Delhi District Court
State vs . Niranjan Singh & Ors. on 25 August, 2015
State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHREYA ARORA MEHTA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Niranjan Singh & Ors.
FIR No.: 259/06
U/s : 341/323/34 IPC
PS : Mehrauli
1 Serial No. of the case : 473/1/06
2 Date of commission : 28.04.2006
3 Date of institution of the case : 17.08.2007
4 Name of complainant : Mukhtar Ali Khan
5 Name of accused : i. Niranjan Singh son of
Mr. Chhote Lal r/o H No.
123, Village Saidulajab,
MB Road, New Delhi
ii. Sumit
son of Mr. Niranjan Singh
r/o H No. 123, Village
Saidulajab, MB Road,
New Delhi
iii. Amit
son of Late Mr. Ran Singh
r/o H No. 123, Village
Saidulajab, MB Road,
New Delhi
6 Offence complained of : 323/341/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 25.08.2015.
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 1 of 13
State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
9 Final order : Convicted
10 Date of judgment : 25.08.2015
JUDGMENT
Brief facts and reasons for the decision of the case
1. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that on 28.04.2006 at about 12:15 pm at in front of Shop No. 17, M.B. Road, Saidulajab, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Mehrauli, the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily obstructed the complainant Mukhtaar Ali Khan from proceedings in a direction in which he had a right to proceed and also inflicted simple injuries on his person. Hence, the accused Niranjan Singh, Sumit and Amit are facing trial for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. An FIR was lodged at the behest of the complainant Mukhtaar Ali Khan. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 17.08.2007. Cognizance was taken and provision of Section 207 Cr.PC was complied with after appearance of the accused persons. Vide order FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 2 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
dated 04.04.2009, the Ld Predecessor framed charge against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Thereafter the matter was put up for prosecution evidence. The prosecution examined seven witnesses namely PW1 Mukhtaar Ali Khan who was the injured/complainant, PW2 ASI Jaspal Singh who was the IO, PW3 SI Ramphal who was the Duty Officer, PW4 Ajit Singh the record clerk from AIIMS, PW5 Dr. Abhro Acharji who examined the injured and prepared the MLC, PW6 HC Jitender Singh who was also the Duty Officer, and PW7 Ct. Ramesh Chand who aided the IO in the investigation of the present case. The evidence of each of the prosecution witnesses is relevant and is analyzed and discussed later at appropriate places. The prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 22.08.2014. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC on 28.10.2014 and all the incriminating evidence was put to them in which the accused persons pleaded false implication. The accused persons did not FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 3 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
lead any defence evidence.
4. Thereafter, final arguments were advanced by the Ld. APP and the Ld. Counsel for the accused and the matter was reserved for judgment.
5. To bring home the charge as framed against the accused persons, the prosecution must prove that the accused persons committed the offence under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt, which reads as under:
"Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
6. Section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for voluntarily causing hurt on provocation. The expression "voluntarily causing hurt" has been defined under Section 321 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which reads as under :
"Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever does any FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 4 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt".
7. 'Hurt' has been defined under Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as under:
"Hurt. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
8. Hence, in light of the above mentioned provisions, in order to prove the commission of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the accused persons, it must be proved that (a) the accused caused either bodily pain or disease or infirmity to the injured; (b) such bodily pain or disease or infirmity was caused by the accused (i) intentionally, or (ii) with the knowledge that his act shall cause such hurt.
9. The accused persons have also been charged for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which provides punishment for wrongful restraint, which reads as under "Punishment for wrongful restraint. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 5 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
10.Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 define wrongful restraint which reads as under "Wrongful restraint. Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person."
11.To prove the case, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of PW1 Mr. Mukhtaar Ali Khan. Ld. APP for the State has submitted that PW1 Mukhtaar Ali Khan deposed on oath that on the day of the incident, the officials of PWD were conducting the demolition in the area of Saidulajab Market, New Delhi. At about 12:15 pm accused persons namely Niranjan, his son Sumit and Amit came and asked the PWD officials to demolish the remaining portion on which PW1 replied that it is upto the PWD officials to decide what they have to demolish. PW1 further deposed that when he was coming out from his shop, the accused Niranjan stopped him and accused Amit and Sumit caused beatings to him with leg and fist blow. Accused Niranjan also gave him a leg and fist blow.
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 6 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
PW1 further deposed that due to which he sustained injuries on his right eyebrow and internal injuries on his chest and other part of his body. His MLC has been proved as Ex.PW5/A which shows that he received simple hurt. Thus, Ld. APP has argued that the case of the prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that complainant is a victim of crime and his testimony cannot be doubted merely because of some minor variations. He has argued that the medical evidence corroborates the version of complainant and there is no rule of evidence that sole testimony of witness cannot form the basis of conviction.
12.Counsel for the accused on the other hand has argued that the testimony of the complainant contains improvement to his version given in the FIR. No document placed on record by the prosecution showing demolition drive. The prosecution examined seven witnesses. However, the list of witnesses mentions six witnesses. PW6 HC Jitender Singh exhibited DD No. 13 which does not form part of chargesheet. It is further argued that there has been delay in the registration of FIR since the incident is dated 28.04.2006 (12:15 pm) and FIR FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 7 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
was registered on 29.04.2006 (8:20pm). It is stated that PW1 Mukhtar Ali Khan deposed in his examination in chief that someone made a call to police and in his cross he deposed that his worker made a call to the police. It is argued that persons/worker has not been examined by the prosecution. Further, there has been no identification of the accused persons and they were identified in the court. No TIP of the accused person was conducted. With respect to MLC Ex.PW5/A it has been argued that vide order dated 16.11.2012 it was observed that report received on the said day that there is no Dr.Abru on the role of AIIMS.
13. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan, the injured/complainant in the present matter. The germane extract of his deposition is as under:
"I am residing at the above said address alongwith my family. I am running a shop at 12 Saidulajab Market, M B Road, New Delhi, of manufacturing/selling of coolers. On 28.04.2006, the officials of PWD were conducting the demolition in the area of Saidulajab Market, M B Road. At that time I was present in my shop and some part of my shop was demolished by the PWD officials.
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 8 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
Some of the portion was still existing and I was present in my shop. At about 12:15 pm, accused persons namely Niranjan, his son Sumit and Amit came and asked to the PWD officials to demolish the said remaining portion, on which I replied them that it is upto the PWD officials to decide that what have to be demolish or not to demolish. When I was coming out from my shop, the accused Niranjan stopped me and accused Amit and Sumit, beaten me with leg and fist blows. Accused Niranjan also given a leg and fist blow to me. Due to which I sustained injuries on my right eye brow and internal injuries on my chest and other part of my body. Someone had made a call to police and PCR van came at the spot and took me to AIIMS Hospital. On that day I had not given any complaint to the police as I was not feeling well on that day. But later on, on 29.04.2006 I visited PP IGNOU where I had given a complaint. The complaint is Ex.PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. I had shown the spot to the police official where the incident took place. All the accused persons are present in the court and correctly identified by the witness".
14.The witness PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan has given vivid and specific description of the manner in which assault and injury was inflicted upon him by the accused persons. In the crossexamination, nothing came on record which could controvert his testimony. The testimony of PW1 FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 9 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan appears to be reliable and consistent with the surrounding circumstances and probabilities of the case. The MLC bearing number 54576 dated 28.04.2006 of the injured Mukhtar Ali Khan is exhibited as Ex.PW5/A. Testimony of PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan is clear and specific with regard to the hurt inflicted upon him by the accused persons. Further, PW2 ASI Jaspal Singh and PW7 Ct. Ramesh Chand deposed about the aspect of investigation in the present case and the consequent arrest of the accused persons vide memo Ex.PW2/C to Ex.PW2/H. Their testimony also corroborates with the deposition of PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan on material particulars.
15.The contention of the defence counsel that the DD No. 13 does not form part of chargesheet, though exhibited by PW6 as Ex.PW6/A cannot be said to be material as it merely points out towards the registration of FIR Ex.PW3/A.
16.The delay in lodging FIR has been properly explained by the prosecution. PW1 Mukhtar Ali Khan clearly deposed that he did not give any complaint to the police on the FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 10 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
date of incident as he was not feeling well on that day but later on, on 29.04.2006 he visited PP IGNOU where he gave the complaint. Thus, same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
17.Further, the argument that the testimony of PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan contains improvement is of no force. In my view, the improvement is minor in nature keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the witness was deposing after 4 ½ years since the incident. It is to be kept in view that the witness tend to exaggerate when deposing in court but that does not necessarily has to lead to rejection of its entire testimony.
18.The FIR in the present case is named FIR. The complainant unequivocally named accused persons for committing offence against him. It is an admitted fact that the accused persons had their shops in the same area as that of the complainant and were known to the complainant. In such circumstances, the identify of the accused persons stands well established.
19.The argument that the prosecution failed to bring on FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 11 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
record any document showing demolition drive is also of no consequences since the accused Sumit in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC stated that the day of incident was the day of demolition.
20. It has been established that all the three accused persons joined together and participated towards commission of offence. In order to attract the provision of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, it is not called upon the prosecution to specify the role of each of the accused. It is sufficient to establish that each of the accused persons participated towards the commission of the offence. In case, participation is proved then the principle of joint liability is attracted. It is proved on record that accused Niranjan, along with accused Sumit and Amit participated towards the commission of offence. Complainant/PW1 Mr. Mukhtar Ali Khan categorically stated that all the three accused persons joined together and gave beatings to him. The manner in which the accused persons conducted themselves leaves no scope for doubt that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention.
21. In view of the aforesaid, this court is of the considered FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 12 of 13 State Vs. Niranjan Singh & Ors.
opinion that the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 beyond reasonable doubt. This court has no hesitation in holding all the three accused persons guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 323/341 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Accused Niranjan, Amit and Sumit stand convicted for committing the aforesaid offences.
22.Be heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (SHREYA ARORA MEHTA) court on 25.08.2015 MM5 (South), Saket Courts, New Delhi Certified this judgment contains thirteen pages and each page bears my signatures.
(SHREYA ARORA MEHTA)
MM5 (South), Saket Courts,
New Delhi/25.08.2015
FIR No. 56/13 PS: Mehrauli 13 of 13