Delhi District Court
State vs . Sumeet Etc. on 27 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, MM02, KARKARDOOMA COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Sumeet etc.
FIR No. 412/13
PS: Farsh Bazar
U/S: 323/341/34 IPC
ID number of the case : 74735/16
Date of commission of offence : 04.10.2013
Date of institution of the case : 21.06.2014
Name of the complainant : Sh. Sonu, S/o Sh. Ram Pravesh Singh.
Name of accused and address : 1) Sumeet, S/o Sh. Gian Chand Sharma,
R/o Jhuggi No.D420, NSA Colony, Vishwas
Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
2) Jeetu, S/o Sh. Jogender Singh,
R/o Jhuggi No. D390/A1, NSA Colony,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 323/341/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted u/s 323/34 IPC
Date of judgment : 27.09.2018
State Vs. Sumeet etc. Page No. 5 of 5
J U D G M E N T
1 It is alleged against both accused persons that they had wrongfully restrained
the complainant on 04.10.2013 at about 10.00 PM at DDA Land,NSA Colony in furtherance of their common intention. At the same time and place, they have stated to have caused simple injuries to the complainant Sonu voluntarily. 2 Ld. APP for the State has argued that prosecution witnesses have supported the allegations and there is no lacuna in the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that injury stands proved and accused were identified by complainant. Ld. counsel for the accused persons have argued that complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons and the evidence led by prosecution is untrustworthy, especially when PW Hardeep Singh has turned hostile.
3 Eight witnesses are examined by the prosecution. Of these PW2, PW3, PW5 & PW6 are formal witnesses. Complainant has been examined as PW1, whereas PW4 is a public witness. IO has been examined as PW8. No witness was examined by the accused persons.
State Vs. Sumeet etc. Page No. 5 of 5 4 Complainant was examined as PW1. He has deposed that "One fine day, at around two years ago, I having Jagran Chowki at the ground of NSA Colony. On the same day, at about 10.00 PM, I was coming towards my home after collecting money for Jagran. In the meanwhile, when I reached near Mata Ki Chowki, accused Jeetu and Sumit came there and started abusing me and thereafter, accused Jeetu picked up a brick from the spot and hit me on my nose and both the accused persons had given beatings to me. Both the accused persons were in drunken condition. Accused Sumit had given me fist and leg blows. After giving beatings to me, both the accused persons had fled away from the spot...". He had also deposed that he was taken to hospital by his friend Hardeep.
5 PW2 & PW3 have proved the MLC NO.3421/13 of the complainant Sonu. The MLC is dated 04.10.2013 at about 10.56PM. PW4 Hardeep has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he does not know anything about the present case.
6 As seen above, the injured has supported the case of the prosecution and has correctly identified the accused persons. The injury stand proved by virtue of MLC which has been proved by PW2 & PW3 and is of the same time around State Vs. Sumeet etc. Page No. 5 of 5 which the incident took place. It is settled position of law that testimony of injured witness has to be accorded special importance. Reliance is placed upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 in which it was held 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 has 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 this 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"
7 Hence testimony of PW1 is reliable in terms of legal position stated above. His testimony is also corroborated by the fact that as per the MLC he was brought to the hospital by his friend Hardeep Singh and he has also deposed the same in his testimony. Accused persons have failed to impeach the credit of the complainant during his crossexamination.
8 Though PW4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, considering the State Vs. Sumeet etc. Page No. 5 of 5 testimony of the complainant/injured and the medical evidence, the court is of the view that prosecution has been able to prove that accused persons have caused injuries to the complainant. However, since complainant has not deposed that he wants to restrain or stopped by the accused persons, offence u/s 341 IPC is not made out.
9 The discrepancies pointed out by the counsel for the accused do not go to the root of the matter and hence do not help the case of the accused persons. The fact that both the accused persons had given beatings to the complainant, stand proved and also indicates their common intention to cause injury to the complainant Sonu.
10 Accordingly, both the accused persons are found guilty of causing simple injury to Sonu in furtherance of their common intention. In view of this both accused persons namely Sumeet and Jeetu are convicted of offence u/s 323/34 IPC.
Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convicts. This judgment consists of 05 pages and all pages bear my signature. Announced and dictated directly PRAYANK (Prayank Nayak) into the computer in the open Court, NAYAK MM02 (SHD)/Delhi on 27th September, 2018. 27.09.2018 Digitally signed by State Vs. Sumeet etc. PRAYANK NAYAK Page No. 5 of 5 Date: 2018.09.27 16:49:20 +0530