Delhi District Court
State vs . Satto Chaudhary & Anr. on 22 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE-05: SOUHT-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLSE01-010597-2021
SC No. 487/2021
FIR No. 80/2021
U/s. 307/34 IPC
PS: KALINDI KUNJ
STATE Vs. SATTO CHAUDHARY & ANR.
JUDGMENT
1. Sr. No. of the case : 487/2021.
2. Date of Committal to Sessions : 26.11.2021.
3. Name of the complainant : Sh. Subroto Parmanik
4. Date of Commission of Offence : 07.02.2021.
5. Name and Parentage of Accused : (i) Satto Chaudhary
S/o. Sh. Shyam Pal Chaudhary
: (ii) Vinod Sahu
S/o. Late. Sh. Ravi Sahu
Both R/o. H. No. D-2/312,
12 Gaj J.J. Colony,
Madanpur Khadar,
New Delhi.
6. Offence complained of : U/s. 307/34 IPC.
7. Offence Charged : U/s. 307/34 IPC.
8. Plea of Guilt : Not guilty.
9. Final Order : Convicted.
10. Date on which Order Reserved : 02.08.2023.
11. Date on which Order Announced : 22.08.2023.
SC No. 487/2021
FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.1/25
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. The case against accused Satto Chaudhary and Vinod Sahu is that on 07/02/2021, at about 07:15 PM, at Shani Bazar Road, opposite Shiv Mandir, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi, on instigation of accused Satto Chaudhary, accused Vinod Sahu picked up a sharp hasiya/darant (meat cutting knife) from shop of accused Satto Chaudhary and struck victim Naushad on left side of his neck and over his left upper chest with it, causing him grievous injuries. The FIR was registered on the statement of complainant/eye-witness Subroto Parmanik. The accused persons were arrested and, after investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offence U/s. 307/34 IPC.
2. Detailed arguments were heard on charge from Ld. defence counsel and from Ld. Addl. PP for State. Vide order dated 26/11/2021, the Court framed charge for the offence U/s. 307/34 IPC against both the accused persons. The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and preferred trial.
3. The prosecution led evidence and examined 06 witnesses to bring home the charged offence against the accused.
4. (a) PW1/complainant deposed that he used to sell fish in a khokha/takhat (wooden cot bed) at Shani Bazar Road, in front of Shiv Temple, D-Block, J. J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar. He deposed that he knew accused Vinod (identified in Court) as he SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.2/25 used to reside in his neighbourhood in the same street, however, shifted to some other place after selling his house, 6-7 years ago. He deposed that he also knew accused Satto Chaudhary (identified in Court) as he used to sell chicken at Shani Bazar Road, near to his khokha/takhat. He deposed that he did not remember the date and month, however, around one year ago, at about 07:15PM - 07:30PM, when he was selling fish at his khokha/takhat, he saw that accused Satto Chaudhary was sitting at his khokha/takhat and while selling chicken a scuffle took place between accused Vinod and victim Mohd. Naushad. He deposed that there were some customers at his shop and, in the meantime, he heard accused Satto calling the name of accused Vinod, and on asking of accused Vinod "kya mai Naushad ko maroo", accused Satto said "Naushad ko maar". Thereafter, accused Satto went inside the street and brought one pipe, whereas, accused Vinod picked a 'hasiya', meant to cut chicken, from the shop of accused Satto with which he gave a blow on neck of victim Mohd. Naushad, and Naushad fell down just ahead of his shop. He deposed that accused Satto also came to hit Naushad with iron pipe, however, did not hit the victim. He deposed that they all got frightened and ran away from the spot.
4.(b) PW1 further deposed that after sometime, on the same day, police visited his house, took him to police station, made inquiry from him about the incident and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that his statement U/s. 164 CrPC, Ex. PW1/B, was recorded by the Judge. He identified his signature at point 'A' & 'B' on his statement recorded U/s. 164 CrPC. He SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.3/25 deposed that he did not show the place of incident to police, however, police inquired him about the same. He admitted his signature at point 'A' on site plan Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that police made inquiry from him and recorded his statement. He deposed that accused Satto was neither arrested, nor any recovery was effected from him, in his presence. He identified the weapon of offence i.e. one long and broad iron 'hasiya', Ex. P-1, produced by MHC(M) in a parcel, sealed with the seal of FSL, stating that it was the same weapon by which injured Naushad was assaulted on 07/02/2021. The identity of other case property i.e. pipe was not disputed by the defence counsel.
4.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW1 replied that he used to run his shop for last 10 years, prior to the incident, that he usually opened from 04:00 PM to 09:30 PM. He replied that there was no other fish shop adjacent to his shop. He voluntarily stated that there were chicken/meat shops near to his shop. He replied that the shop of accused Satto was adjacent to left side of his shop, whereas, the shop situated on right side of his shop was at a distance of five steps, that belonged to one Seeori as well as another shop adjacent to Seeori's shop was of one Goer. He replied that the spot remained crowded in evening time. He replied that it was Sunday on the day of incident and there were 4-5 customers at his shop at that time. He stated that his wife was also present at his shop on the day of incident. He replied that accused Satto and his wife sit on their shop. He replied that injured Naushad was not known to him prior to the incident. He replied that accused Vinod was not known to him, SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.4/25 however, he had seen him prior to the incident as Vinod used to reside in the same street where he resided. He replied that accused Satto Chaudhary was known to him since long. He replied that crowd had gathered at the spot after the incident.
4.(d) PW1 replied that accused Satto and Vinod as well as injured Naushad were under influence of liquor at the time of incident. He replied that someone from crowd had called the police, however, it was not made in his presence. He replied that quarrel continued for about half an hour. He replied that he did not remember the exact time of arrival of police at the spot, however, as far he remembered it might be 10:00 PM. He replied that police made no inquiry from him at the spot, after the incident. He replied no one from the crowd was ready to narrate the incident to police. He replied that he was unaware about cause of scuffle. He replied that police visited his house at about 01:00 AM. He admitted his deposition dated 14/02/2022, wherein he deposed that accused Vinod asked accused Satto " kya mai Naushad ko marun" on which accused Satto said "Naushad ko maar" (PW1 was confronted with his statements recorded U/s. 161 CrPC and U/s. 164 CrPC, wherein it was not so recorded in such manner). He replied that injured Naushad was not taken to hospital in his presence, nor did his family members come to the spot in his presence. He replied that after the assault injured Naushad was not able to speak and fell down. He replied that his statement was recorded at police station. He admitted that police did not take him to the spot, neither made inquiry from his wife. He replied that police made no inquiry from nearby shopkeepers SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.5/25 in his presence, after the incident. He replied that someone told police about him being an eye-witness. He replied that he told to police that nearby shopkeepers might have seen the incident.
4.(e) PW1 replied that he accompanied the police to Court for recording of his statement U/s. 164 CrPC. He replied that police did not show him weapon of offence i.e. hasiya. He denied the suggestion that he and accused Satto used to quarrel prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that he was an interested witness. He denied the suggestion that accused Vinod did not assault injured Naushad with hasiya. He denied the suggestion that accused Satto Chaudhary brought no pipe. He denied the suggestion that he was not an eye-witness to the alleged incident. He denied the suggestion that he heard no quarrel occurred between accused Satto and injured Naushad. He denied the suggestion that he did not hear accused Satto calling accused Vinod at the spot. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of police as well as family members of the injured.
5.(a) PW2/victim Naushad deposed that he did not remember the year, however, it was 07th February, at about 08:30PM - 09:00PM, when he went to accused Satto (identified in Court) to buy chicken on credit basis, accused rebuked him and he left from there. He deposed that accused Vinod (identified in Court), a tenant of accused Satto, was standing there. He deposed that accused Satto asked accused Vinod to assault him, and accused SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.6/25 Vinod assaulted him on his neck with a dao (a big iron knife like object that is used to cut chicken), that he brought from shop of accused Satto, whereas, accused Satto brought a danda. He deposed that due to assault on his neck, he fell down on the ground. He deposed that accused Satto took dao from accused Vinod and went away from the spot. He deposed that he became unconscious and when regained his consciousness, he saw that his neighbour and brother were taking him to hospital in an auto. He replied that he was taken to AIIMS Trauma Center, where he narrated the incident to doctor. He replied that he did not remember if police made any inquiry from him. He identified the broad and long iron hasiya/dao Ex. P-1 stating that it was the same weapon with which he was assaulted on the day of incident.
5.(b) In cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW2 replied that replied at the time of incident he used to do the job of lying charcoal and his working hours were from 07:00AM to 07:00PM, however, he did not go to his work on the day of incident. He replied that the shop of accused Satto was at a distance of around 30-40 meters away from his house. He replied that he knew both the accused persons prior to the incident since his childhood as they used to reside in the same locality, where he resided. He admitted that he as well as both the accused persons were drunk at the time of incident, however, they did not drink together. He admitted that prior to the incident he used to do drink party with the accused persons. He replied that sometimes accused Satto used to give him the left over chicken. He replied that he never bought chicken from accused Satto and SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.7/25 accused used to give free chicken to him sometimes; he purchased the chicken from other shops. He replied that there was crowd in the market at the time of incident. He voluntarily stated that there was no customer at the shop of accused Satto at that time. He replied that there were other 2-3 fish/chicken shops near the shop of accused Satto.
5.(c) PW2 replied that he drank alone near Yamuna Bridge on the day of incident. He replied that the incident in which he talked to accused Satto and the accused rebuked him, took place within a span of 10 minutes, whereafter he was assaulted immediately. He replied that no arguments were exchanged between him and accused Satto prior to the incident. He replied that accused Vinod was present near to them at the time of incident. He replied that police did not take him to spot of incident. He replied that he told to the doctor that he was assaulted by accused Vinod and not by accused Satto. He replied that his brother Sartaj rushed him to hospital and his neighbour Vishal accompanied them to hospital. He replied that police met him once in the hospital and made inquiry. He replied that he did not know if police made inquiry from Sartaj and Vishal. He replied that he was conscious when taken to hospital and was discharged on next day. He replied that his blood stained clothes were seized in the hospital. He replied that police did not visit his house during investigation.
5.(d) PW2 denied the suggestion that accused Satto did not instigate accused Vinod to assault him. He denied the suggestion SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.8/25 that accused Vinod did not bring any hasiya/dao from shop of accused Satto, neither assaulted him with it. He denied the suggestion that he sustained injuries by some other reasons as he was drunk and not by assault caused by accused Vinod. He denied the suggestion that he had no control over himself as he was heavily drunk. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated due to previous enmity.
6. PW3 Rinku, brother of injured Naushad, deposed that he did not remember the exact year, however, it was in year 2021, when he heard noise that someone had been stabbed at Shani Bazar Road, that was situated near to his house. There was crowd at the spot. He reached there and found that his brother Naushad was lying on ground in injured condition and was bleeding. He deposed that he alongwith his friend Vishal shifted Naushad to hospital in an auto.
In cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW3 replied that police did not reach the spot in his presence, however, Vishal called police in his presence. He replied that there were lot of shops near the spot, where his brother was lying. He denied the suggestion that he did not see his brother in injured condition, neither rushed him to hospital. He replied that police did not meet him in hospital.
7. PW4 Vishal, neighbour of the injured, deposed that on 07/02/2021 few people visited him and informed him that someone had been stabbed at Shani Bazar Road, that was situated SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.9/25 near to his house. There was crowd at the spot. He reached there and saw that Naushad @ Chotu was lying on ground in injured condition and was bleeding. He deposed that he alongwith his friend Rinku shifted Naushad to hospital in an auto.
In cross-examination by Ld. defence counsel, PW3 replied that he made a call to police, however, police did not reach the spot in his presence. He replied that there were lot of shops near the spot, where injured Naushad was lying. He denied the suggestion that he did not see Naushad in injured condition, neither rushed him to hospital. He replied that police met him in hospital.
8.(a) PW5 Ct. Manoj deposed that on 07/02/2021 he was posted at PS Kalindi Kunj and, on that day, on receipt of DD No.68A regarding stabbing of a boy, he alongwith IO reached the spot i.e. D-Block, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, where they met beat Constable Pooran. He deposed that the PCR caller was not found at the spot and, on inquiry, the caller told them that he went back to his house. He deposed that the blood was lying at the spot and the injured was shifted to hospital. He deposed that the IO instructed Constable Pooran to preserve crime scene and got it inspected from Crime Team, whereas, he alongwith the IO went to AIIMS Hospital, where injured Naushad was found admitted. They collected MLC of injured Naushad, who was unfit for statement. The doctor handed over exhibits to the IO, that IO seized vide memo Ex. PW5/1. Thereafter, they came back to the spot, where Constable Pooran got the crime scene photographed SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.10/25 and inspected by Crime Team. He deposed that IO lifted blood as well as earth control from the spot and seized them vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that after a long search they found eye witness Subroto Pramanik and IO recorded his statement. Thereafter, he got the FIR registered at police station and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to IO.
8.(b) He deposed that the eye witness led them to house of accused Satto Chaudhary, where IO arrested him from outside his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/B, at the instance of eye witness, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW5/C and recorded his disclosure statement. He deposed that accused Satto got recovered the weapon of offence i.e. one iron pipe and one chopper/dao/darat from the room at ground floor of his house. IO seized the recovered weapon of offence vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/D, prepared site plan Ex. PW5E of place of recovery and pointing out memo Ex. PW5/F at the instance of accused Satto Chaudhary. The production of case property was dispensed with as its identity was not disputed by Ld. Defence Counsel.
8.(c) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW5 replied that on receipt of DD, they left police station at about 07:15PM and reached the spot in about 15 minutes, however, he did not remember the mode of transport. He replied that he did not know if IO asked the name and address of the caller, neither was anyone sent to the house of caller in his presence. He replied that the statement of eye witness was recorded at the spot, by IO, SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.11/25 however, he did not remember the time when it was recorded. He replied that the spot was a crowded place and 2-4 persons were present at the spot when they reached there.
8.(d) PW3 replied that they reached the house of accused Satto Chaudhary at about 02:00AM - 02:30AM (midnight), on 08/02/2021. He replied that he did not know upto which floor the house of accused was built up, neither could he tell if all the floors of said house were occupied. He replied that nobody was residing at ground floor of the building. He replied that he did not remember if IO had called any public persons or any other occupant, neighbour of the building prior to visiting the ground floor. He replied that he did not remember in what position the weapon of offence was lying in the room. He replied that he signed the recovery memo Ex. PW5/D of weapon of offence at police station. He admitted that he signed the documents at police station, however, they were prepared at the spot of incident. He replied that he did not remember if any public person was joined in investigation by IO. He replied that he did not remember if IO had called the family members of accused Satto Chaudhary. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the place of incident alongwith the IO. He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence. He denied the suggestion that he was a planted witness, neither did he join investigation with the IO at any point of time. He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely at the instance of IO.
SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.12/259.(a) PW6 IO SI Deepak Kumar deposed that on 07/02/2021 he was posted at PS Kalindi Kunj and, on that day, at evening time, on receipt of a call regarding stabbing of a person, he alongwith Ct. Manoj reached J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, where they found 2-3 persons, however, injured was not there. He inquired the public persons but nobody revealed anything and, in the meantime, beat constable Puran reached there. The blood was lying at the spot. He deposed that he called crime team and deputed Ct. Puran to preserve the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Manoj went to AIIMS Hospital, where the doctor handed over sealed pullanda of clothes of injured and MLC to him. The injured was under treatment and was not fit to give statement. He deposed that he seized the clothes alongwith sample seal vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/I and returned to the spot. He deposed that the crime team had already reached the spot and lifted the exhibits of blood and earth control, that he sealed in pullanda with the seal of DK and seized it vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/A. He deposed that after some time, in late night, complainant Subroto, who had seen the incident, reached the spot and he recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He deposed that Subroto told him that accused Satto Chaudhary and Vinod Sahu had caused beatings to Naushad by knife, used for cutting meat.
9.(b) PW6 deposed that he prepared rukka Ex. PW6/A and handed it over to Ct. Manoj. He deposed that complainant Subroto showed him the house of accused Satto Chaudhary, where accused was present outside his house. He apprehended accused Satto, interrogated him, arrested him, conducted his SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.13/25 personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He deposed that accused Satto Chaudhary got recovered the knife (hasiya) and one iron pipe, used for committing offence, from ground floor of his house. He further deposed about sealing the recovered knife and iron pipe in separate pullanda with the seal of DK, their seizure vide memo Ex. PW5/D, preparation of pointing out memo Ex. PW5/F of place of incident at the instance of accused Satto, preparation of site plan Ex. PW5/E of place of recovery of iron pipe and knife (hasiya) and preparation of site plan Ex. PW1/C of place of incident at the instance of complainant Subroto.
9.(c) PW6 deposed that on 08/02/2021 they searched for accused Vinod but to no avail. However, on 09/02/2021, upon secret information, he alongwith HC Nahar Singh apprehended accused Vinod Sahu from Jalebi Chowk, Madanpur Khadar, interrogated and arrested him vide memo Ex. PW6/B, conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/C, recorded his disclosure statement Ex. PW6/D, recorded the statement of witnesses, who had joined investigation on 09/02/2023, and produced accused Vinod before the Court. He deposed that on 11/02/2021, he produced witness Subroto in Court, where his statement U/s. 164 CrPC was recorded by Ld. MM. Upon application Ex. PW6/E, he obtained copy of statement of Subroto, recorded U/s. 164 CrPC. He deposed that after injured Naushad became fit for statement, he recorded statement of Naushad who named accused Satto and Vinod as the assailants, who caused him injuries. He also recoded statement of Rinku and SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.14/25 Vishal as well as other police witnesses. On 08/03/2021, he sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini. He deposed that he also recorded statement of PCR caller, collected the crime team report Ex. A-5, the photographs Ex. A-9 clicked by crime team officials and, after completion of investigation, filed the charge-sheet in Court. PW6 identified the accused persons in Court as well as hasiya Ex. P-1, an iron instrument used to cutting fish and chicken.
9.(d) In cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, PW6 replied that immediately after receiving DD No.68A, he left for the spot and reached there within 10-15 minutes, and found 3-4 persons present there. He replied that on local inquiry he came to know that the injured was rushed to hospital, however, he did not record statement of any public person. He replied that he contacted the person who had lodged information through DD No.68A, however, he was not present at the spot and informed PW6 that he had gone to his house. He replied that the caller was contacted on telephone only and not in person to join investigation, being not an eye-witness. He replied that all the shops were closed due to incident, when he reached the spot. He replied that he did not remember when the statement of PCR called was recorded, however, it was recorded at police station.
9.(e) PW6 replied that he met complainant Subroto at around 01:00AM - 01:30AM at midnight. He replied that they did not meet the complainant at the spot as he was not present there when they first reached the spot after receiving the DD. He replied that he did not prepare sketch of hasiya and iron pipe as SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.15/25 they were quite large in size, neither their photographs were taken. He admitted that the description of hasiya and iron pipe were not mentioned in seizure memo. He replied that the clothes of victim were handed over to him by the doctor in sealed condition. He replied that he did not remember if he recorded the statement of Sartaj, who took the injured to hospital. He replied that he inquired about the previous enmity, if any, however, he found no such enmity between complainant and the accused. He replied that during inquiry, they reached near the house of complainant and recorded his statement after coming to know that he was an eye-witness. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons made no disclosure statement. He denied the suggestion that he did not investigate the case fairly. He denied the suggestion that nothing was recovered at the instance of accused persons. He denied the suggestion that complainant was an interested as well as planted witness. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case.
10. Accused Satto Chaudhary and Vinod Sahu, through separate statements recorded U/s. 294 CrPC r/w Section 313 CrPC, on dated 03.08.2022, admitted the following documents :-
i) Ex. A-1 (Colly.) - Copy of FIR alongwith Certificate U/s.
65B of Indian Evidence Act;
ii) Ex. A-2 - DD No.68A, dated 07/02/2021; iii) Ex. A-3 - Statement recorded U/s. 164 CrPC of the complainant; SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.16/25 iv) Ex. A-4 - MLC of injured Naushad; v) Ex. A-5 - Crime Scene Report No. 102/21 dated 07.02.20221; vi) Ex. A-6 - Copy of RC No.45/21/21 dated 08.03.2021;
vii) Ex. A-7 - Acknowledgment of case acceptance bearing No. SFSL(DLH)/2409/BIO/503/21 dated 08.03.2021;
viii) Ex. A-8 - FSL Report dated 11.03.2022; &
ix) Ex. A-9 (Colly.) - Nine (09) Photographs of Crime Scene, Therefore, the requirement to prove the said documents through prosecution/public witnesses was obviated.
11. All the incriminating evidence that came on record in the deposition of prosecution witnesses was put in detail to both the accused persons and their statements were recorded U/s. 313 CrPC. The accused persons denied all incriminating evidence and asserted that the police officials lifted them from their respective house and falsely implicated them in the present case. Accused Satto Chaudhary asserted that the alleged knife (hasiya) and one iron pipe were not recovered at his instance. Accused Vinod Sahu stated asserted that police obtained his signatures on some blank papers.
12. The accused persons did not avail of the opportunity to lead evidence in defence. I have heard the detailed final arguments from both sides. The findings are as under:-
13. The incident - PW2/injured Naushad stated that on the date of incident, at around 08:30PM, he asked accused Satto to SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.17/25 sell him chicken on credit, that irritated him. Accused Vinod, who was tenant of accused Satto, was also present there. At the instigation of accused Satto, Vinod picked a meat cutter knife (hasiya/dao) from shop of accused Satto and struck Naushad with it on his neck. Accused Satto picked one stick (danda) to batter Naushad. On being struck on his neck with the sharp meat cutter knife, Naushad fell on the ground. Accused Satto took the knife (hasiya/dao) from accused Vinod and both of them fled from the spot. Naushad became unconscious and regained his consciousness on the way to hospital when he noticed that he was being taken to hopsital by his neighbour and brother in an auto rickshaw. PW2 identified the seized hasiya/dao as the one that was used by accused Vinod at the instigation of accused Satto Chaudhary to injure him on his neck.
14. The Corroboration - PW1/complainant Subroto Parmanik used to sell fish on a bench (takhat) near to the bench (takhat) where accused Satto used to sell chicken in front of Shiv Temple, D-Block, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, Shani Bazar Road. He stated that on the day of incident, at around 07:00PM - 07:30PM, he was selling fish on his bench, whereas, accused Naushad was selling chicken on his bench. He noticed that a scuffle took place between accused Vinod and victim Naushad at the shop of accused Satto. He heard accused Satto called the name of accused Vinod. Then Vinod asked Satto - "kya main Naushad ko maroo'', to which accused Satto said - "Naushad ko maar''. He noticed that accused Satto went inside the street and brought an iron pipe, whereas, accused Vinod picked up one SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.18/25 hasiya (meat cutting knife) from shop of accused Satto and gave a blow with it on the neck of victim Naushad. PW1 stated that Mohd. Naushad fell down due to injury, just ahead of his shop. He stated that, although, accused Satto was also holding an iron pipe, he did not hit Naushad with it. PW1 stated that he and others got frightened by the incident and fled from the spot. He stated that after sometime, on the same day, police came to his house, took him to police station and inquired from him about the incident. He stated that police recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, whereas, a Judge recorded his statement U/s. 164 CrPC, Ex. PW1/B. PW1 identified the hasiya (meat cutting knife) Ex. P-1 as the weapon of offence that was used by accused Vinod to inflict neck injury to injured Naushad.
15. Injury sustained by victim Naushad - As per MLC Ex. A-4 (admitted by accused persons U/s. 294 CrPC) of victim Naushad, prepared at Apex Trauma Centre of AIIMS Hospital on 07/02/2021 at 09:09PM, Naushad had sustained incised wound over left side neck and incised wound over left upper chest, approx 1cm x 1cm. The injury was opined as grievous in nature, being caused by a sharp edged weapon.
16. Defence Arguments - Ld. Defence Counsel argued that there was delay of 08 hours in registration of FIR and police planted PW1 Subroto Parmanik as an eye-witness, although, he was not present at the spot at the time of incident. The incident had allegedly occurred at around 07:15PM on 07/02/2021, SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.19/25 whereas, the FIR was registered at around 02:41AM on 08/02/2021 i.e. around 07 hours 30 minutes after the incident. It was argued that PW1 Subroto Parmanik was an interested witness.
16.(a) In this regard, PW1 Subroto explained that on seeing the incident he got frightened and fled from the spot. For this reason, he did not see arrival of police at the spot or injured Naushad being taken to hospital. PW1 stated that someone had told police about him being an eye-witness. He stated that police came to his house and took him to police station to inquire him about the incident. He narrated the incident to police through statement Ex. PW1/A.
16.(b) PW1 Subroto Parmanik comes across as an honest and reliable witness and his deposition has the stamp of genuineness because of following reasons :-
i) He stated that he had not shown the place of incident to police, however, police had inquired about him for the same;
ii) He stated that accused Satto was not arrested in his presence and no recovery was effected from accused Satto in his presence;
iii) He stated that he did not know injured Naushad prior to the incident;SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.20/25
iv) He stated that accused Vinod was not known to him, however, he had seen Vinod prior to the incident since he resided in the same street in which Vinod resided;
v) He stated that accused Satto and Vinod as well as injured Naushad were under the influence of alcohol at the time of incident. Indeed, as per MLC Ex. A-4, breath of victim Naushad was smelling of alcohol at the time of his medical examination. There was no defence suggestion that accused persons were not drunk at the time of incident;
vi) He stated that he told the police that not only him, nearby shopkeepers might have also witnessed the incident.
16.(c) PW1 deposed about the incident with accurate detail. He was a natural witness to the incident since he used to sell fish just adjacent to the shop/bench (takhat) from which accused Satto used to sell chicken. He correctly and honestly deposed all facts even if his deposition did not completely favour the prosecution case. He denied the suggestion that he and accused Satto used to quarrel prior to the incident. He denied the suggestion that he was an interested witness.
16.(d) PW1 had no acquintance with victim Naushad; he had only seen accused Vinod in the neighbourhood prior to the incident, whereas, he knew accused Satto Chaudhary just as a shopkeeper who conducted his business adjacent to his shop. It could not be said that PW1 was an interested witness, for, an interested witness must have some direct interest in having the accused SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.21/25 somehow convicted for some extraneous reason [ Ref.: State of Rajasthan Vs. Kalki (1981) 2 SCC 752]. The presence of PW1 Subroto Parmanik at the spot at the time of incident is not doubtful. He is an independent and natural witness to the incident, rather than, a planted witness.
17. PW1 Subroto Pramanik corroborated the testimony of PW2 Naushad in all material details. PW2 Naushad was also honest in his deposition that at the time of incident he as well as both the accused persons were drunk. He stated that he did not take alcohol with accused persons on the date of incident, although, he used to have drink party with the accused persons earlier. He stated that he consumed liquor alone near Yamuna Bridge on the day of incident. He deposed that accused Satto used to give him left over chicken for free sometimes in the past. He stated that he never bought chicken from accused Satto as he used to give chicken to him for free. He stated that no arguments took place between him and accused Satto prior to the assault by accused Vinod. He denied the suggestion that accused did not exhort accused Vinod to assault him. He denied the suggestion that accused Vinod did not bring any hasiya/dao from shop of accused Satto, neither assaulted him with it.
Accused persons cross examined PW2 Naushad with the suggestion that he suffered injuries because of some other reasons since he was drunk and not on being hit by accused Vinod. PW2 denied the defence suggestions. He denied that he SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.22/25 had personal enmity with the accused persons. It is observed that the accused persons utterly failed to show that victim/PW2 had personal enmity with them. PW2 Naushad had no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons if he was not injured by them.
18. Ld. defence counsel rightly argued that police witnesses i.e. PW5 Ct. Manoj and PW6 SI Deepak Kumar did not correctly depose as to how they came to know of PW1 Subroto Parmanik, although, no eye-witness was initially found at the spot. They incorrectly stated that eye-witness Subroto led them to the house of accused Satto Chaudhary and he was found standing outside his house. Their deposition is not in conformity with that of PW1 Subroto in this regard.
To a limited extent, the investigation was, indeed, defective. However, that does not take away from truthfulness of deposition of public witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2, neither does it weaken the foundation of prosecution case [ Ref.: State of Rajasthan Vs. Kishore (1996) 8 SCC 217; Union of India Vs. Prakash P. Hinduja & Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 195; Amar Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 518; Ram Bihari Yadav Vs. State of Bihar (1998) 4 SCC 517].
19. It was argued that the FIR was delayed by 7½ hours, during which time the police manipulated the case and falsely implicated the accused persons. In this regard, it is observed that SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.23/25 the slight delay in registeration of FIR was well explained. When police reached the spot on receipt of information of the offence, victim Naushad was already rushed to the hospital, whereas, no eye-witness was found at the spot. When PW4 and PW5 reached the hospital, injured Naushad was under treatment and was not fit to give statement, as per MLC Ex. A-4. Police searched for eye- witness and came to know that Subroto Pramanik had witnessed the incident. PW1 SubrotoPramanik explained that he was frightened by the incident and fled from the spot. However, after sometime police came to his house and took him to police station to inquire about the incident. The delay in registration of FIR is well explained and no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution case [Ref.: Amar Singh Vs. Balvinder Singh & Anr. (2003) 2 SCC 518].
20. As a result of observations and analysis, the prosecution has proved through evidence that on 07/02/2021, at about 07:15 PM, at Shani Bazar Road, opposite Shiv Mandir, J.J. Colony, Madanpur Khadar, Kalindi Kunj, New Delhi, on instigation of accused Satto Chaudhary, accused Vinod Sahu caused grievous incised injuries to left side neck and over left upper chest of victim Naushad with a hasiya/darant (meat cutting knife). The injury was intentionally inflicted on the neck, which is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable part of the body, by using a heavy meat cutting knife, because of which the death of victim Naushad was a distinct possibility. Indeed, if death of victim Naushad were caused, both the accused persons would be guilty of his murder. Accused Satto Chaudhary and Vinod Sahu are, therefore, SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.24/25 held guilty of attempt to commit murder of victim Naushad, punishable under Section 307/34 IPC.
21. The sentence shall be announced after hearing both sides and completion of requisite procedure.
Announced in the open Court Dated 22.08.2023 (VISHAL SINGH) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-05, SOUTH-EAST, SAKET COURT NEW DELHI SC No. 487/2021 FIR No. 80/2021 State Vs. Satto Chaudhary & Anr. Page No.25/25