Delhi District Court
State vs Rajat Taneja on 1 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF
MS. RAVINDER BEDI : ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 03 :
EAST DISTRICT : KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI.
S.C. No.: 495 of 2016
(ID No.: 02402R03222182013)
State Versus Rajat Taneja
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh Taneja
R/o A2/152, New Kondli,
Delhi.
FIR No. : 287/2012
Police Station : New Ashok Nagar
Under Section : 304 (Part II) IPC
Chargesheet Filed On : 21.09.2013
Chargesheet Allocated On : 16.12.2013
Chargesheet Received By This Court On : 15.01.2014
Judgment Reserved On : 26.04.2017
Judgment Announced On : 17.05.2017
J U D G M E N T
INDICTMENT
1. On 18.09.2012 between 7.00 & 7.30 PM, in front of H.No. A2/143,
New Kondli, Delhi, a boy aged 14 years named Ravi Solanki was playing with a
baby girl Dhanlaxmi aged about one year in his lap. The accused came in the
street strolling his dog (breed Rottweiler, black) and by uttering "Hush", he
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17
directed his dog towards Ravi Solanki with the knowledge that his act was
imminently dangerous that in all probability, it could have caused the death or
injuries likely to cause death. The dog pounced upon Ravi Solanki, attacked the
baby girl and snatched her from him. The dog dragged her and bite her vigorously
causing her severe injuries which proved fatal upon Baby Dhanlaxmi and she died
within few hours.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The prosecution case as depicted in the chargesheet is that a Daily Diary (DD) DD No. 58B dated 18.09.2012 Ex.PW4/A regarding the dog bite injuries suffered by minor child was lodged at PS New Ashok Nagar on which SI Narendra Singh along with Ct. Manish Kumar reached the spot i.e. A2/143, New Kondli, Delhi, where they came to know that the injured who had been bitten by a dog was rushed to Metro Hospital. SI Narendra Singh went to hospital, where victim Dhanlaxmi, aged about one year, was found under treatment. MLC of the injured Ex.PW14/A was obtained and it opined the nature of injures as "dog bites, multiple cuts, laceration all over body and patient unconscious & drowsy". Mrs. Chitra Gupta, complainant/mother of victim, met there and gave her statement Ex.PW1/A based on which the FIR was registered. In her statement, Smt. Chitra Gupta alleged that on that date, Ravi Solanki, minor son of her neighbour, came to her house to play with Dhanlaxmi to which she nodded. Ravi Solanki then took Dhanlaxmi in his lap and went outside while she (complainant) was standing near her house. She stated that at about 7.007.30 p.m., she saw the accused came strolling his pet dog in the street. Meanwhile the accused uttered "hush" to his dog and freed him towards Ravi. The dog pounced upon the victim and took her from the lap of Ravi and dragged her badly. The Complainant rushed to her rescue but the dog would not leave her. The victim could be rescued from SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 the clutches of dog with great difficulty with the help of the neighbours. The victim suffered dog bite injuries all over her body. When complainant enquired from accused as to why he had got bitten her daughter from his dog, he replied that his pets would do like this only and they could do whatever they could. The FIR was registered under Section 326 IPC and the Investigation ensued.
3. The injured Baby Dhanlaxmi succumbed to her injuries at 11.00 p.m. and during investigation, Section 304 IPC was added. The MCD staff went to the house of the accused and three dogs were found there. The dog, which had bitten the victim, was of Rottweiler breed. It died during the course of its overpower by the Dog Squad. Remaining two dogs of the accused were also sent to NGO by MCD staff. Brain of dead dog was sent to Lab. The postmortem of dead body of rottweiler dog was got conducted at Animal Hospital, Gazipur. The statement of witnesses conversant with the facts of the case was recorded during investigation and after completion of formalities, the accused was sent up for trial for the offences punishable under Section 326/304 IPC.
4. After compliance of provisions of Sec. 207 CrPC by the court of learned MM, case was committed to the Court of Sessions as Sec. 304 IPC was exclusively triable by it.
5. Vide order dated 05.02.2014 passed by Ld. predecessor of this court, charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 304 (PartII) IPC. To the said charge, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
6. The Prosecution in support of its case examined twenty witnesses.
7. PW1 Smt. Chitra Gupta is the complainant/mother of minor deceased Dhanlaxmi. She narrated the entire incident and the manner in which her SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 daughter suffered severe dog bites. She narrated that the accused uttered "hush" to his dog and freed it towards Ravi who was having her daughter in his lap. She stated that the dog belonging to the accused threw her daughter and dragged her. She stated that the dog gave severe teeth bites all over her body. She stated that the dog would not let her free. She stated that her daughter could be rescued only after her neighbours came to her help. She stated that during this while the dog was biting and dragging her daughter, the accused kept talking on his mobile phone.
8. PW6 Santosh Chaudhary, the eye witness to the incident narrated about the incident which happened just in front of her house. She stated that accused who was strolling his dog in the gali, gave a gesture and uttered 'hush' to his dog and freed it towards PW3 Ravi Solanki. The dog snatched one year old Dhanlaxmi from the lap of PW3 and started biting her. She denied of any previous quarrel or enmity between the accused and the complainant. She also identified the dog of accused. During her crossexamination, she confirmed to the stand taken by her on material particulars. She stated that house of complainant was just four houses away and house of accused was also located from where the street started. Her testimony is consistent in as much as she confirmed the broad crucial facts of the occurrence.
9. PW7 Rajesh, another eye witness to the incident resiled from his statement and did not support the prosecution case. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP at length.
10. PW11 Suresh Kumar, Veterinary Inspector, deposed that on 19.09.2012 he reached the House No. A2/152, third floor, at New Kondli, Delhi. He deposed that the dog was too much aggressive at that time. The dog catcher tried to catch it with dog catching wires but since it was very heavy in weight, it SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 could not be pulled. He deposed that dog could be caught with help of public persons and a rope was tied around its neck, which got tightened and the dog had died.
11. PW16 Ct. Krishan Kumar joined the investigation of this case on 31.10.2012 and is a witness to the arrest and personal search of accused vide memos Ex. PW 16/A & B. PW17 Ct. Devendra Kumar deposed that on 18.09.2012 he joined the investigation of this case. PW18 SI Kulbir Rana, part IO, arrested the accused on 31.10.2012 and proved memos in this respect.
12. PW19 Ct. Manish joined the investigation of this case on 18.09.2012 and got the case registered on being rukka handed over to him. This witness also joined the investigation of this case next day. He accompanied the IO to Metro Hospital where the victim was hospitalized.
13. PW20 SI Narendra Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 58B. He recorded the statement of complainant and put endorsement Ex.PW20/A and got the case registered. On receipt of information regarding death of victim, Section 304 IPC was added. PW20 conducted proceedings Ex. PW20/B to PW20/E. He proved site plan Ex. PW20/F. He proved the memos Ex. PW20/G to PW20/I with other memos and filed the charge sheet.
(Link Witness)
14. PW15 Ct. Munesh deposed that on 20.09.2012 he took sealed parcel to NICD on being handed over to him by MHCM. This witness deposed that on being instructed by IO from NICD, he went to Govt. Veterinary Hospital, Gazipur and met Dr. D.P. Singh who took out brain from the head of dog and then sealed the same and handed to him. He took the said parcel to NICD and got deposited there in intact condition.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 (Doctor/Expert Witnesses)
15. PW8 Dr. P.K. Srivastava, District Animal Husbandry Officer (East), identified that the dog belonged to the accused. He stated that the father of accused used to work with him in the same department. He stated that accused would also bring the said dog to him. He stated that in postmortem examination he found that the dog was healthy with good amount of fat on its skin and abdomen area. He stated that the dog could have died due to asphyxia.
16. PW9 Dr. D.P. Singh, Sr. Veterinary Surgeon, deposed that he was working as Sr. Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Vet Hospital, Gazipur, Delhi. On 20.09.2012, he opened the sealed box, on being produced by the IO. He deposed that he took out brain and kept the same into a sealed parcel and handed over the same to Ct. Munesh who took the same for depositing it with NICD. He also deposed that remnants of the head were buried in the compound of the hospital.
17. PW12 Dr. Mala Chhabra, Joint Director, NCDC, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare deposed that on 19.03.2013, she examined brain specimen prepared by Lab Technician under her supervision and proved her report Ex. PW12/A.
18. PW13 Dr. B.N. Acharya deposed that on 19.09.2012 while working as Medical Officer in LBS Hospital, he conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased girl child and proved his report as Ex. PW 8/A.
19. PW14 Dr. Javed Ali medically examined the injured/victim on 18.09.2012 at Metro Hospital and proved her MLC Ex.PW14/A. (Formal Witnesses)
20. PW2 Sh. Bhuvnesh Kumar Gupta, identified body of deceased vide Ex. PW2/A. He also proved Ex. PW2/B vide which deadbody was taken after its postmortem. PW5 Sanjay Gupta, father of deceased, took the body of deceased SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 after its postmortem vide receipt Ex. PW2/B.
21. PW4 HC Deshraj Singh, Duty Officer, proved the copy of FIR of this case as Ex. PW4/B. This witness also proved the copy of DD No. 58B as Ex. PW4/A.
22. PW10 Amola Nand Thakur proved the summoned record regarding deposition of two Rottweiler dogs on 19.09.2012 as Ex. PW 10/A. PLEA OF ACCUSED
23. The Statement of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances in his statement. The Accused even denied of having any such dog of Rottweiler breed. He pleaded his innocence and further pleaded his false implication. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in his defence.
ARGUMENTS BY STATE
24. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges and to establish the same through evidence of material witnesses. He argued that the statement of the complainant/PW1 alongwith other witnesses proves the case of prosecution. He argued that there is no reason as to why mother of the deceased would name the accused falsely. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that medical evidence corroborates the ocular evidence and clearly proves the prosecution case. He submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and thus culpability of the accused has been fully proved.
ARGUMENTS OF DEFENCE
25. Mr. S.N. Qureshi, Ld. Counsel for defence submitted that the complainant was an interested witness and the public witnesses named PW7 Rajesh & PW3 Ravi Solanki did not support the prosecution case. He argued that SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 even the statement of complainant is full of improvements and contradictions. He argued that the prosecution failed to prove that the dog in question belonged to the accused. He argued that PW3 Ravi Solanki could not identify the accused or the dog in question. Ld. Counsel further argued that the testimony of PW1 Chitra Gupta and PW6 Santosh Choudhary would show they were not present on the spot or witnessed the incident. Ld. Counsel argued that PW8 Dr. P.K. Srivastava had strained relations with the father of the accused and thus had deposed against the accused. Ld. Counsel pointing towards the testimony of PW10 and PW11 would argue that the entry specified in Friendicoes dated 19/09/12 did not match with the record of the case. He argued that the application dated 19/09/12 moved by IO for the conducting of postmortem of dead body did not bear the signatures of the accused despite the fact that the FIR was registered on 18/09/12. Ld. Counsel argued that no identification memo regarding identity of the dog was prepared nor it is proved as to who took the dog to the MCD hospital. Therefore, considering these discrepancies, Ld. Counsel prayed that benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
26. I have considered the rival contentions and mulled over the record. I begin my quest with the determination of the nature of death of minor Dhanlaxmi :
a) Whether the death of Baby Dhanlaxmi was caused by dog bites?
The statement of PW13 Dr. B.N. Acharya shows that he was working as Medical Officer in LBS Hospital and conducted postmortem examination upon the dead body of Baby Dhanlaxmi. He deposed that the body was brought with history of dog bites with severe multiple cuts, lacerations all over the body. The postmortem report Ex.PW13/A on external examination SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 shows the following injuries :
* Multiple abrasions on left forehead measuring 9x8 c.m; * multiple abrasions on right side chest size 20x40 c.m; * abrasions on right occipital with size 2.5x1.5 c.m; * multiple abrasions on back with deep dog teeth bite marks measuring 25x14 c.m.;
* multiple abrasions on both buttock size 26x11 c.m; * dog teeth bites mark on left thigh and inguiral region measuring 5x1.5 c.m.
The Postmortem Report Ex.PW13/A further shows that all right side ribs were found fractured and there was blood in pleural cavity. There was laceration on liver, right side lung with size 0.5x.5 c.m. alongwith collapsed lungs. The cause of death was the haemorrhagic shock due to right lung and liver laceration and injuries were antemortem in nature. In cross examination PW8 reiterated his stand and stated that father of accused who was earlier posted in the same hospital as Vet compounder had retired from services. He denied the suggestion of any previous enmity or strained relations with father of accused. The plea of defence that PW8 was an inimical witness pales into insignificance in the absence of any such motive or enmity having brought on record.
The testimony of witnesses would establish the fact that minor Dhanlaxmi had died on account of dog bite injuries. The proximity of time of occurrence and the time of death sufficiently establishes that deceased suffered fatal injuries pursuant to severe dog bites.
b) Whether the accused was responsible for the death of deceased Baby Dhanlaxmi?
The material testimony in this regard is that of PW1 Mrs. Chitra SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 Gupta, the complainant of the case. She has supported the prosecution case and narrated about the entire incident dated 18/09/12 and the manner in which the dog of the accused had bitten her one year old daughter on account of which she received severe lacerated injuries on her body. She stated that despite requests to the accused to rescue her daughter from the clutches of the dog, he did not pay any heed. She stated that instead the accused continued talking on his mobile phone and threatened her in case she spoke more, he would let free his dog upon her also. She stated the when she asked the accused as to why he got her daughter bitten from his dog, the accused replied that "mere kutte to isi tarah katenge, jo tumse ho wo kar lena". She stated that her daughter could be released from the dog with great difficulty, that too with the help of her neighbours. She stated that her son took the injured daughter to Metro Hospital. She identified the accused correctly and stated that the dog belonging to the accused was later found dead in the iron cage at his house at third floor. She stated that the house of the accused was just at a distance of 34 houses away from her house. She stated that the dog was not having leash or collar belt around his neck at that time.
The PW1/complainant proved her version given to police at the first instance without any variation or improvements and her testimony could not be shattered on material aspects. No ulterior motive was assigned to her to depose falsely, nor any previous enmity or nurturing of any grievance was brought on record. The police machinery was set in motion promptly. Therefore, I find that no infirmity emerged in testimony of PW1 to disbelieve or discard her version narrated by her.
27. Ld. Counsel for defence argued that PW3 Ravi Solanki and PW7 Rajesh had turned hostile. He argued that PW6 Smt. Santosh Chaudhary also gave contradictory statement and did not support the prosecution case. Ld. Addl.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 P.P. for the State submitted to the contrary.
The evidence of a hostile witness is not effaced simply for the reason that the witness has not supported the prosecution. Such evidence can be relied upon to the extent that it is consistent to the case of prosecution. In Ram Sagar @ Sagar Vs. State, Crl. A. 649/2014 decided on 25.08.2015 by Hon'ble Delhi High Court :
"29..... It is well settled that the evidence of a witness hostile to the cause of the party calling him does not get effaced simply on such account. Notwithstanding the fact that a witness has been crossexamined by the party at whose instance he appears, his evidence still requires to be considered for evaluation of its worth and for it to be found whether he stands thoroughly discredited or whether his testimony, as a whole or in part, can still be believed or acted upon it is trite law that evidence of a hostile witness can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution version, if it finds corroboration from the other material on record....."
28. The evidence of child witness has to be evaluated more carefully and with greater circumspection since a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell him. [Panchhi Vs. State of U.P., 1998 (4) RCR (Criminal) 74]. A child even of tender years is a competent witness, provided of course, he passes the muster of Section 118 Evidence Act. It is also not always necessary that wherever such witness turns hostile, the prosecution case must fail.
29. PW6 Smt. Santosh Chaudhary residing in the same locality has corroborated the statement of PW1 Smt. Chitra Gupta. The testimony of PW3 minor Ravi Solanki is worth mentioning. He stated that on the fateful day, he was having Dhanlaxmi, daughter of PW1 in his lap and they were playing in the street. He stated that at that time, a dog attacked her, took her away by snatching her from his lap and started biting her by dragging her on towards gali. PW3 SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 rushed to the mother of Dhanlaxmi and told her about the same. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Prosecutor on certain points including the identity of the accused. In his cross examination conducted by Ld. Prosecutor, PW3 stated that :
"..... It is correct that when the said dog snatched Dhanlaxmi from my lap. Smt. Chitra Gupta, her one lady related and Smt. Santosh Chaudhary were standing at the door of their respective houses. It is correct that I made alarm and on this, other persons from nearby rushed to save Dhanlaxmi. It is wrong to suggest that accused Rajat continued to talk on his mobile phone. I did not state so before the police confronted with portion B to B of statement Ex.PW3/A where it is so recorded. It is correct that Dhanlaxmi was rescued from the said dog with great difficulty. It is correct that before the said girl was rescued, the dog had severely bitten her and dragged and banged her on the ground. It is correct that thereafter, accused Rajat controlled the said dog and took him inside his house......".
30. Observing so, I find that the statement of PW3 Ravi Solanki appears to be in sync with the version attributed to him. It is pertinent to mention here that the witness was 14 years and was studying in 7 th class at the relevant time. This witness had identified the dog which had severally bitten the victim by dragging her and then banged her to ground. He appeared before Court for evidence about two years after the incident and it is quite natural that over the period, the memory as to the exact sequence of the events may have become slightly fuzzy in his mind. He gave a graphic account of the event witnessed by him with precision which is corroborated by other evidence. His testimony to the broad crucial facts remained the same and is thus found trustworthy.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17
31. The facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that the dog belonged to the accused. The testimony of PW11 Suresh Kumar, Vet Inspector suggests that the dog had good amount of fat on his skin and abdomen area and was very heavy in weight. The same is discernible from dog's Postmortem Report Ex.PW8/A. The dog while put in the iron cage was too much aggressive even at the time when the dog squad tried to catch him. Being heavy weight, it could not be caught by the dog catchers. It could be caught only with the help of public persons who tied rope around its neck, which in the process of catching him got tightened as a result of which the dog died on 19.09.2012. The dog was of Rottweiler breed and of black colour. It stands proved that the accused had two more dogs, one of - Lebra breed and the other one, a young dog of the same Rottweiler breed.
32. As discussed above, it stands established beyond any cavil that the accused while strolling his dog had not put leash or dog collar around its neck. The accused set the dog free by uttering "hush" towards PW3, who had deceased Dhanlaxmi in his lap. The accused let free his dog upon PW3 Ravi Solanki. The dog attacked PW3, pounced upon him and dragged the victim from his lap. The accused knew that his act of freeing the unleashed Rottweiler dog was so imminently dangerous that it, in all probability, could have caused death or bodily injuries likely to cause death.
THE CONDUCT OF ACCUSED
33. Let us see the explanation offered by the accused in his statement under section 313 CrPC. The accused denied that the dog (Rottweiler) belonged to him. He denied that he was strolling his dog on the fateful day. He feigned his ignorance that the dog had caused severe bites to minor Dhanlaxmi. He feigned his ignorance as to if he had two more pet dogs, which were caught by MCD Staff from his house on 19.09.2012. He stated that PW8 Dr. P.K. Shrivastava had SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 some disputes with his father on account of which he falsely deposed that the dog belonged to accused and identified the dog wrongly.
34. In Moinuddin Vs. State, Crl. A. 1122/10 decided by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 04.09.2013, it was observed :
"41. ..... It is settled law that if the accused gives incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under section 313 CrPC, the court can draw adverse inference against him (See : 2012 AIR (SC) 2470 Munna Kumar Upadhyay Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh). The appellant must suffer on this count as well.....".
35. If the accused furnishes no explanation or false explanation, it would enable the court to draw an inference that he was the author of the crime. Adverting to the case, the accused gave false explanation of the material incriminating circumstances. An adverse inference, therefore, has to be drawn against him for such explanation.
(c) Whether the accused had the knowledge that the act in all probability was likely to cause death?
36. Section 299 IPC defines the offence of culpable homicide. Section 300 IPC carves out exceptions, when the culpable homicide is not murder. Clause IV of Section 300 IPC is one such exception which shows the culpable homicide is not murder when the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury. Section 304 IPC itself does not create any different offence. It simply provides punishment in cases where there is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17
37. It is not necessary that the accused must exactly knew what would happen. It is sufficient and adequate that the accused took the "risk" that the crime/offence while he committed, even when he hoped that risk would not lead to any damage or harm. Clause Four of Sec. 300 IPC relates to Part 3 of Sec. 299 IPC in so far punish knowledge without specific reference to any intention. The Clause Four and the term "knowledge" was explained in "State NCT Delhi Vs. Samialam @ Samiya decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 22.09.2010".
38. As discussed herein above, it stands established that the dog was of ferocious/aggressive nature. The same is discernible from the evidence that the dog was of heavy weight with lot of fat around his skin. So it could not be caught by the dog catchers while was being taken by the Dog Squad. It was exhibiting the much aggression even at that time. It was unleashed at the time when accused had taken it to stroll. Accused knew the consequences of his act. What could be gathered is that the accused had the knowledge that his unleashed dog could become violent and could have caused expected harm because of its large size and aggressive nature. The accused had the sufficient knowledge of the hazard of such untoward occurrence.
39. The plea of defence was that the testimony of the complainant/PW1 was not trustworthy; she being an interested witness. On the issue of appreciation of evidence of interested witness, Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364, is one of the earliest cases on the point. In that case, it was held as follows :
"A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge alongwith the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth."
40. Similarly, in Piara Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274, Hon'ble Apex Court held :
"It is well settled that the evidence of interested or inimical witnesses is to be scrutinised with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being a partisan evidence. If on a perusal of the evidence the Court is satisfied that the evidence is creditworthy there is no bar in the Court relying on the said evidence".
41. On close scrutiny, the testimony of PW1 has remained uncontroverted, although she was cross examined by the defence. The defence failed to dislodge the creditworthiness of her testimony. Despite her lengthy and searching cross examination, no material infirmities could be extracted to disbelieve her version. Thus her evidence cannot be disbelieved merely on the ground that she was related to the deceased. [Anil Rai Vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 7 SCC 318; Jodhan Vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52; Gangabhawani Vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors., (2013) 15 SCC 298].
42. This takes me to the next argument of Ld. counsel for defence who pointed towards the contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. I find no merit in the submissions. It is the consistent view of the courts that minor discrepancies, even if noticed, would not affect the prosecution case, if there is a sufficient independent evidence and the test is whether the same inspire confidence in the mind of the court. I find that the omission and discrepancies pointed out by defence do not go to the root of the matter or ushering in SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17 incongruities. [Vijay @ Chinee Vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SC 191 Para 23; Ram Chander & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana decided on 02.01.2017 by Hon'ble Apex Court; Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab @ Kuti Biswas & Ors., (2013) 12 SCC 796]. Thus the infirmities highlighted by the defence do not discredit the witnesses' version and affect the core of prosecution case.
CONCLUSION
43. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, this court is of the considered opinion that the evidence against the accused fully establishes his guilt. The facts so established unerringly point towards the guilt of accused. The incriminating circumstances brought against him unmistakenly prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts. Hence, accused Rajat Taneja is held guilty for the offence under Section 304 (PartII) IPC.
Announced in the open Court Dated : 17th May, 2017 (Ms. Ravinder Bedi) Additional Sessions Judge03 (East) :
Karkardooma Courts : Delhi.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 17 OF 17
IN THE COURT OF
MS. RAVINDER BEDI:
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (EAST):
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
S.C. No: 495/2016
(Old SC No. 06/2014)
(ID No.: 02402R03222182013)
State Versus Rajat Taneja
S/o Sh. Kartar Singh Taneja
R/o A-2/152, New Kondli,
Delhi.
FIR No. 287/2012
PS. New Ashok Nagar
U/s. 304 (Part II) IPC
Order on sentence:
1. Vide my separate judgment dated 17.05.2017, the accused has been held guilty under Sec. 304 (Part II) IPC.
2. I have heard arguments advanced by State. I have also heard ld. counsel and convict in person.
3. The conduct report/nominal roll was called by the Court from Suptd.
Jail. The previous involvement of the convict was also called from DCP (East). Despite service, the court has not received any report from the SDM concerned regarding the immovable assets in the name of the convict, if any.
4. As per the conduct report/nominal roll, the convict remained in custody from 31.10.2012 to 09.11.2012 during which his conduct was found to be satisfactory. The convict is not found involved in any criminal case other than the present case.
5. The convict submits that he is 37 years old, married person having SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 20 OF 17 to look after his family including his wife and three minor daughters, one aged nine years and twins of four months old. He further submits that he has also responsibility of his old aged parents. He further submits that he is sole bread earners of his family by supplying supplements to gyms and local shops. He submits that he is remorseful for the act committed by him and pray that he be given chance to reform himself. Thus, he prays for taking a lenient view against them with probation. Reliance has been placed on the case reported as Gulzar Vs. State of M.P., 2007 (2) JCC 1261.
6. On the other hand, ld. Addl. PP has prayed for maximum sentence, as per law, in view of the circumstances of the case. Referring to the circumstances of the present case, he submits that the act of the convict had resulted into fatal injuries upon minor child aged about one year.
7. Before any sentence is imposed, it is to be borne in mind that sentencing for any offence has a social goal, it has to be imposed regard being to the nature of the offence and the manner in which the offence has been committed. The end goal of sentence is not only deterrence but also correctional and reformative and the determination and awarding of adequate sentence should aways be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. While awarding the sentence, the justice to both sides and to avoid undue leniency has to be ensured so that it has a necessary effect of being deterrent for the convict and to re-assure the society that the convict has been properly dealt with.
8. I have considered the submissions addressed at Bar and the mitigating circumstances forwarded for taking lenient view on behalf of convict. I have looked into the circumstances of the manner of the commission of the offence. The convict while strolling his dog (Breed Rottweiler) in the street, uttered "Hush" and left it towards Ravi Solanki who had a minor child girl aged about one year in his lap. The dog which was unleashed pounced upon the girl, attacked her, snatched her and dragged her. The dog gave her bites all over her body which were in the nature of multiple abrasions and lacerations which resulted into her death.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 20 OF 17
9. I have considered the judgment relied upon by ld. counsel for the convict. The convict is a first offender. He belongs to middle strata of society. He is gainfully employed as a supplier multivitamins/supplements and has to look after his three minor daughters including twins of four months.
10. Considering the over all circumstances in the present case and the theories of law and particularly in view of the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the convict is ordered * to be released on probation for three years on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount * the convict is also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- I/D SI six months for the offence punishable under Sec. 304 (Part II) IPC.
11. It is made clear during the probation period, if convict is found involved in any criminal activity, he shall be liable to serve the sentence as RI for five years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- further.
12. I am aware of the law relating to the provisions of compensation as discussed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad Vs. State of Maharastra, (2013) 6 SCC 770. As per Victim Compensation Scheme envisaged by the State, it would be expedient in the ends of justice, if the complainant of the case who lost her child, be awarded compensation. Accordingly ld. Secretary, DLSA East is directed to pay the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to complainant/victim namely Smt. Chitra Gupta within four weeks/as and when she approaches DLSA (East). Copy of this order be sent to Secy., DLSA (East) for intimation and compliance.
13. File be consigned to RR.
Announced in open court on 01st day of June, 2017 (Ms. Ravinder Bedi) ASJ-03 (East): KKD Courts.
SC NO. 495/16 STATE VS. RAJAT TANEJA PAGE NO.: 20 OF 17