Delhi District Court
State vs . Surender Singh on 29 July, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMENDER SINGH, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
NORTHWEST05, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
State Vs. Surender Singh
FIR No. : 812/2001
P.S. : Rohini
U/s.: 323/341 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case : 248/02/03 2. Date of Commission of Offence : 22.11.2001 3. Date of institution of the case : 29.11.2002 4. Name of the complainant : Hemant Kumar
5. Name of the accused, parentage & address : Surender Singh S/o Sh. Bheem Singh R/o H.No. 60, Chandni Market, Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : U/s 323/341 IPC
7. Plea of Accused : "Not Guilty"
8. Final Order : Convicted
9. Date of Final Order : 29.07.2013 Brief Facts
1. As per Prosecution, on 22.11.01, at about 6:006:30 pm, at open road, Chandni Market, Village Naharpur, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of then PS Rohini, accused namely Surender Singh, wrongfully restrained complainant namely Hemant Kumar and caused simple injuries on his person with blunt object. In respect of above incident, FIR was lodged and case was investigated by police.
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared in context of present FIR and filed in court.
FIR No. 812/2001 Page 1 of pages 4
PreTrial Procedure
3. On the basis of chargesheet and annexed documents, cognizance was taken and accused was summoned to face trial. On appearance of accused, provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied. After hearing the parties, notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C. in respect of offences u/s 341/323 IPC was framed and served upon accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Trial
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses.
PW1 Dr. G.P. Kaushal. He medically examined the complainant. The MLC is Ex. PW1/A. PW2 HC Jagbir Singh. He registered FIR in this case. Copy of the same is Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Hemant Kumar. He is the complainant of this case. He deposed that on 22.11.01, at about 6:006:30 pm, he was present on the road at Chandni Market, Naharpur Village and was ferrying his rehri. He was struck by another rehri. He objected to the same. He deposed that the person who was accompanying the rehri puller started abusing him and manhandled him. He deposed that he became unconscious and was taken to hospital. He lodged complaint which is Ex. PW3/A. In his crossexamination, PW3 deposed that this was simply a fight with blows and fists and quarrel took place all of sudden on provocation.
PW4 SI Baljeet Singh. He was the initial IO of this case. He deposed that on 22.11.01, he was posted at PS Rohini. On that day, on receipt of DD No. 61B, copy of the same is Ex. PW4/A, he alongwith Ct. Adesh Kumar reached at the place of occurrence at Chandni Market from where injured had already been taken to BSA FIR No. 812/2001 Page 2 of pages 4 Hospital. He deposed that on the identification by complainant, he arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW3/C and conducted personal search of accused vide personal search memo Ex. PW3/B. In his crossexamination, he deposed that there was no public person at the spot.
PW5 HC Gurbaksh Singh. He was the later IO in this case. He prepared chargesheet and filed in court.
PW6 Ct. Adesh Kumar. He joined the initial IO in investigation of this case and FIR was got registered through this witness. In his crossexamination, he admitted that accused was not arrested in his presence.
5. After testimonies of above witnesses, PE was closed and statement of accused u/s 313 r/w 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he took the plea of false implication. Accused did not lead DE.
6. After that, final arguments were heard and hence, trial was concluded.
Facts in Issue
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution was required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that complainant was wrongfully restrained and simple hurt was caused to him.
Appreciation of Evidence
8. In this case, PW3 i.e. complainant deposed that on 22.11.01, at Chandni Market, Naharpur Village, Sector 7, Rohini, accused assaulted him. He deposed that this was simple fight with blows and fists and quarrel took place all of a sudden on provocation. His testimony is corroborated by FIR Ex. PW2/A and testimony of PW4 who arrested the accused on the identification by PW3.
9. Prosecution has examined one eyewitness to prove its case i.e. PW3. In case titled Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra (SC) 2007, CRI.L.J The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "Our legal system has always laid emphasis on FIR No. 812/2001 Page 3 of pages 4 value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence."
In view of the testimony of PW3/Complainant, prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt u/s 334 IPC because simple hurt was caused on provocation. There was charge u/s 323/341 IPC but evidence on record proves the case u/s 334 IPC instead of 323 IPC, which is permissible under law. As per Section 222 (2) Cr.P.C. "When a person is charged with an offence and facts are proved which reduced it to a minor offence, he may be convicted of the minor offence, although he is not charged with it."
Conclusion
9. Accordingly, accused is convicted u/s 334 IPC. Put up for Order on Sentence on 30.07.2013.
Announced in the open court
on 29th July, 2013 (DHARMENDER SINGH)
M.M.(NORTHWEST05)
ROHINI, DELHI
FIR No. 812/2001 Page 4 of pages 4