Delhi District Court
State vs . Pawan Kumar on 14 July, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
S.C. No.515/06
FIR no. 841/05
PS Nangloi
U/s 307 IPC
State Vs. Pawan Kumar
S/o Sh. Prem Singh ,
r/o Village Ranhola,
Near Shiv Mandir,
Nangloi, Delhi
Date of Receipt : 24.08.06
Date of Conclusion of arguments : 07.07.10
Date of Decision : 12.07.10
JUDGMENT :
1. The accused Pawan Kumar has been chargesheeted by PS Nangloi for commission of offence under Section 307 IPC.
2. Prosecution in brief is that on 22.08.05 Naresh had some altercation with Deepak S/o Prem Singh. On 23.8.05 when Naresh was returning to his home from his shop at about 9 AM at that time Pawan S/o Prem Singh was standing at the door of his house. He called Naresh. Naresh went to Pawan. Pawan started abusing him and threatened him to kill as he had quarreled with his brother Deepak. On this Naresh turned to go to his house but Pawan dragged him inside his FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.1/13 house and attacked with knife. Naresh raised alarm. This all was also witnessed by Chander Kala mother of Naresh. She reached there and saved him. Pawan ran away from there. Injured was removed to hospital by Dharamender and Parveen. He was got medically examined. Police was informed. On the statement of Chander Kala FIR was registered. Accused was apprehended after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet against the accused was filed in the Court.
3. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate after complying the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the court of Sessions as the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
4. Accused was charged for the offence punishable U/s 307 IPC by my Ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for Prosecution Evidence.
5. Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined 12 witnesses and thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed.
6. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied the entire evidence and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He wished to examine his wife as DW1who stated that injured misbehaved with her and thereafter she hit him with FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.2/13 a Chiminta and she also raised alarm. Her husband also came there and both grappled with each other. Injured started running after pushing her husband and in the process he fell on the harrow/ cultivator and sustained injuries. She informed the police. Chandroop was examined as DW2. He also stated that the injured sustained injuries by falling on harrow and that in the Panchayat Rs.60,000/ was paid to the father of injured but during cross examination, he stated that he had not seen the injured falling on the harrow, somebody told him about this fact. Thereafter accused closed his DE and case was fixed for final arguments.
7. I have heard arguments from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, learned Defence counsel for the accused and perused the record.
8. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that in this case prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The injured Naresh Kumar was examined as PW1. The eye witness Chander Kala was examined as PW4. Both of them have fully supported and corroborated the story of the prosecution and also supported each other. PW1 stated that on 22.8.05 he had exchanged hot words with Deepak who is younger brother of the accused. On next day i.e.23.8.05 at about 9 AM he was returning to his house from his office his mother was standing outside the gate of their house. When he was going inside his house after parking motor cycle accused Pawan FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.3/13 called him, he went near him accused was standing at the gate of his own house. Accused abused him and told him that he is not going to spare him as he had quarrelled with his brother Deepak. On this he turned back and started moving towards his house. Accused caught hold of his hand and dragged him inside his house. He was having a knife in his hand and attacked on his neck, left hand and chest. He raised alarm on hearing noise his mother came there she also raised noise the accused ran away on seeing the mother of the injured. He further stated that his mother took him out of the house and thereafter he became unconscious.
9. PW4 fully supported this statement of PW1. She stated that she was standing on the gate of her house her son Naresh came from the shop accused called him who was standing outside the gate of his house. When Naresh went near him he started abusing him when her son turned back accused Pawan dragged his son inside his house she heard the noise of her son Bachau Bachau. On hearing this she went to the house of accused Pawan and saw accused stabbing her son with knife. She raised alarm. Pawan ran away from there. She brought out her son from the house of Pawan and he became unconscious. Two boys of the village removed her son to the hospital on motor cycle. One witness Dherminder was examined as PW5 who supported the version of PW4 that he along with Parveen removed Naresh from the spot on motor cycle but when they reached on the Main Nazafgarh road some relative of Naresh came there in a car and FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.4/13 Naresh was shifted in that car to Maharaja Agersain hospital. This witness has also stated that Naresh was unconscious at that time. From the testimony of PW1 and PW4 it is clear that it was the accused who stabbed PW1. Father of injured was examined as PW2. He is not eye witness but he reached the spot after he came to know about the incident. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that injuries on the person of injured has been proved by examining Dr. Anil PW6. The doctor found that there were five injuries one was penetrating stab injury mid sternum bone dep 1 CM, stab injury right side chest wall medial to right nipple, 1.5 cm over left forearm with deformity, 1.5 cm bone deep over back of neck and multiple small penetrating injuries over abdomen. Doctor has also stated that these injuries were possible with the knife Ex.P5. The MLC is proved as Ex.PW6/A and doctor opined that nature of injuries was dangerous. Injuries were also on the vital part of the body. During investigation clothes of injured were seized the clothes of the accused were also seized. Knife recovered was also seized and were sent to FSL. FSL result is received and proved on record as Ex. PW11/A and Ex.PW11/B. According to this result the blood of human original was found on the knife Ex.P5 which was used for causing the injuries. The blood group of the injured was found to be "A" and blood of the same group i.e. "A" was also found on the clothes of the injured. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that keeping in view all these facts it is clear that the injured had named the accused as the person who stabbed him, the eye witness has also stated that the accused stabbed her son. There is no reason why PW1 and PW4 FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.5/13 would depose against the accused and would let the actual culprit scot free. The injuries are dangerous in nature and keeping in view the fact that the injuries are on the vital part and multiple stab injuries clearly show that intention of the accused was to kill injured. The blood of the group "A" which is of the injured was also found on the clothes of the accused and there is no explanation to this clearly shows that it was the accused who caused the stab injuries to the injured and attempted to murder him. It is prayed that onus which was on the prosecution has fully been discharged. It is proved beyond doubt that it was the accused who attempted to murder Naresh, therefore, he be held guilty.
10. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that accused has been falsely implicated in this case . He has not caused any injury to the injured. In fact on relevant date DW1 was putting milk in the Araha to boil the same. At that time the injured came there and caught hold her hand from behind. She hit him with a chiminta and also raised alarm. Her husband came there . The two grappled with each other but Naresh fled away after pushing her husband. In the process he fell on the harrow and sustained injuries. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that no injury was caused with the knife. It was DW1 who informed the police on hundred number and police arrived there. The fact that information was sent by the wife of the accused clearly shows that her husband was not at fault. On the knife also no blood was detected. Ld. Counsel submitted that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW2 & FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.6/13 PW4. According to PW2 when he came to know about the incident he went to the hospital where as according to PW4 when PW2 came he informed the police only thereafter police came. Where as in fact police was informed by the wife of the accused. Dherminder has also not supported the prosecution . According to him injured was removed to the hospital in the car where as according to PW4 injured was removed to the hospital on motor cycle. Ld. Counsel submitted that keeping in view all these contradictions and the fact that he sustained injuries due to fall on the harrow lying in the street accused be acquitted. The fact that harrow was there in the street is also admitted by PW5. Ld. Counsel further submitted that a Panchayat was also called in the village where in matter was amicably settled and Rs.60,000/ were paid to the father of the injured examined as PW2. After the settlement nothing was left but due to enmity PW1 & PW4 deposed against the accused. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts accused be acquitted.
11. After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that in the present case besides injured there is an eye witness she is mother of the injured. There is no other public witness and according to PW4 there was none else at that time. It is also well settled principle of law that testimony of a close relative cannot be discarded merely on the ground of relation. In the present case PW4 is mother of PW1 injured both of them have fully supported and corroborated each other about the manner in which the offence was committed. Both stated FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.7/13 that injured returned from the shop. He was called by the accused. Accused abused him and when the injured was returning accused dragged him inside the house and attacked him.PW1 & PW4 both raised alarm. Accused ran away. On this PW4 brought him out of the house of accused. In the mean while injured became unconscious. PW5 admitted this version of PW4 and according to him PW4 was there taking care of PW1 when he reached the spot. There is no such suggestion or cross examination to PW5 that PW4 was not there. Even there is no cross examination to PW4 or PW1 that PW4 was not there or that she had not witnessed the incident. The defence taken is that PW1 caught hold of wife of the accused and she hit him with chiminta, she also raised alarm on which accused came there and grappled with the injured and injured ran away after pushing the accused and in the process he fell on the harrow. PW2 and PW4 had specifically stated that there was no harrow in the street at the relevant time. The injuries on the person of the injured also show that such injuries can not be caused by falling on the harrow. The injuries are wide spread and there are penetrating wound instead of cut wounds. Doctor specifically stated that such injuries are not possible by falling on sharp edged weapon. Under the circumstances and in view of the testimony of PW2 & PW4 to the effect that there was no harrow in the street at that time. I do not find any force in the defence that injured sustained injureis due to fall on the harrow. It is also contended that it is DW1 who informed the police and on the basis of which DD No.2A was recorded. DD No.2A is proved on record as FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.8/13 Ex.PW12/A. This DD also does not support the defence . According to DD a person had been stabbed in street of temple of Ranhola village. There is no mention in this DD that a person had sustained injuries due to fall on harrow or cultivator. There is also no such mention in this DD that injured has teased or harassed DW1. This DD does not support the defence version rather corroborates the prosecution case that a person has been stabbed, therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention of the defence counsel that injured sustained injuries by falling on a harrow or that he teased the wife of accused.
12. From the testimony of PW1 and PW4 it is clear that it was accused who stabbed PW1. This oral testimony is supported by the scientific evidence i.e. FSL result. During the course of investigation clothes of accused were seized and the knife used in the commission of the offence was also seized. These were sent to FSL for analysis and FSL result is proved on record as Ex.PW11/A & Ex.PW11/B. The clothes of the injured and the accused which were stained with the blood were also seized. In the analysis it was found that blood group of injured was "A" and the blood of the same group i.e."A" was found on the clothes of the accused. There is no explanation by the defence as to how the blood of "A" group reached on his clothes. On the knife also blood of human origin was detected. This further corroborates and strengthen the testimony of PW1 & PW4. Defence has produced DW2 who stated that a panchayat was conveyed in the village after the incident and there Rs.60,000/ were paid to the father of the injured FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.9/13 and matter was settled. In my opinion if accused was not at fault as submitted by the Ld. Defence counsel there was no reason for the accused or his family members to pay any amount to the family of the injured as there is nothing on record that there was any other dispute between two families. This further strengthens the prosecution case that the money was paid as accused was at fault.
13. So far as the injuries on the person of injured are concerned the prosecution has examined Doctor as PW6. According to the doctor five stab injuries were found on the person of the injured. The doctor had opined the nature of injury as dangerous and injuries were on the vital part of the body of injured and were also deep enough. The nature of injuries and the fact that there were multiple stab injuries and those were on the vital part of the body itself shows the intention of the accused that he wanted to kill the injured.
14. Keeping in view all these facts and the testimony of PW1 and 4 I found that prosecution has fully proved and established on record that accused stabbed the injured with the knife Ex.P5 and attempted to kill him. In my opinion prosecution has discharged its onus I therefore hold the accused guilty and convict him for the offence punishable U/s 307 IPC.
Announced in open Court
on today i.e. 12.07.2010 (V.K. BANSAL)
ADDL. SESSION JUDGE :DELHI
FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.10/13
IN THE COURT OF SH. V.K. BANSAL : SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI S.C. No.515/06 FIR no. 841/05 PS Nangloi U/s 307 IPC State Vs. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Prem Singh , ORDER ON SENTENCE : 14.07.2010 Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Convict produced from J.C. Sh. Vedpal, ld. Counsel for the convict.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence. Record perused. Learned counsel for the convict submitted that convict is having no previous criminal record ; he is young person aged about 30 years ; he is married having wife and two small kids to support ; he is the sole bread earner of the family ; he had already remained in J.C for about 18 days during the trial and is facing trial for the last about five years. Learned counsel further submitted that Rs. 60,000/ has already been paid to the family of the injured as decided by Panchayat. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts, a lenient view may kindly be taken and he be released on probation.
FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.11/13 Learned Addl. PP for the State submitted that convict inflicted five stab injuries on the person of injured with a dangerous weapon i.e. Knife. The doctor also opined the nature of injury as dangerous. The injuries were on the vital parts of the body i.e the neck, chest and the abdomen. The injured was relative of the accused, despite that he caused injuries to him. Under the circumstances, no leniency be shown and he be awarded severest punishment.
Keeping in view the submissions and the fact that convict attacked the injured with the knife causing stab injuries on the vital parts of the body and also the fact that he is 30 years of age only, having two small kids and no previous criminal record and also the settled proposition of law that the sentence awarded must commonusrate with the offence committed, I am of the considered opinion that he does not deserve to be released on probation. The convict has attempted to take the life of a person, who was his relative. The defence is that he teased his wife, but that also does not give him any right to take law into his own hands that also to the extent of causing multiple stab injuries. Keeping in view all these facts, I sentence the convict Pawan Kumar to five years rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ u/s 307 IPC, in default of payment to undergo three months R.I. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C is given to him.
FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.12/13 Case property be destroyed after the period for filing the appeal is over or no appeal is preferred. Copy of judgment and copy of order on sentence be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(V.K. BANSAL) ADDL. SESSION JUDGE ROHINI : DELHI : 14.07.2010 FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.13/13 FIR no. 841/05 : PS Nangloi : State Vs. Pawan Kumar page no.14/13