of persons assembled there but they may be 40-50 in number.
24.3 He replied that he was not introduced to Nem Singh prior to the incident but he knew him with reference to his name. He replied that he did not try to intervene in that quarrel and beating because the accused persons were armed with several weapons including axe and he did not want to take any risk.
24.4 He further replied that PCR officials who had reached the spot in his presence did not make any inquiry from him nor did he try to tell anything to them at that time. He replied that he did not knew accused Hori Lal with reference to State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 30 his name prior to this incident though his face was familiar to him because he used to reside in the same gali. He replied that he came to know his name after the incident. Witness denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely because uncle of Jagpal is next door neighbour of Nem Singh. He replied that he did not tell specifically to the police that the said quarrel had continued from gali to the house of Nem Singh.
25. PW-8 Smt. Poonam:- She deposed that on 15.03.2009, she was present at her parental house number not known, gali number now known but it was Shiv Vihar. She deposed that at 9.00-9.30 am, she was watching the TV. She further deposed that she was told by her father that some quarrel was going on outside on the road between accused Hori Lal and Nem Singh. She further deposed that she kept watching the TV and did not go there to watch the incident.
25.1 The said witness was not cross examined by accused despite affording of opportunity.
MEDICAL WITNESS
26. PW-3 Dr. Harish Raheja:- He deposed that on 24.03.2009, he was working as Senior Resident in Department of Surgery, GTB Hospital. He further deposed that on that day after going through the surgical record of the patient Satbir S/o Jai Kishan aged about 20 years, he opined the nature of injuries as simple on the MLC and his opinion on MLC is exhibited as Ex. PW3/A. 26.1 He deposed that he had also seen the MLC of Virender S/o Jai Pal on the same day after going through surgical record. He deposed that he also opined the nature of injury as State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 31 simple. He deposed that his opinion on MLC is exhibited as Ex. PW3/B. 26.2 He further deposed that he had also seen the MLC of Nem Singh S/o Raghuvir on the same day after going through surgical record. He deposed that he also opined the nature of injury as simple and his opinion on the MLC is exhibited as Ex. PW3/C. 26.3 During cross examination, he replied that he personally did not examine the patient. He further replied that he cannot comment whether the injury received by the patient could have been sustained by falling on hard surface.
27. PW-9 Dr. Rahul Sapra:- He deposed that on 15.03.2009, he was working in GTB Hospital as JR. He deposed that on that day, he was on duty in Emergency and at about 10.56 am, a patient was brought by CATS. He deposed that his name was disclosed as Smt. Savitri. He deposed that he medically examined her and prepared her MLC Ex. PW9/A. He deposed that as per the MLC, the patient had made complaint of swelling and pain in the left hand posterior aspect.
27.1 He deposed that on the same day at about 11.10 am, another patient namely Virendra was brought by CATS. He further deposed that he examined him and prepared his MLC as Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that as per MLC, the patient had sustained lacerated wound on right forehead measuring 5cm x 1 cm, pain and swelling over right elbow and right thigh.
27.2 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite affording of opportunity.
28. PW-10 Sh. Chanderpal Singh:- He deposed that on State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 32 15.03.2009, he was posted as CATs Ambulance Alpha-16 Incharge and he was present at Yamuna Vihar, Govt Dispensary. He deposed that his duty was from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He further deposed that at around 9.30-9.45 am, he received a call regarding a quarrel at Phase-VIII, Gali No. 6, G-Block, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar and he was asked to proceed that spot to take the injured persons. He further deposed that he reached there with his ambulance alongwith Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma and on the spot he found that a number of persons being present. He deposed that they found four injured persons in the gali. He further deposed that out of them, one was lady and three were male persons. He deposed that they took all four injured persons in their ambulance to GTB hospital. He further deposed that all four injured persons were conscious however, three male injured were having bleeding. He deposed that they handed over those injured persons in the emergency of GTB hospital and they returned back.
28.1 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite affording of opportunity.
29. PW-11 Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma:-He deposed that on 15.03.2009, he was posted as Assistant in CATs Ambulance Alpha-16 and was present at Yamuna Vihar, Govt Dispensary. He further deposed that his duty was from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm. He deposed that at around 9.30-9.45 am, Incharge of this ambulance Sh. C.P Singh received a call regarding a quarrel at Phase-VIII, Gali No. 6, G Block, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar and he was asked to proceed to that spot to take the injured persons. He deposed that they reached there with ambulance. He deposed that on the spot, they found the presence of number of persons. State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 33 He further deposed that they found four injured persons in the gali, out of them one was lady, and three were male persons. He deposed that they took all four injured persons in their ambulance to GTB hospital. He further deposed that all four injured persons were conscious however, three male injured were having bleeding. He deposed that they handed over injured persons in the emergency of GTB hospital and they returned back.
29.1 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite affording of opportunity.
30. PW-13 Dr. Deepak Chahar:- He identified the handwriting and signature of Dr. Amit Bhardwaj who had worked with him as a Senior Resident in the same department at the relevant time. He deposed that he had seen him writing and signing, therefore he could identify his handwriting and signature. He deposed that he has seen the MLC in the name of Savitri as Ex. PW9/A. He deposed that on this MLC, Dr. Amit Bhardwaj had given his opinion regarding nature of injury and signature of Dr. Amit appears at point Z. He further deposed that as per this opinion, the injury was grievous. He deposed that though on the x-ray report of Savitri, there was no mention of any fracture, however there may be some discrepancy with such report and he could give opinion after going through the x-ray film.
30.1 He further deposed that from the perusal of x-ray film of patient, he find that there was a fracture on base of fifth metacarpal of left hand. He deposed that the opinion given by Dr. Amit was correct opinion. He deposed that there might be a possibility that concerned radiologist would have missed to State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 34 identify his fracture. He exhibited the x-ray report as Ex. PW13/A. 30.2 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, witness denied the suggestion that no fracture was sustained by Savitri and he had given wrong opinion.
31. PW-18 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram:- He deposed that on 15.03.2009, he was working as CMO in GTB Hospital and on that day, injured person namely Satbir and Nem Singh were brought in hospital by CAT officials with alleged history of physical assault. He deposed that they were medically examined by Dr. Madhab Kalita and by Dr. Umesh, who were working as Junior Resident in GTB Hospital. He further deposed that Dr. Madhab Kalita and Dr. Umesh have left the services of the GTB hospital. He further deposed that they had worked with him at that time and he had seen them while writing and signing. He identified the handwriting and signature of both the said doctors. He deposed that the MLC of Satbir is placed on record was prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Madhab Kalita as Ex. PW3/A. 31.2. He further deposed that the MLC of Nem Singh is placed on record was prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Umesh as Ex. PW3/C. 31.3. During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that on 15.03.2009, he was on duty in Emergency as CMO at GTB Hospital. Witness denied the suggestion that he had identified the signatures and handwriting of the aforesaid doctors in the routine manner or that he had not seen them while writing and signing in his natural course of State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 35 duties.
POLICE WITNESSES
32. PW-12 HC Raj Kumar:- He deposed that on 17.03.2009, he was posted as Head Constable at Police Station Karawal Nagar and on that day, he was working as Duty Officer from 4 pm to 12 am and at about 9.45 pm, ASI Vijay Singh had handed over him a rukka in the police station. He deposed that on the basis of the rukka, he registered FIR No. 70/2009 and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Vijay Singh for further investigation. Witness produced the original register containing the said FIR and carbon copy of the FIR was being placed on record and same was exhibited as Ex. PW12/A. He deposed that he had also made endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW12/B. 32.1 The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite affording of opportunity.
33. PW-14 Ct. Sandeep:- He deposed that on 17.03.2009, he was posted as Constable at PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He further deposed that on that day, he was on emergency duty with ASI Vijay Singh Bisht with duty hours from 8 pm to 8 am. He further deposed that at about 08.15 pm, SHO/Inspector Sukhbir Singh had asked ASI Vijay Singh to record the statement of Naim Singh, who was preset in the police station at that time.
33.1 He further deposed that ASI Vijay Singh recorded the statement of Naim Singh and on which, he made his endorsement. He deposed that he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR and thereafter, IO/ASI Vijay Singh alongwith Naim Singh went to the spot.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 36 33.2 He further deposed that Duty Officer handed over him the copy of FIR and original rukka and he also went to the spot i.e. Gali no. 6, Phase-8, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that he had handed over the copy of the FIR and the rukka to IO/ASI Vijay Singh. He deposed that IO prepared the site plan at the instance of Naim Singh. He further deposed that thereafter, Naim Singh and Satbir had handed over their blood stained clothes to the IO, who kept the same in separate cloth pullanda and said pullandas were sealed with the seal of VSB and seized and seizure memo of clothes of Naim Singh was prepared as Ex. PW1/C and seizure memo of clothes of Satbir was prepared as Ex PW14/A. 33.3 He deposed that IO had recorded the statement of Naim Singh, Satbir and Savitri and thereafter, they returned back to the police station.
33.4 He further deposed that on 23.03.2009, he alongwith HC Devender went to the house of Naim Singh and he produced one axe, iron pipe, one wooden plank and one broken hockey stick before HC Devender and HC Devender seized the same and prepared the seizure memo as Ex. PW1/D and the said pullanda was sealed with the seal of DK.
33.5 He deposed that he could identify the case property i.e. clothes of Naim Singh and Satbir and other articles, if shown to him. He deposed that clothes of Naim Singh consisted of white vest and one shirt of grey colour with black stripes and clothes of Satbir consisted of one T-shirt of cream colour with black stripe.
33.6 He had identified the case property i.e. one white torn vest (blood stained and having one piece being cut), grey State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 37 colour shirt with black stripes (blood stained and having two piece being cut on back side and from arm) and one piece of cloth (blood stained) are exhibited as Ex. P-1.
33.7 He had also identified one cream colour T-Shirt with black stripes on shoulder and around neck (having light blood stain and a piece of cut on chest) as Ex. PW14/Article-1.
33.8 He had identified the other case property i.e. one iron pipe, one wooden plank, one axe with wooden handle, one broken piece of hockey as Ex. P2.
33.9 During the cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that the distance between the police station and the spot was about half kilometer. He further replied that it took about 7-8 minutes to reach the spot from the PS Karawal Nagar.
33.10 He further replied that ASI Vijay Singh had recorded the statement of Naim Singh in the police station. He replied that he was present at some distance in the Police Station and at that time, ASI Vijay Singh and Naim Singh had reached the spot on foot. He further replied that it was about 08.15 pm, when SHO asked ASI Vijay Singh to record the statement of Naim Singh. He further replied that he reached at the spot at about 10.20 pm and he met IO/ASI Vijay Singh, Naim Singh and wife of Naim Singh namely Savitri and Satbir. He further replied that IO recorded the statements of all these persons on the spot in his presence. He replied that IO had made local inquiry from the neighbourers and had made inquiry in respect of accused persons also. He also made inquiry in respect of weapons used in that incident. He further replied that no one from neighbours had agreed to State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 38 become witness in this case.
33.11 He replied that no notice was given to any person by the IO and he could not tell their particulars. He further replied that IO did not ask the family members of Naim Singh about the place from where the weapons, used in this case were kept.
33.12 He further replied that on 23.03.2009, he went to the house of Naim Singh from the police station. He replied that the main gate of the house of Naim Singh was made of iron and there was ground floor only. He further replied that he went to his house as HC Devender asked him to accompany him. He replied that HC Devender had asked Naim Singh that whether he could trace the weapons of offence and Naim Singh answered in affirmative and produced the above mentioned weapons.
33.13 He further replied that HC Devender had asked some public persons from the neighbourhood to join the proceedings of recovery of weapons but none had agreed. He replied that they had reached the house of Naim Singh at 6.30 pm. He further replied that IO did not prepare any sketch of axe. He denied the suggestion that no proceeding had took place in his presence or that IO had prepared all the documents in the police station and he signed the same at his instance.
34. PW-15 ASI Vijay Singh:-He deposed that on 17.03.2009, he was posted as ASI at PS Karawal Nagar and on that day, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep were on emergency duty with duty hours from 8.00 pm to 8.00 am. He deposed that at about 9.00 pm, SHO/Inspector Sukhbir Singh had asked him to record the statement of Naim Singh, who was present in the police station at that time. He further deposed that he also handed over four State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 39 MLCs of Naim Singh, Savitri Devi, Satbir and Virender to him. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of Naim Singh and on which he made his endorsement and prepared a rukka as Ex. PW15/A and handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer HC Raj Kumar for registration of FIR.
34.1 He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Naim Singh went to the spot i.e. G-29, Gali No. 6, Phase-8, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi. He deposed that at that place, Naim Singh had informed about the place of incident. He deposed that he had prepared the site plan at the instance of Naim Singh as Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that at about 10.30 pm, Ct. Sandeep had reached at that place and had handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him.
34.2 He deposed that thereafter, Naim Singh had handed over his white vest, one grey colour shirt having black stripes and one white cloth (all blood stained) to him. He deposed that he kept the same in separate cloth pullanda and same was sealed with the seal of VSB and seizure memo of clothes of Naim Singh was prepared as Ex. PW1/C. 34.3 He further deposed that Satbir had produced one T- shirt of cream colour having black stripes (blood stained) to him. He deposed that he prepared pullanda of the same and sealed with the seal of VSB and seizure memo of cloth of Satbir was prepared as Ex. PW14/A. 34.4 He deposed that he had recorded the statements of Naim Singh, Satbir, Virender and Savitri Devi and thereafter, he made local inquiry and searched for the accused persons. He deposed that he could not find any accused persons. He deposed State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 40 that he could not find any other witness as well.
34.5 He deposed that thereafter, he recorded the statement of Ct. Sandeep. He further deposed that he narrated the entire facts to the SHO over the telephone and he had asked him to hand over further investigation to ASI Rambir and thereafter, they return back to the police station. He deposed that he deposited the pullandas with MHC(M) and handed over the case file to ASI Rambir.
34.6 He further deposed that he could identify the case property i.e. clothes of Naim Singh and Satbir and other articles. He identified the vest, piece of cloth and shirt which were produced by Naim Singh as Ex. P1.
34.7 He also identified the one cream colour T-shirt with black stripes on shoulder and round neck (having light blood stain and a piece cut on chest) as Ex. PW14/Article-1.
34.8 He also identified the one cream colour T-shirt with black stripes on shoulder and round neck (having light blood stain and a piece cut on chest) as same was produced by Satbir as Ex. PW14/Article-1.
34.9 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that it took around 05-07 minutes to reach at the house of Naim Singh from Police Station on foot. He further replied that the main gate of the house of Naim Singh was made of wooden and the house of Naim Singh was a single storey house. He further replied that he do not remember the number of rooms in that house. He replied that the incident took place inside the house of Naim Singh.
34.10 He replied that when he prepared the site plan, State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 41 Naim Singh, Savitri, Satbir and Virender were present at that place. He further replied that site plan was prepared by him while standing outside the house of Naim Singh. He replied that he had asked to 3-4 passersby to join the recovery proceedings, but they refused to join the same. He further replied that they did not disclose their names and addresses and no notice was given to them by him due to their refusal. He further replied that he also called the neighbourers to join the proceedings but they did not come. He replied that he cannot tell the names of the neighbourers. He further replied that he did not give any written notice to them. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot at any point of time or that he did not ask public persons to join the recovery proceedings. He further denied the suggestion that nothing was seized from the house of Naim Singh or that all the documents were prepared by him while sitting at the police station and he further denied the suggestion that he did not record the statement of any public witness at the spot.
35. PW-16 ASI Devender Kumar:- He deposed that on 19.03.2009, he was posted as Head Constable at PS Karawal Nagar and on that day, the case file was handed over to him for further investigation. He deposed that he inspected the case file and anticipatory bail application of accused was fixed for hearing on 20.03.2009 and the said application was dismissed by the Court.
35.1 He further deposed that he went to the house of accused Hori Lal to arrest him but he could not be traced. He deposed that he went to the house of the complainant and he recorded the supplementary statement of Naim Singh. He further deposed that he added Section 308 IPC during investigation. He State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 42 further deposed that on 21.03.2009, again anticipatory bail application was fixed for hearing in the Court. He deposed that he recorded the statement of public witness Poonam in the area of PS Karawal Nagar. He further deposed that on 23.03.2009, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep went to the house of the complainant Naim Singh and he handed over one axe, one iron pipe, one wooden plank and broken piece of hockey to him. He further deposed that he seized the same through sealed pullanda sealed with the seal of DK and seizure memo was prepared as Ex. PW1/D. 35.2 He further deposed that on 24.03.2009, he collected the result of MLC of injured Savitri and doctor opined the nature of injuries as grievous. He further deposed that thereafter, Section 325 IPC was added and he recorded the statement of Naim Singh and Ct. Sandeep and deposited the case property in the Malkhana.
35.3 He deposed that on 25.03.2009, the case file was transferred from him to some other police official and he deposited the said file with the MHC(M).
35.4 He further deposed that he can identify the case property i.e. one iron pipe (length about 3 feet), one wooden plank (length about 2 feet and 10.5 inches), one axe with wooden handle, one broken piece of hockey as Ex. P2.
35.5 During cross examination made on behalf of the accused persons, he replied that he went to the spot on 20.03.2009 from the Court. He further replied that it was noon time when he reached the spot but he could not recollect the exact time. He further replied that no other witness except Sh.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 43 Naim Singh met him at his house. He further replied that Naim Singh did not accompanied him in the search of the accused persons at their houses. He further replied that complainant could not reply properly regarding the weapons, he handed over to him. He replied that Naim Singh told him in his statement that accused Hori Lal with his associates caused injuries to him.
35.6 He further replied that no other family member of Naim Singh met him at the house of Naim Singh and hence, he did not record their statements. He replied that he had requested the neighbourers of Naim Singh to join investigation but none agreed.
35.7. He replied that the main gate of house of Naim Singh was of iron material and it was built upto 1st floor. He replied that on 23.03.2009, he reached the spot from the Court Complex, he did not notice Naim Singh and his family members in the Court during hearing of anticipatory bail of accused Hori Lal. He replied that he reached the house of complainant between 2-3 pm. 35.8 He further replied that Ct. Sandeep was called by him from the Police Station. He replied that the sealing material was with him and same was lying in the dickey of his motorcycle. He replied that complainant handed over weapon of offence after he made inquiry about the same. He further replied that on 23.03.2009 at the time of recovery of weapon of offence, he asked one neighbour of complainant to join the proceeding and to become the witness but he refused to do so.
35.9 He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the spot of incident or that he did not recover any weapon of offence State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 44 or that complainant handed over all weapon of offence to him in Police Station.
36. PW-17 Ct. Rattan Kumar:- He deposed that on 30.03.2009, he was posted as Constable at DIU, N/E District and on that day he had joined investigation of this case with Inspector Ashok Kumar. He further deposed that he accompanied him to the Karkardooma Court. He deposed that three accused persons namely Hori Lal, Ram Kishan and name of 3rd accused, he do not recollect had surrendered in the Court of Ld. MM. He deposed that IO moved an application for interrogation of accused persons and after taking permission of the Court, they were interrogated and arrested in this case and arrest memo of accused Hori Lal was prepared as Ex. PW17/A, arrest memo of accused Sonu was prepared as Ex. PW17/B and the arrest memo of accused Ram Kishan was prepared as Ex. PW17/C. He further deposed that personal search memos of these accused persons namely Hori Lal, accused Sonu and accused Ram Kishan were prepared as Ex. PW17/D to Ex. PW17/F. He deposed that the accused persons were remanded to judicial custody.
36.1. He further deposed that on 22.04.2009, accused Gayatri Devi and Dharambir were arrested in the Police Station and arrest memos were prepared as Ex. PW17/G and Ex. PW17/H. He deposed that on 20.05.2009, he took three sealed pullandas alongwith one sample seal to FSL office vide RC No. 24/21 and got them deposited in the FSL office. He deposed that the pullandas were intact and not tampered with in any manner as long as they remained in his custody and after deposit of sealed pullandas, he handed over the receipt of the same to MHC(M). He correctly identified the accused persons namely Sonu and State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 45 Hori Lal and Ram Kishan and he further deposed that he is not able to identify the other accused persons namely Gayatri and Dharambir.
36.2 During the cross examination made on behalf of the State by Ld. Additional PP for the State, the accused persons Gayatri Devi and Dharambir were shown to the witness and asked him whether they were arrested in his presence in the police station, the witness after seeing them replied that he could not identify them due to lapse of time but their names are correct. He denied the suggestion that he is not identifying the accused Gayatri and Dharambir deliberately to save them from this case.
36.3 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons by Ld. Counsel for accused persons, he denied the suggestion that he did not accompanied IO to the Court or that accused persons were not arrested in his presence. He further replied that he had signed all the documents at the instance of IO at the police station.
37. PW-19 Inspector Ashok Kumar:- He deposed that on 28.03.2009, he was posted in the DIU, N/E District, Delhi and on that day the investigation of the this case was marked to him. He further deposed that on 30.05.2009, he came at Karkardooma Court Complex alongwith Ct. Ratan Singh, where accused Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo had surrendered before the Court of the concerned Ld. MM. He deposed that he interrogated the aforesaid accused persons with the permission of the Court and they disclosed their involvement in this case. He deposed that he arrested accused Hori Lal and prepared arrest memo as Ex. PW17/A and personal search of accused Hori Lal was State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 46 conducted and memo was prepared as Ex. PW17/D. 37.1 He deposed that he also arrested accused Sonu and prepared arrest memo as Ex. PW17/B and personal search of accused Sonu was conducted and memo Ex. PW17/E was prepared.
37.2 He deposed that he also arrested accused Ram Kishan and prepared arrest memo Ex. PW17/C and personal search of accused Sonu was conducted and memo Ex. PW17/F was prepared.
37.3 He further deposed that on 22.04.2009, Gayatri and Dharambir came to their office and he arrested Gayatri and prepared arrest memo as Ex. PW17/G. He further deposed that he also arrested accused Dharamvir and prepared arrest memo as Ex. PW17/H. He deposed that Gayatri Devi and Dharamvir were released on bail as the anticipatory bail order was granted in their favour.
37.4 He deposed that he recorded the statement of witnesses. He further deposed that on 20.05.2009, exhibits of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Ratan Singh and meanwhile, he recorded his statement.
37.5 He deposed that thereafter, he was transferred from DIU N/E District, Delhi and he handed over the case file to the Reader of ACP. He correctly identified the accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Smt. Gayatri and Dharambir in the Court.
37.6 During cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he replied that he also visited the spot during his investigation in the present case. He further replied that he also State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 47 recorded the statement of Sanjeev and Jagpal during his investigation. He further replied that both the witnesses came to their office alongwith complainant Sh. Nem Singh.
38. PW-20 Inspector Pramod Kumar:- He deposed that on 18.07.2009, he was posted at DIU, North-East District and on that day, the further investigation of the present case was marked to him and on 19.09.2009, accused Aslam Khan, appeared in the office of DIU, North-East and shown him the anticipatory bail order. He deposed that accused Aslam Khan was formally arrested and arrest memo was prepared as Ex. PW20/A and was released on bail. He deposed that his personal search was conducted and memo was prepared as Ex. PW20/B. 38.1 He deposed that on 16.10.2009, JCL came alongwith his father accused Hori Lal in the office of DIU, North-East, and produced the bail order of anticipatory bail. He further deposed that Juvenile Officer ASI Habib Ahmed was called and in his presence, the apprehending memo of JCL was prepared and separate report regarding JCL was prepared and was filed before the Juvenile Justice Board. He deposed that he recorded the statement of officials of CAT Ambulance and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court.
38.2 During the cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he deposed that during the investigation of present case, he had also visited at the place of incident and he could not tell the name of neighbours of complainant. He voluntarily replied that complainant and accused persons are neighbours. He further replied that the distance between the State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 48 house of the complainant and accused was about 15-20 feet. He replied that he had not recorded the statement of ASI Rambir Singh during the period of investigation remained with him.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
39. PW-21 Sh. Naresh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini:- He deposed that on 20.05.2009, three sealed parcels sealed as per the seals mentioned in the FSL form were received in the office in the present case. He further deposed that seals on the parcels were compared with the specimen seals and found intact. He deposed that Parcel No. 1 and 2 were sealed with the seal of VSB, however, it was inadvertently written as VBS in the report and parcel no. 3 was sealed with the seal of DK.
39.1 He further deposed that parcels were opened and exhibits were taken out which were marked as Ex. 1A,1b, Ex. 1C, 2, 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d. He deposed that on biological examination, blood was detected on all the exhibits and he also prepared the serological report and human blood was found on all the exhibits.
39.2 He deposed that blood group A was found on exhibits 1a, 1b and 1c and blood group B was found on Ex.2. He further deposed that however, rest of the exhibits gave no reaction in ABO grouping and his detailed biological report is exhibited as Ex. PW21/A and his detailed serological report is exhibited as Ex. PW21/B. State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 49 39.3 During the cross examination made on behalf of accused persons, he denied the suggestion that he did not examine the aforesaid exhibits personally. He further denied the suggestion that his report Ex. PW21/A was prepared later on the behest of IO.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED Arguments on behalf of the State through Ld. Additional Public Prosecution for the State
40. It is submitted on behalf of the State that all the victims of the case were examined and they duly supported the case of prosecution regarding the date, time, place of incident and identity of the accused persons. It is further submitted that all the victims namely Nem Singh, Savitri, Satbir and Virender deposed in the Court and narrated the incident and role of the accused persons in the commission of offence against them. It is further submitted that no material contradiction came on record during the entire trial by way of cross examination of the victims as well as other witnesses of the prosecution. It is further submitted that prosecution has duly proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt regarding commission of offence punishable U/s 454/307/34 IPC by the accused persons against the victims. It is further submitted that all the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
Arguments on behalf of the accused/Defence, through Ld Counsel for Defence
41. It is submitted on behalf of the accused persons that all the alleged eye witnesses/victims are interested witnesses and infact they attacked upon the accused persons and caused them State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 50 injuries. It is further submitted that alleged victims falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case with the connivance of the police after three days of the alleged incident. It is further submitted that complainant side had started quarrel with accused Bablu in front of his own house and other accused persons went there to intervene and to save the life of accused Bablu. It is further submitted that allegation of offence punishable U/s 307 IPC is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case as nature of injury on all the injured were simple. It is further submitted that the complaint was lodged by the complainant after giving thoughtful consideration and consultation and no allegation was described in initial complaint/kalandara prepared by the police which was prepared vide DD No. 16-A dated 15.03.2009. It is further submitted that FIR was lodged with delay. It is further submitted that prosecution failed to prove the charges of offence punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC against the accused persons, so accused persons may be acquitted from the present case. It is further submitted that there are various improvement and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses recorded in the Court and statement of prosecution witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. It is further submitted that independent eye witness Poonam had not supported the case of prosecution. It is further submitted that witness PW2 had specifically stated that she was standing outside her house and in view of her statement, allegation of offence punishable U/s 452 IPC is not attracted. It is further submitted that all the accused persons may be acquitted from the present case as case is not proved as per law.
THE REASON FOR DECISION State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 51
42. Section 307 IPC read as under:-
307. Attempt to murder.--Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is herein-before mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.--2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] illustrations
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and if by such firing he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of 3[the first paragraph of] this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
43. Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code read as under:-
452. House-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrong ful restraint.--Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 52 either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
44. The background of the incident dated 15.03.2009 is that the complainant Nem Singh and accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Dharambir were neighbours being resident of the same locality and were known to each other. The other accused Aslam Khan though the resident of another place however as per allegation he was present with the co accused persons on the date of incident dated 15.03.2009. On 14.03.2009, when complainant returned to his home from his work, his wife Savitri had informed him that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had send a message to her through one girl Poonam D/o Yogender while proposing to develop intimate relationship with him. The complainant Nem Singh had asked his wife that he would talk to the parents of accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo as accused was his neighbour.
45. On 15.03.2009, in between 08.30 am to 09.00 am, when Savitri alongwith Virender were standing outside her house, accused Hori Lal and Gayatri were passing from there and she made a complaint to accused Hori Lal and accused Gayatri regarding their son accused Babloo about the above said his proposal to develop intimate relationship with the Savitri to which accused Hori Lal and accused Gayatri discarded and in the meantime, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo came there while accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo was having tea which he was sipping. The Savitri had enquired from accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo, on which accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo threw his tea on her face and abused her.
46. The accused persons Hori Lal, Gayatri and Ram State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 53 Kishan @ Babloo started beating to Savitri and Virender. In the meantime, complainant Nem Singh who was reading the newspaper while sitting at the corner of the street of his house, he saw that accused Hori Lal, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo, JCL(R) and accused Gayatri Devi were beating his wife Savitri and his nephew Virender. The complainant was called by someone regarding the quarrel and complainant reached at his house and tried to intervene and he pushed his wife Savitri Devi and his nephew Virender inside his house and he himself also went inside his house.
47. After sometime, accused persons Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Hori Lal, Gayatri, JCL ( R), Sonu, Aslam and Dharambir had tress-passed into the house of the complainant Nem Singh while accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo was armed with an axe (Khullhadi) in his hand, accused Hori Lal and JCL (R) were armed with iron rods in their hands, accused Sonu and Dharambir were armed with hockey sticks in their hands, and accused Aslam and accused Gayatri were armed with wooden sticks in their hands.
48. As per allegations, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had hit with axe blows on the head wrist of Virender and when complainant Nem Singh tried to save the Virender, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo also hit him with axe on his hand. The accused Sonu hit with hockey on the wrist of the complainant Nem Singh and accused Hori Lal hit with iron rod on the left hand of Savitri due to which she suffered fracture in her hand. The accused Gayatri hit wooden stick blows on the complainant Nem Singh and his wife Savitri.
49. The injured Satbir who is nephew of the State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 54 complainant also came there from the shop and entered into the house of the complainant and accused Dharambir (already expired and proceedings against him has already been abated) had attacked upon him while hitting him with hockey on his back, hand and on his body.
50. The complainant was also hit by JCL ( R) with iron rod on his head and on his mouth/face. The injured Virender was also hit by accused Dharambir and Sonu with hockey blows.
51. The complainant Nem Singh was caught from his neck by accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo and accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had caused injury in the eyes of the complainant.
52. The wife of the complainant Nem Singh was thrown in the drain adjacent to the house of the complainant by accused Hori Lal and Gayatri and they also gave beatings to her with wooden stick and iron rod.
53. The complainant called to the police at 100 number and PCR came there and Ambulance was also called and complainant, injured Virender, Savitri and Satbir were shifted to the GTB Hospital. The complainant lodged the complaint in writing Ex. PW1/A to the police on 17.03.2009 and the FIR of the present case was registered on the basis of the complaint of the complainant.
54. PW-1 Nem Singh, PW-2 Savitri, PW-4 Satbir Singh, PW-5 Virender Kumar were examined by prosecution as an eye witnesses of the incident and also the victim of the incident. As per prosecution case, PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 had received injuries in the incident.
55. PW-1 Nem Singh had specified the mode and State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 55 manner of commission of offence and role of the each of the accused persons in the commission of offence. He stated that when he reached at the spot i.e. outside his house, he found that accused persons Ram Kishan @ Babloo, JCL (R ), Hori Lal and accused Gayatri were quarreling with the Savitri and Virender. He pushed the Savitri and Virender inside his house in order to save them. He further stated that after sometime, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Hori Lal, Gayatri, JCL (R ), Sonu, Aslam and Dharambir entered into the house of the Nem Singh while tress- passing the same. PW-1 Nem Singh also explained about the weapon of offence which accused persons were carrying. He stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo was having an axe (Kulladhi) in his hand, accused Hori Lal and JCL (R ) were having iron rods in their hands, accused Sonu and Dharambir were having hockey sticks in their hands, accused Aslam and Gayatri were having wooden sticks in their hands.
56. PW-1 also specified the mode and manner of the attack by the accused persons against the PW1 and other victims. He stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had hit with axe blows on the head and wrist of the Virender just after entering inside the house of the complainant. He stated that he tried to save Virender and intervened, on which accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had also hit with axe on his hand. He further stated that accused Hori Lal hit with iron rod on his ribs. He further stated that accused Sonu had hit with hockey blow on his wrist. He also stated that accused Hori Lal also hit with iron rod on the left hand of his wife Savitri due to which she suffered fracture in her hand. He also stated that accused Gayatri hit the wooden stick blows on the Nem Singh and his wife Savitri.
State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 56
57. PW-1 Nem Singh stated that in the meantime, his nephew Satbir had came there and entered into his house and accused Dharambir had hit him with the hockey on his back, hand and on his body.
58. PW-1 Nem Singh stated that JCL (R ) had hit with iron rod on his hand and on his mouth.
59. PW-1 further stated that accused Sonu and Dharambir gave hockey blows on the body of his nephew Virender.
60. PW-1 further stated that accused Babloo had caught his neck and caused injury in his eyes.
61. PW-1 stated that accused Hori Lal and accused Gayatri had thrown his wife Savitri into the drain (Nalli) and gave her beatings with wooden sticks and iron rod. 61.1 During the cross examination of the witness PW1 accused persons put the defence that they were falsely implicated by the complainant and other victims to which witness denied specifically. No material contradiction came on record during the detailed cross examination of the witness.
61.2 PW1 has narrated the incident in detailed manner and also specified the chain of event which occurred on the date of incident. He also specified the role of each of the accused persons involved in the incident.
62. The other eye witness/victim Savitri also explained the mode and manner of commission of offence by the accused persons. She deposed that when she enquired from the accused Hori Lal and Gayatri who were passing from her house regarding the proposal of accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo of intimate relationship with her which was send through the Poonam to her, State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 57 both the accused persons stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo could not have said such things. In the meantime, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo came there having tea in his hand and at that time victim Virender was also present there. Victim Virender also enquired from accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo about the above mentioned fact and upon hearing the same, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo threw the tea on the face of Savitri and abused her. PW-2 Savitri further stated that accused Hori Lal, Gayatri and Babloo had started beating her and accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo and Virender were having a fight.
63. PW-2 further stated that accused Babloo was having an axe in his hand and accused Hori Lal and JCL (R ) were having iron rods in their hands. She further stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo hit the Virender with axe and Virender fell down. She further stated that her neighour called her husband who came there. She further stated that accused Hori Lal had hit his husband on his head with the rod. She further stated that accused Hori Lal also hit her with rod on her left hand and he pushed her to the drain.
63.1 During the detailed cross examination of the witness accused persons put the defence that she falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case and there was monetary dispute between the parties and injuries as received by the victims were self inflicted injuries to which the witness specifically denied. No material contradiction came on record during the detailed cross examination of the witness.
64. The other eye witness /victim Satbir Singh/PW4 also narrated the incident, mode and manner of commission of State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 58 offence and role of the accused persons in the commission of offence. He stated that when he entered into his house, he saw that accused persons were present inside his house and they were engaged in causing physical assault to his uncle Nem Singh (Mausa), Savitri (Mausi) and his cousin Virender.
65. He further stated that the moment he entered into his house, JCL ( R) hit him on his head with iron rod. Accused Sonu hit him on his left side of his face with hockey stick. He further stated that thereafter, he became unconscious and he fell down and therefore, he could not recollect what happened further at the spot. He stated that he regained his consciousness at GTB Hospital and he obtained treatment there. He also explained about the injuries received by him by stating that he was given six stitches on his head and three stitches on his face. 65.1 During the detailed cross examination, accused persons put the defence that injuries as received by the victims were self inflicted injuries to which witness denied. No material contradiction came on record during the detailed cross examination of the witness.
66. The other eye witness Virender/victim/PW5 also explained the mode and manner of commission of offence and role of the accused persons in the commission of offence. He stated that when Savitri enquired from the accused Gayatri about the message of accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo which was send through the girl Poonam, accused Gayatri refuted the same and accused Gayatri called her son Babloo from her house.
67. PW-5 stated that when accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo came there and when he was enquired by his mother/accused Gayatri about the allegation of Savitri, accused State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 59 Ram Kishan @ Babloo threw tea upon Savitri and abused her and altercation took place between accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Savitri and the victim Virender.
68. He further stated that upon hearing the noise of their scuffle, JCL ( R), accused Sonu, accused Hori Lal, accused Aslam and accused Dharambir also came there.
69. PW-5 stated that his uncle Nem Singh was not present at that time at that place and he was present at the shop of the corner of their street and someone called him. PW-5 stated that Nem Singh came there and took the victim Virender and Savitri inside their house and when they went inside their house, accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo exhorted to beat them while abusing them.
70. PW-5 further narrated the incident while stating that all accused persons had attacked upon them while entering inside their house.
71. PW-5 stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo was carrying an axe, accused Sonu and accused Dharambir were carrying hockey sticks, accused Hori Lal and JCL ( R) were carrying iron rods, and accused Aslam and accused Gayatri were carrying wooden sticks.
72. PW-5 stated that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo hit him with his axe on his head. He further stated that all the accused persons also gave beatings to Nem Singh, Satbir and Savitri but he could not notice that which accused person had hit to which victims. He stated that all the four victims were bleeding and the attack continued for about five minutes. He stated that neighbours came there and they intervened and they separated them from the accused persons. He stated that Nem State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 60 Singh had called the police and PCR officials came there and they called the Ambulance and they were taken to the GTB Hospital.
72.1 During the detailed cross examination of the witness, accused persons put the defence that complainant and victims had attacked upon the accused persons and they received injuries due to self infliction to which the witness denied. No material contradiction came on record during the detailed cross examination of the witness.
73. The prosecution has also relied upon the testimony of two other eye witnesses namely Jagpal/ PW6 and Sanjeev Kumar /PW7 to corroborate the incident and they also supported the case of prosecution regarding the date, place and time of incident.
73.1 During the detailed cross examination of witness PW6 and PW7, the accused persons took the defence that both these witnesses were not present at the spot to which they denied and no material contradiction came on record during the detailed cross examination of these witnesses.
74. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW-3 Dr. Harish Raheja in order to prove the MLC Ex. PW3/A of the injured/victim Satbir and he deposed that as per the record of the MLC, nature of injury caused to the injured Satbir was simple. He also proved the MLC Ex. PW3/B of the injured Virender and he stated that as per the record of the MLC, the nature of injury to the injured Virender was simple. He also proved the MLC Ex. PW3/C of the injured Nem Singh and stated that nature of the injury to the injured Nem Singh was simple. 74.1 During the cross examination of the witness, no State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 61 material contradiction came on record.
75. The prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-9 Dr. Rahul Sapra and PW-13 Dr. Deepak Chahar in order to prove the MLC Ex. PW9/A of the injured Savitri. PW-13 stated that as per MLC Ex. PW9/A, the nature of injury caused to the victim Savitri was grievous.
75.1 During cross examination of PW-9 and PW-13, no material contradiction came on record.
76. The prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of PW-10 Chander Pal Singh and PW-11 Radhey Shyam Sharma in order to establish the fact that after the incident, the victims were shifted to GTB Hospital through CATs Ambulance, where they obtained the treatment and their testimonies remained unrebutted.
77. The weight of the evidence of witnesses who himself got injuries in the course of occurrence was discussed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as " Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" 2010 IX AD (SC) 615. It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that " the question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of occurrence has been extensively discussed by the Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness in generally considered to be reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".
78. In the present case, all the four injured persons have State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 62 duly proved the fact that accused Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Aslam Khan who are facing the trial of the present case were present at the date, time and place of occurrence. All the four injured persons have also narrated and proved the case of prosecution regarding mode and manner of commission of offence and weapon of offence used by the accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Aslam Khan.
78.1 Witness PW1 has specified during his examination that he was hit by accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo on his head with the axe. He also specified that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo also hit the witness Virender on his head with the same axe and medical document of both the witnesses PW1 and Virender PW5 corroborate the fact that they received injuries on their head. Witness PW2 had specified that accused Aslam had hit with hockey on the head of victim Satbir. She also specified that accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo had hit with axe on the victim Virender. All the victims disclosed the chain of events and have duly explained the role of each of the accused in the commission of offence against them and during detailed cross examination, no material contradiction came on record.
79. The motive behind the offence as committed by the accused persons was proved by the prosecution through the testimonies of injured Nem Singh, Savitri and Virender. Though, one of the witness of the prosecution namely Poonam had not supported the case of prosecution regarding the alleged message of the accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo of his proposal for making intimate relationship with the Savitri. However, law on the point of motive of commission of offence is well settled by Hon'ble State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 63 Supreme Court of India in case titled as " State of UP Vs. Ram Babu, SC 2000 (11) AD 285, in which it was held that, " no doubt it is a sound principle to remember that every criminal act was done with a motive but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have been committed if the prosecution has failed to prove the precise motive of the accused to commit it. When the prosecution succeeded in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the victim, the inability to further put on record the manner in which such ire would have swelled up on the mind of offender to such a degree as to impel him to commit the offence cannot be constructed as a fatal, weakness of the prosecution. It is almost an impossibility for the prosecution to unravel the full dimension of mental in position of an offender towards the person whom he offered".
In another case Dr. Tarseem Kumar Vs. Delhi Admn (1994) Supp. (3) SSC 767, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that "where the case of prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of materials produced before the Court, the motive loses its importance".
80. In the present case, though the prosecution witness PW-8 Poonam has not supported the case of prosecution regarding the motive behind the offence committed by the accused persons. However, all the injured/victims Nem Singh, Savitri, Virender and Satbir have duly proved the case of prosecution regarding the motive behind the commission of offence.
81. The prosecution has duly proved through witness Nem Singh regarding the identity of the weapon of offence used State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 64 in the commission of offence which were seized during the investigation. PW-1 Nem Singh stated that after the occurrence accused persons had thrown the weapon of offence used in the commission of offence against the victims on the street and PW-5 collected the same and kept in his house and on 23.03.2009, during the investigation, he handed over the same to the police. The police officials PW-14 Ct. Sandeep and PW-16 ASI Devender have corroborated the case of prosecution regarding the seizure of the case property during the investigation and PW- 14 and PW-16 ASI Devender duly identified the case property i.e. weapon of offence used in the commission of offence by the accused persons against the victims.
82. The clothes of the victims were seized during the investigation which were having blood stains and witness PW-1 as well as PW-14 Ct. Sandeep and PW-15 ASI Vijay Singh have duly testified regarding the identity of the clothes seized during the investigation which the victims were wearing at the time of incident.
83. The prosecution witness PW-12 HC Raj Kumar have duly proved the registration of the FIR Ex. PW12/A and endorsement on the complaint of his rukka Ex. PW12/B and his testimony remained unrebutted and registration of the FIR and endorsement of rukka is duly proved by the prosecution through the examination of witness HC Raj Kumar.
84. The material part of investigation regarding the registration of the FIR, collection of evidence and recording of the statement of witnesses of prosecution was done by IO ASI Vijay Singh and in the presence of PW-14 Ct. Sandeep and both the witnesses duly proved the case of prosecution regarding State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 65 recording of statement of complainant, registration of the FIR on the basis of complaint of complainant, seizure of the clothes of the victims namely Nem Singh and Satbir, recording of statement of witnesses Nem Singh, Satbir, Virender and Savitri.
85. The arrest of the accused Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo and Gayatri by PW-19 IO Inspector Ashok Kumar is not in dispute as accused Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo had themselves surrendered before the Court and they were arrested formally with the permission of the Court and accused Gayatri was arrested on 22.04.2009 when she surrendered before IO/PW-19 on the basis of anticipatory bail order granted by the Court. Similarly, the arrest of the accused Aslam Khan by the IO/PW-20 Inspector Pramod Kumar is also not in dispute as he himself surrendered before the IO pursuance to the order of the Court on anticipatory bail.
86. The accused persons took the defence that all the victims were interested witnesses and infact they had attacked upon the accused persons and caused injuries to them. It is further defence of the accused persons that complainant side/victims had started quarrel with the accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo in front of the house of the accused persons and other accused persons intervened to save the life of accused Ram Kishan @ Babloo. It is further defence of the accused persons that there was a delay in lodging complaint by the complainant and they filed the complaint in pre planned manner. It was also pointed out in the course of arguments that there are numerous contradictions in the testimony of the victims Nem Singh, Satbir, Savitri and Virender and they improved their version from the previous statement as recorded U/s 161 Cr.PC. It was also the State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 66 argument of the accused persons that PW2 had stated that she was standing outside her house and therefore, allegation of offence punishable U/s 452 IPC is not attracted. However, the eye witnesses/victims Nem Singh, Satbir, Savitri and Virender remained consistent in their examination and cross examination and no material contradiction came on record during their examination in the Court or in the cross examination in order to discard the case of prosecution. All the victims specifically identified the accused persons during their examination in the Court and they narrated the incident, mode and manner of commission of offence, role of the individual accused persons in the commission of offence against them and no material contradiction came on record during the entire trial. All the victims had duly explained the sequence of incident during the commission of offence and no material contradiction came on record during their examination in the Court. The minor contradiction as pointed out during the course of argument by Ld. Defence counsel is not sufficient to discard the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution recorded during the trial.
87. In view of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered view that accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Aslam Khan have committed the offence punishable U/s 307/452/34 IPC against the complainant and other victims of the present case and the case of prosecution is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Aslam Khan. Hence, accused persons namely Hori Lal, Sonu, Ram Kishan @ Babloo, Gayatri Devi and Aslam Khan are held guilty and convicted for offence State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 67 punishable U/s 307/452/34 IPC.
88. Accused persons as well as State are directed to file respective affidavits in terms of guideline of the judgment titled as Karan Vs. State by 08.07.2023.
Announced in the open Court, On 09th June, 2023. (Ravindra Kumar Pandey) ASJ:07/Shahdara/Karkardooma Delhi State v. Hori Lal & Ors. FIR No. 70/2009, PS Karawal Nagar, page no. 68