Delhi District Court
State vs Johnson Sunny on 25 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS.AMBIKA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08:
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS
DELHI
FIR No. 93/07
State V/s Johnson Sunny
U/S 341/323/506 IPC
PS Gulabi Bagh
CC No. 48/2G
U. ID No.02401R0858042007
Date of Institution :09.07.2007
Date of commission of offence :19.05.2007
Name of the complainant : Smt. Manju W/o Sh. Mauni Dass
Name and address of accused :Johnson Sunny, S/o Sh. Ram Kumar,
R/o Christian compound, Kishan Ganj,
Delhi.
Offence charged with :U/s 341/323/506 IPC
Plea of guilt : Pleaded not guilty.
Final Order : Convicted
Date on which order has been reserved : 11.02.2014
Date of pronouncement of Judgment :25.02.2014
JUDGMENT
1 The Prosecution has filed the charge sheet against the accused Jhonson Sunny S/o Sh. Richard Sunny u/s 341/323/506 IPC. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under:-
That the accused Jhonson Sunny S/o Sh. Richard Sunny wrongfully restrained the complainant Smt. Manju and caused simple injury on her person FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 1/11 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 323/341 IPC. Further, the accused has threatened the complainant with an injury to her person with intent to cause alarm to the complainant and thereby committed an offence u/s 506 IPC.
2 After investigation, charge against the accused for the offence u/s 323/341/506 IPC was framed on 17.11.2005, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 Prosecution has examined the following witnesses in support of its case:
4 PW1 Smt. Manju Das, who is complainant in the present case, deposed that on 19.5.2007 at about 2.30 p.m when she reached Pratap Nagar Metro Station the accused (present in the court) obstructed the way and when she asked to give her way, he started abusing and pushed her on wall consequently she received injury on her head and her head was bleeding. Thereafter, she took rickshaw and went to the shop of his husband which is nearby house and narrated the incident to her husband. One Martin John, the neighbour of the complainant called on 100 number thereafter police reached at her shop and took her to HRH where she was medically examined. Police recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. She has further deposed that at about 11.00 p.m. while she was resting in her house the accused Johnson Sunny came and shouting and abusing "TUNE MERE KHILAF MUKADMA DARJ KARA DIYA HAI, MAIN TUJHE JAA SE MAAR DUNGA". On this, she became fearful and did not venture out of house. The accused was continuously abusing and he did not stop despite the request made by several persons and he was continue sly threatening to kill her. She has further deposed that on this, she called police and police reached at the spot. On the next day i.e. on 20.5.07, she lodged a complaint Ex. PW1/B with PS Gulabi Bagh regarding threat to life given to her by FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 2/11 the accused Johnson. During cross examination, the witness stated that she is known to the accused since her marriage as he resides in same locality.
5. PW2 Moni Das husband of complainant has deposed that on 19.7.2007 at about 2.45 pm his wife came and told that Johnson Sunny had obstructed her way at Pratap Nagar. On this one neighbour Martin John called to 100 number. He further deposed that at about 11.00 p.m. while he was resting in his house with his wife, accused Johnson Sunny came and shouting and abusing "TUNE MERE KHILAF MUKADMA DARJ KARA DIYA HAI, MAIN TUJHE JAA SE MAAR DUNGA". On this, they became fearful and did not venture out of house. The accused was continuously abusing and he did not stop despite the request made by several persons and he was continue sly threatening to kill her. He has further deposed that on this, his wife called police and police reached at the spot. On the next day i.e. on 20.5.07, his wife lodged a complaint Ex. PW1/B with PS Gulabi Bagh regarding threat to life given to her by the accused Johnson.
6. PW3 Luis M Jacob also deposed that on 19.5.2007 when he was present at his house, he heard noise in the house of his neighbour Manju. He went there and saw accused Johnson Sunny, who was present there and threatening to Manju ""TUNE MERE KHILAF MUKADMA DARJ KARA DIYA HAI, MAIN TUJHE JAA SE MAAR DUNGA" and he was continuously abusing Manju. He further deposed that some persons tried to stop the accused from abusing but he did not stop and in the meantime, someone called the police at the spot. Police recorded his statement.
7. PW4 C. Michael has deposed that on 19.5.2007, he was sleeping in shed of his house and heard commotion near the house of Manju and at about 11.00 p.m. then he got up and saw that accused Johnson Sunny was abusing Manju and threatening Manju to kill her. Neighbourers were trying to make accused FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 3/11 understand but he did not understand and kept on abusing and threatening Manju to kill her. It is admitted that he is relative of complainant.
8. PW 5 Dr. Aashish Dang, Sr. Medical Officer, Hindu Rao Hospital proved MLC Ex. PW5/A.
9. PW 6 Dr. Sanjay Kumar, SMO, Department of Orthopedics, Hindu Rao Hospital examined the patient/injured and opined the injury as 'simple from the ortho side' on MLC Ex. PW5/A.
10. PW 7 HC Parsadi Lal deposed that on 19.5.2007 while posted as Incharge of PCR-Sugar 33 Van, on receiving a call regarding quarrel at Metro Station, Pratap Nagar, Road no. 40, he went there and took the injured to hospital.
11. PW 8 HC Balbir Singh deposed that on 19.5.2007 on receiving DD no. 14 (Ex. PW8/A) he along with ASI Ram Kishan wet to the spot and came to know that injured has been shifted to hospital by PCR van. On this, he went to the hospital and collected MLC of injured Manju. IO recorded her statement and prepared tehrir and sent him to PS for registration of FIR. After registration of FIR, he came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to IO. They searched the accused but all in vain.
12. PW 9 HC Raman Kumar has deposed that on 19.5.2007, on receiving call regarding the quarrel, he along with SI Rajesh Kumar went to the Kishan Compound, Pratap Nagar, where he met the complainant Smt. Manju, who got her statement recorded. He further deposed th at when they were going along with the complainant at Anhal Road, they met with accused Johnson Sunny, who was identified by the complainant. SI Rajesh Kumar sent the accused to FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 4/11 Hindu Rao Hospital with him for his medical examination. After medical examination, he along with accused reached at PP Andha Mughal and produced the accused before SI Rajesh Kumar, who arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW9/B and thereafter IO recorded his statement.
13. PW 10 SI Rajeev Kumar has deposed that on 19.5.2007 while posted at PS Gulabi Bagh, he recorded FIR bearing No. 93/07, on the basis of tehrir sent by ASI Ram Kumar through Ct. Balbir. The witness proved computerised copy of FIR Ex. PW10/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW10/B.
14. PW 11 SI Rajesh Kumar has deposed that on 19.5.2007 on receiving DD no. 27 PP, he along with Ct. Raman reached at the spot i.e. Christian compound, Kishan Gnaj, Delhi where they found the accused who was abusing to complainant Smt. Manju. That neighbours were asking the accused to desist from abusing the complainant, but no avail. Accused was apprehended and taken to Hindu Rao Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, they took the accused to police booth where he was interrogated and arrested vide memo Ex. PW9/A and personally searched vide memo Ex. PW9/B and he recorded statements of complainant Smt. Manju and Ct. Raman.
15. PW 12 SI Ram Kishan has deposed that on 19.5.2007, on receiving DD no. 14, he along with Const. Balbir reached at the spot i.e road no. 40, Pratap Nagar, Delhi where he came to know that injured namely Manju had been taken to hospital. Thereafter, they reached at the hospital and collected the MLC of complainant Manju on which doctor had opined the nature of injury as blunt and patient was for statement. He recorded statement of victim Ex.PW1/A, prepared rukka Ex. PW12/A, got FIR registered through Ct. Balbir; prepared site plan Ex. PW12/B at the instance of IO. He further deposed that on 19.5.20107, on a DD FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 5/11 entry No. 26, SI Rajesh Kumar visited the spot, however, accused was not found there. He deposited the MLC for opinion on which, doctor had opined the nature of injury as simple. He after completion of investigating, filed the charge sheet in court.
16. After conclusion of prosecution evidence, statement of the accused u/s 313 r/w Section 281 Cr.PC was recorded by the court. The accused claimed false implication in the case because of enmity between the complainant and his family but led no evidence in his defence.
17. I have heard the Ld. APP for the state and the Ld. counsel for the accused and have perused the record carefully.
18 After going through the complete evidence and records of this case, I am of the view that before reaching at any conclusion, relevant Sections be reproduced herein below for ready reference:
19 Section 341 reads as under:
"Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
Section 323 reads as under:
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 6/11
Section 506 reads as under:
"Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."
20. The expression 'hurt' has been defined u/s 319 and it means causing body pain, causing disease in the victim, causing infirmity in the victim. Section 321 lays down the meaning an import of "voluntarily causing hurt". To bring home the guilt of accused, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of PW1.
21. PW 1 Manju Dass has deposed that on 19.5.2007 accused obstructed her way and when she asked to give her way he started abuses and assaulted her. She received injury on her head. She came home went to the shop of her husband and narrated the incident to her husband. One of the neighbour Martin John called 100 number and police reached at his shop and took her to Hindu Rao Hospital where she was medically examined, at the same time at bout 11.00pm. When she was resting in her house, accused Johnson Sunny came at her house and shouted and abusing her. It is deposed by PW1 that he continued abusing and did not stop requests made by several persons.
22. PW2 Moni Das has also deposed that his wife had come to his shop after receiving injuries at the hands of accused and on the same night at about 11 pm. the accused came to their house and was shouting and abusing.
23. PW3 Louise Jacob & PW4 C. Michael have corroborated the version of the PW1 that on the night at about 11 p.m the accused Johnson Sunny was abusing and threatening the PW1. The injuries suffered by PW1 are proved vide Ex. PW5/A which are opined as simple in nature.
FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 7/11
24. Ld. Counsel of defense has argued that reliance cannot be placed on the testimony of sole eye witness in absence of evidence of independent witnesses , further reliance cannot be placed on testimony of PW6 as he is the relative of injured and deceased and therefore, he is an interested witness. To answer this question, I would like to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court.
25. In Hari Obula Reddy Vs. State of A.P. AIR 1981 SC 82 a three-Judge Bench has held that evidence of interested witnesses is not necessarily unreliable evidence. Even partisanship by itself is not a valid ground for discrediting or rejecting sworn testimony. It cannot be laid down as "an invariable rule that interested evidence can never form the basis of conviction unless corroborated to a material extent in material particulars by independent evidence. All that is necessary is that the evidence of interested witnesses should be subjected to careful scrutiny and accepted with caution. If on such scrutiny, the interested testimony is found to be intrinsically reliable or inherently probable, it may, by itself, be sufficient, in the circumstances of the particular case, to base a conviction thereon".
26 In Kartik Malhar Vs. State of Bihar (1996) 1 SCC 614, it has been opined that a close relative who is a natural witness cannot be regarded as an interested witness, for the term "interested" postulates that the witness must have some interest in having the accused, somehow or the other, convicted for some animus or for some other reason.
27 Further, the witness cannot be branded as interested witness just because he is an injured witness. For this, I would like to rely upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Jai Singh Rawat Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), ILR(2012)III, Delhi para 18 of the said judgment is as follows:-
FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 8/11
18. "The evidence of an injured witness cannot be disbelieved without assigning cogent reasons. Mere contradictions/improvements on trivial matters cannot render an injured witness's deposition untrustworthy. The law on this aspect has been detailed in the latest judgment State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Naresh and Ors. (2011 4 SCC 324 as under):
27. "The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he as spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and thus lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein. (vide Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Balraje Vs. State of Maharashtra and Adbul Sayeed Vs. State of M.P.) 28 Similarly, in another case Abdul Sayed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010)10 SCC 259, Supreme Court laid down:-
28. "The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that come with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 9/11 required to discredit an injured witness."
29. "While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under : (SCC pp. 726-27, para 28-29).
28. Darshan Singh (PW4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tube-well. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa Vs. State of Karnataka this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29 In a recent case titled as "Kalu @ Amit Vs. State of Haryana 2301(I) AD SC 641, it has been stated by the Apex Court in para 9 of its judgment that conviction can be based on the evidence of the sole eye witness if his evidence inspires confidence.
30 The law on the point can be summarized to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant to unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
Therefore, keeping in view of the above discussion, testimonies of PW1, PW2, FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 10/11 PW3 & PW4, it is crystal clear that prosecution has proved its case u/s 323/506 IPC.
31 As regards the charge of wrongful restraint u/s 341 IPC, I am of the view that that it has also been sufficiently proved by the prosecution. Wrongful restraint means keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to be and has a right to be. The word "obstruction" or "restraint" implies a desire to proceed in a certain way. Under section 341, it must be established that the complainant was obstructed from proceeding along a particular direction. From the testimony of PW1 it is clearly culled out that during the course of beating at the hand of accused, the complainant attempted to go away from the scene but she was restrained from doing so. In his testimony PW1 has specifically deposed that accused caught him meaning thereby that accused did not let him go away. Thus, it can be said that she was wrongfully restrained by the accused from moving in the direction he intended to go.
32 In the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C the accused has taken stand that all the witnesses are interested witnesses and he is innocent and they have deposed falsely as there is a enmity between the complainant and their family as she is his relative.
33 In view of the abovesaid discussion, the prosecution has proved his case against the accused u/s 341/323/506 IPC. Hence, the accused is convicted u/s 341/323/506 IPC.
Announced in the open court Today on 25 February, 2014.
(Ambika Singh)
Metropolitan Magistrate-08(Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 11/11
FIR No. 93/07 State Vs Johnson Sunny 12/11