Delhi District Court
State vs . Suraj on 21 September, 2011
State Vs. Suraj
FIR No. 589/00
PS Model Town
IN THE COURT OF SH. NEERAJ GAUR, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-IV ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Brief reasons for the judgment in the case with following particulars:
FIR No. 589/00
PS Model Town
U/S 324 IPC
State V/S Suraj and Somveer
C/No. 818/03
Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000
Date of Institution: 20.02.2001
Name of the Complainant Amit @ Raju s/o Nanhe Lal.
Name and address of accused (1) Suraj S/o Sh. Hans Raj,
R/o N-12B-202, Kabir
Nagar, Delhi.
(2) Somveer s/o Sh. Radhey
Shyam, r/o N-12B/142,
Kabir Nagar, Delhi.
Date of commission of offence 07.10.2000
Offence complained of U/S 324/34 IPC
Plea of accused pleaded not guilty
Final Order Both accused convicted u/s
324/34 IPC.
Date of reserve for orders 21.09.2011
Date for announcing the orders 21.09.2011
Brief Facts and pre-trial procedure:
1. Both the accused were charge-sheeted U/S 324 IPC and sent up for trial and the allegations against them in brief are as under:-
2. On 07.10.2000 at about 09.30 pm complainant Amit was coming to his house after Dussehara and there was a rush in the ground. C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 1
State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town Due to rush he struck with the accused persons upon which both the accused persons started abusing complainant. Accused Suraj gave fist blow on the mouth of the complainant and accused Somveer slapped the complainant. Accused Suraj caused simple injuries on the person of Amit @ Raju with a sharp object as a result of which the blood was oozing out from the head of the complainant. Thereafter, both the accused fled away from the spot. Complainant came to PP Sangam Park and IO / HC Ranjeet recorded his statement and prepared rukka and sent on the basis of which FIR was got registered. Thereafter, at the instance of complainant both the accused were arrested and personally searched. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
3. After necessary compliances, on the basis of above allegations, charge U/S 324/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
4. To prove the charges, prosecution examined five witnesses in total whose testimonies are touched upon in brief as under:
(i) PW- HC Balraj Singh is a formal witness who being Duty C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 2 State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town Officer deposed about the registration of FIR and proved the same as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B.
(ii) PW2 Dr. Deepak Singhal, Medical Officer, HR Hospital deposed that on 07.10.2000, he medically examined the patient Raju, prepared his MLC and thereafter, referred him to EMO surgery. The MLC of injured is Ex.PW2/A. The injury was caused with some sharp object.
(iii) PW-3 Amit @ Raju is the complainant in the present case who deposed that on 07.10.2000 he had gone to see Dushera at RP Bagh and when he was returning from there at about 9/10 pm, in the crowd he collided with 2/3 boys at Dushera ground and those boys absued him.
Meanwhile both the boys gave fist blow on his person, out of two boys one was accused Suraj as he knew him. Both the boys along with other boys started giving beating to him and assaulted with some pointed object on his forehead but he could not see that pointed object. He sustained injury. Thereafter when he was going to his house, meanwhile his family members also came to know about the incident and thereafter, police was informed at 100 number. PCR officials took him to hospital C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 3 State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town where he was medically examined and his statement Ex.PW3/A was recorded. He correctly identified both the accused persons.
(iv) PW4 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bansal deposed that he treated the patient and gave opinion as to the nature of injury which is simple and MLC is Ex.PW2/A.
(v) PW-5 Ct. Ram Mehar deposed that on 07.10.2000, complainant Amit came to PP Sangam Park and IO / HC Ranjeet recorded his statement which is Ex.PW3/A and prepared rukka and sent him ( PW-5) with rukka for registration of FIR. After having got the FIR registered, PW-5 went to the spot i.e. R.P. Bagh, Dussehara Ground and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to IO who had already reached at the spot along with the complainant. Thereafter, complainant led them to the house of accused Suraj i.e. N-12, B202, Kabir Nagar. There they found that both the accused persons were standing outside the house of the accused Suraj. IO apprehended them and interrogated them about the incident. Thereafter, IO arrested and personally searched the accused persons vide memos Ex.PW3/A to PW3/D respectively. Both the accused persons were released on bail. IO recorded his statement. C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 4
State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town Statement of accused and defence
5. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of both the accused persons U/S 313 CrPC were recorded. Both the accused persons stated that they were innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No evidence in defence was led.
Facts in issue:
(a) Whether the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt on the person of PW-3 with an instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting?
(b) Whether the accused persons shared a common intention to do the aforementioned act?
Arguments and appreciation of evidence in the light of legal propositions:
6. Ld. Counsel Sh. Ramesh Saini for accused Somveer argued that PW-3 nowhere named Somveer as the person who committed the offence. He further stated that PW-3 only identified Suraj with his name but not Somveer. Arguments lacks in conviction because PW-3 clearly identified both the accused persons in the court. He identified accused Suraj with his name also. It does not imply that identification of C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 5 State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town Somveer by his face is unreliable.
7. Ld. Counsel Sh. R.K. Sharma for accused Suraj argued that the PW-3 stated that the weapon of offence was a pointed object which is not covered within Section 324 IPC. Section 324 IPC requires that the injury was voluntarily caused with an instrument of shooting, stabbing or cutting. As per the opinion of PW-2 Dr. Deepak Singhal, the injury was caused by some sharp object. PW-4 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Bansal also stated that he gave opinion about the nature of injury. The requirement of Section 324 IPC have been fulfilled and the arguments of Ld. Counsel are not tenable in the eyes of law. Ld. Counsel further made a feeble attempt by arguing that weapon of offence could not be recovered. Non- recovery of weapon of offence has very little significance.
Ingredients of Section 324 IPC have been duly proved through the statement of PW-3 coupled with the statement of the concerned Doctor. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely gathered that the accused persons had the common intention of inflicting the injury caused on the complainant.
Conclusion C/No. 818/03 Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 6 State Vs. Suraj FIR No. 589/00 PS Model Town
8. The prosecution has firmly established the charge against the accused persons beyond shadow of doubt on the basis of evidence on record. I hold both the accused persons guilty u/s 324/34 IPC. Accordingly both the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC.
9. Arguments on sentence shall be heard separately.
Announced in open court (Neeraj Gaur)
today i.e. 21.09.2011 Metropolitan Magistrate-IV/NW
Rohini Courts, Delhi
C/No. 818/03
Unique ID No. 02404R0179862000 Page No. 7