Delhi District Court
State vs . Ramesh @ Nepali Etc. on 11 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAJINDER KUMAR, MM-04, WEST, TIS
HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. RAMESH @ NEPALI ETC.
FIR No. 97/08
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 323/324/34 IPC
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R1162302008
Sr. no. of the case : 838/2/10
Date of commission of offence : 22.03.2008
Date of institution of the case : 02.09.2008
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rudal
Name and address of accused persons:-
1). Ramesh @ Nepali S/o Sh. Balbir Singh
R/o B-299, Jhuggi B-58, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi
Permanent address:- Village Muskur Maidan, PO Bharti Bari,
PS Tamgam, Distt. Gulmi, Nepal.
2). Sunil Kr. @ SampuS/o Sh. Ramsharan Yadav
R/o Jhuggi No. A-23, B-58, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi
Permanent address:-Village Paitiya Pur, Post Lakhmi Pur,
Distt. Jahangir Ganj, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, UP
3). Vijay Kumar @ Babal S/o Sh. Ramsharan Yadav
R/o Jhuggi No. A-23, B-58, Rama Road, Moti Nagar, Delhi
Permanent address:-Village Paitiya Pur, Post Lakhmi Pur,
Distt. Jahangir Ganj, Distt. Ambedkar Nagar, Faizabad, UP
4). Sitender @ Sikandar S/o Sh. Bhagwan Chaudhary
R/o Jhuggi No. W-153, B-300, B-58, Rama Road, Moti
Nagar, Delhi Permanent address:- Village Kalanpur, Post
Bindol, PS Bira, Distt. Patna, Bihar.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 323/324/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 11.02.2014
**********************************************************************************************************************
JUDGMENT
1. The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 22.03.2008 at about 12.15 PM near Jhuggi no. B-252, B-58, Rama Road, Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 1/6 caused simple hurt to the persons of Rudal, Meghnath with a sharp edged weapon and simple injuries to Sh. Sheshnath. According to the prosecution, accused persons thus committed an offence punishable U/s 323/324/34 IPC.
2. The prima facie case U/s 323/324/34 IPC was found to be made out against all the accused persons. Accordingly, charge for the aforesaid offence framed against the accused persons. The accusation was read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution got examined 9 witnesses in support of its case, which are as follows:-
(1) PW1 Sh. Rudal, the complainant/injured. (2) PW2 Sh. Sheshnath, the injured/eye witness. (3) PW3 Sh. Meghnath, the injured/eye witness. (4) PW4 HC Umrab Singh, the Duty Officer. (5) PW5 Sh. Ram Kishan, the eye witness. (6) PW6 Ct. Munna Pathak, who took the rukka to the PS. (7) PW7 HC Vishram Meena, the witness to memo. (8) PW8 Sh. Desh Raj, who proved the MLC of the injured. (9) PW9 ASI Inder Pal, the IO of the case.
4. Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, in which all the incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused persons controverted and denied the allegations levelled against them. Accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to previous enimity with the injured. The accused persons opted to lead DE in support of their defence but no DE was led by them.
5. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that prosecution is supposed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to successfully bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefits whatsoever from the weakness, if any, FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 2/6 in the defence of the accused. It is also a settled proposition that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution case in a criminal trial throughout the course of the trial rests entirely and entirely on the prosecution and never shifts to the accused. Accused is entitled to the benefits of every reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and any such reason doubt in the prosecution case entitles the accused to acquittal.
6. Out of the nine witnesses, examined by the prosecution in support of its case, there are four eye witnesses i.e. Sh. Rudal, the complainant, Sh. Sheshnath, Sh. Meghnath and Sh. Ram Kishan.
7. Sh. Rudal is the complainant and one of the injured in this case. It was deposed by him that on 22.03.2008 he was present at his jhuggi along with his brother namely Sh. Sheshnath and Sh. Meghnath. That at about 12-12.15 PM a quarrel had taken place in front of his jhuggi between Sikander, Ramesh and Ram Kishan. That he came outside his jhuggi and objected to the quarrel. That in the meantime Sikander gave injury on his right cheek with sharp edged weapon. That thereafter they ran away. That he was taken to doctor. That when they were on their way to clinic, the accused along with other persons namely Sikander, Ramesh, Babban, Shampoo and Rakesh came there. That all of them gave beatings to him and his brothers with danda and sariya. That he sustained injuries on his head and similarly his brother Sheshnath also sustained injuries on his head and Meghnath received injuries on his left cheek with sharp weapon by the accused persons. That the police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. That the three accused persons namely Sikander, Ramesh and Rakesh were arrested by the police in his presence.
8. Sh. Sheshnath (PW-2) is one of the injured in this case, who deposed that he do not remember the date, month and time. On Holi, while he was having some food at about 11.00 AM, his brother has gone outside he jhuggi. That he heard some noise and so he went there and found that Ramesh and Sikander were beating his brothers namely Rudal and Meghnath. That he saved his brothers, who FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 3/6 sustained injuries on their cheek. That when he tried to take them to the nearby doctor, in the meantime, Sikander, Rakesh, Shampoo and Babban came there with sariya and danda and started beating them. That the passerby had collected on the spot and rescued them from the accused persons. That they were taken to the hospital by PCR van.
9. It was deposed by Sh. Meghnath (PW3) that on 22.03.2008 at about 12.00 noon he was present at his house. That on that day, accused Sikander had an altercation with his neighbour Kishan. That upon seeing Sikander assaulting his neighbour Kishan, his brother Rudal went to rescue Kishan. That upon this, accused Sikander caused an injury with a blade on the cheek of his brother Rudal. That thereafter, he along with his brother Sheshnath went to rescue Rudal. That in the meantime accused Ramesh caused injury with blade on his left cheek. That thereafter the other accomplices namely Babbal and Shampoo @ Sunil caused injuries to him and also to his brothers with dandas and hockies. That thereafter, all the accused persons managed to run away. That they were taken DDU hospital by a PCR van. That the police recorded their statement.
10. Sh. Ram Kishan (PW5) deposed that in the year 2008, on the day of Holi festival, at about 12.15 PM, he was standing in front of his jhuggi near Durga Mandir. That accused Ramesh @ Nepali and Sikander came there and asked him for celebrating Holi with them and on refusal, they slapped him and in the meantime his neighbourer namely Rudal came there and tried to talk with them. That in the meantime accused Sikander took out a sharp edged weapon and caused injury on the cheek of Rudal. That upon seeing this Sheshnath and Meghnath came there to rescue them. That in the meantime Ramesh caused injury with sharp edged weapon upon Meghnath and also called his accomplices namely Rajesh, Babbal, Shampoo and they all started beating them. That after assaulting them, all the accused persons managed to run away. That the injured persons namely Meghnath, Sheshnath and Rubal were taken to the hospital by the PCR van.
FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 4/611. It is contended by the accused persons that they are innocent and been falsely implicated in the present case because of the previous enimity by the injured persons.
12. It is pertinent to mention here that all the injured persons i.e. Sh. Rudal, Sheshnath and Meghnath were cross examined by the accused persons and nothing material came out during their cross examination in support of the contentions raised by the accused persons. All the three injured persons supported the story of prosecution and had identified all the accused persons correctly, present in the court on the day of their respective examination. Although, there are some minor contradictions in the evidence led by all the aforesaid three injured persons. But at the same time this fact cannot be overlooked that when 3-4 persons are asked to narrate a particular incident (happened about 6 years back), minor contradictions are to happen.
13. HC Umrab Singh is the official who registered the FIR in the present case, Ct. Munna Pathak is the official who took the rukka to the PS for the registration of the case, HC Vishram Meena is the witness to memo and Sh. Desh Raj is the record clerk, DDU Hospital, who proved the MLC of the injured persons namely Rudal, Sheshnath and Meghnath by identifying the signatures of the doctors concerned.
14. ASI Inderpal (PW-9) i.e. the IO of the case deposed that on 22.03.2008 he was on emergency duty with Ct. Munna. That DD no. 14A, regarding quarrel, was marked to him for necessary action. That he along with Ct. Munna arrived at jhuggis B-58 Rama Road. That after reaching there they came to know that the assiliants have fled away and the injured have been shifted to hospital by PCR. That after reaching at PS, they received Form no. 16A. That thereafter he along with Ct. Munna reached DDU Hospital and found three injured persons namely Meghnath, Sheshnath and Rudal admitted vide MLC 8/A to 8/C. That he obtained their MLCs and recorded the statement of the witnesses that he prepared tehrir Ex. PW9/A and send Ct. Munna to PS for getting the case registered. That he prepared the site plan Ex.
FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 5/6PW1/B at the instance of Rudal. That Ct. Munna returned back along with copy of FIR PW4/A. That he searched for the assailants. That the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo 2/A, 2/B and 7/A. That he recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted to the SHO.
15. So far as the offence punishable U/s 323/324/34 IPC are concerned, there cannot be no evidence better than the injured persons themselves. As per the deposition made by all the eye witnesses, the injured persons were beaten by all the accused persons which shows that there was a common intention in between the accused persons for causing of injuries to them. All the injured persons namely Rudal (PW-1),Sheshnath (PW-2) and Meghnath (PW-3) supported the story of prosecution. Even, the fourth eye witness i.e. Sh. Ram Kishan (PW5) also supported the story of all the three aforesaid injured persons. The eye witnesses had correctly identified all the accused persons, present in the Court, on the day of their examination.
16. So far as the contention of the accused persons that they were innocent and been implicated in the present case because of previous enmity is concerned, the same is not tenable as no evidence has been adduced by them nor had produced any documents to show the same.
17. In view of the above, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts that the simple injury was caused with a sharp edged weapon upon the person of Rudal and Meghnath and further the simple injuries to the person of Sheshnath by all the accused persons. Hence, all the accused persons are convicted for the offence punishable U/s 323/324/34 IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (RAJINDER KUMAR)
COURT ON 11.02.2014 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
FIR No.97/2008 , PS Moti Nagar Page 6/6