Delhi District Court
State vs Sachin Kumar on 17 September, 2024
SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAUTAM MANAN
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE- 09
WEST, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In the matter of:
S.C. No. 481/2018
CNR No. DLWT01-006687-2018
FIR No. 346/2017
Police Station Mianwali Nagar
Under Section U/s 308 IPC
State
Versus
Sachin Kumar
Sons of Sh. Late Sat Narayan
R/o B-696, Camp No.4
Jwalapuri, Delhi ... Accused
Date of institution 07/24/18
Judgment reserved on 08/28/24
Judgment Pronounced on 09/17/24
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
1. Accused is facing trial on allegations of intentionally causing grievous injury on head of injured Pardeep and Sushil (PW1) with knowledge that it may cause death of complainant.
Initial Complaint & FIR
2. On 30.07.2017 on receipt of DD No. 33A ( Ex PW6/A) SI Satbir Singh along with Ct Jaideep (PW9) reached at the spot where they came to know that two Judgment Page 1 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
injured boys have been taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital Mongolpuri. No eyewitness was found at the spot. Thereafter, SI Satbir Singh and Ct Jaideep reached at the Hospital and found that injured Sushil and Pardeep were under treatment. They were unfit for statement and were referred to Saftarjung Hospital.
3. SI Satbir Singh then reached Saftarjung Hospital. Injured Pardeep was found fit for statement and other injured Sushil was unconscious. SI Satbir Singh recorded statement of injured Pardeep (PW1). Translation of statement of Pardeep reads as under:
.... I live on rent with my family at the above address and I am originally a resident of Village Habi Phogat Police Station Bahera District Darbanga Bihar. Here in Delhi, I along with my brother Sushil Kumar run a vegetable rehdi. Yesterday on 30.07.2017, I along with my brother Sushil was running a vegetable rehdi at Dhobi Ghat Jwalapuri. At around 7.30 pm, a Tata 407 car came in front of our stall due to which there was a jam. I told driver to move the vehicle because there was a jam, but due to the jam, the vehicle could not be moved, Sachin, son of shopkeeper whose goods were in the vehicle got down from the vehicle and on this matter, he started abusing and fighting, After making him understand, he was sent back people nearby, About 1-1 ½ hours later, Sachin again came to our rehdi in the night my brother Sushil was also there. Sachin came with a danda in his hand at that time and started telling me that at that time you speaks a lot or now I will see. He started Judgment Page 2 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
beating me with a danda. When my brother came to rescue me, Sachin hit him many times due to which both of us brothers got injuries on our bodies and we were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital from where We were referred to Safdarjung Hospital. I and my brother were unconscious due to injury. Today on 31.07.2017 I am conscious but my brother is still not conscious and is admitted in Safdarjung Hospital. Sachin s/o Satyanaran, who lives in B Block Jwalapuri and runs a rice shop, has beaten me with a stick. Appropriate legal action should be taken regarding this......
4. On the basis of statement of injured and MLCs of injured persons, FIR under section 308 IPC was registered. SI Satbir prepared site plan (Ex PW1/B) of the place of occurrence. On 01.08.2017 accused Sachin was arrested and he got recovered the weapon of offence that is a danda which was seized by the Investigating Officer.
5. Thereafter, further investigation was handed over to HC Rakesh, who got recorded the statements of relevant witnesses and also got opinion in respect of the injuries suffered by the injured Sushil. On completion of the investigation filed the charge-sheet.
Charge
6. On 04.09.2018 charge for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC was framed against accused. Accused person pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Judgment Page 3 of 15SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
Prosecution Evidence
7. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
PW Name Nature Deposition
1 Pardeep Complainant He deposed on the lines of his
Paswan complaint and proved his
statement recorded by the
police as Ex. PW1/A and site
plan Ex. PW1/B of the place
of occurrence. He also proved
the arrest and personal search
of accused Sachin vide
memo Ex. PW1/C & D.
2 SI George CPCR PHQ Proved PCR form as Ex
PW2/A and certificate under
section 65B Indian Evidence
Act as Ex.PW2/B.
3 Sunil Medical Took injured to Hospital
Technician
4 Vikas Public Didn't support prosecution
case in respect of recovery of
danda.
5 ASI Braham Duty Officer Proved FIR as Ex.PW5/A, his
Prakash endorsement on the rukka as
Ex.PW5/B and certificate
under section 65B Indian
Evidence Act as Ex.PW5/C.
6 HC Tirender Duty Officer Proved DD No. 33A as
Kumar Ex.PW6/A.
7 Dr Gurdeep Doctor Proved medical examination
Singh of injured Pardeep and Sushil
vide MLC as Ex PW7/A&B.
Opined injury sustained by
Sushil to be grievous.
8 Ct. Manoj Duty Officer Proved DD No. 42B as
Ex.PW8/A.
9 Ct Jaideep Police Accompanied SI Satbir Singh
to the place of occurrence.
10 HC Rakesh Investigating Proved recording of statement
Kumar Officer of complainant and
Judgment Page 4 of 15
SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
preparation of Rukka as Ex.
PW 10/A, proved site plan of
the place of occurrence, arrest
of accused. Seizure of a
danda vide memo Ex.
PW4/A.
11 Dr Anuj Doctor Proved NCCT Head report of
Aggarwal injured Sushil as Ex PW11/A.
12 Sushil Injured Deposed in respect of
Paswan incident that accused gave a
danda blow on his head and
head of his brother.
13 Dr Subash Doctor Proved discharge summary of
Kumar injured Sushil as Ex PW13/A.
14 Dr Aanchal Doctor Proved NCCT Head report of
injured Sushil as Ex PW11/A.
Plea of Accused
8. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C accused claimed his innocence and false implication. It is stated by accused that complainant used to park his rehdi near his shop due to which the road remained congested and he used to object him to park his rehdi there. Complainant received an injury in an accident and he later on implicated him in false case.
Defence Evidence
9. Accused examined DW1 Rajiv neighbor of accused deposed that on 30.07.2017, injured Sushil and Pardeep put their rehdi in the middle of the road and had an altercation with a tempo wala. The said tempo wala struck his tempo against Sushil and Pradeep and ran away along with said tempo. Sushil and Pradeep falsely implicated accused Judgment Page 5 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
Sachin Kumar in this case as Sachin used to object them for not putting rehdi in the middle of the road.
Arguments
10. Sh. Pankaj Bhatia Ld Addl. PP for State submitted that complainant and injured have duly supported the case of prosecution. It is argued that both of them have withstood the test of cross-examination and medical evidence proves the injuries sustained by them. It is submitted that case of prosecution stands proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, accused is liable to be convicted.
11. On the other hand, Sh. Arpit Bhalla Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that Vikas who is cited as eye witness have not supported prosecution case in respect of recovery of alleged weapon of offence. It is argued that deposition of injured persons is neither credible nor inspire confidence. It is submitted even the medical evidence does not co-relate to the alleged injuries suffered by complainant Pardeep and his brother Sushil which dents the very basis of case of prosecution. It is argued that in absence of any reliable incriminating evidence, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
12.I have heard Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. LAC at length. I have perused the material on record.
Judgment Page 6 of 15SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
Appreciation of Evidence and Analysis
13. As per prosecution story, both complainant PW1 Pardeep (complainant/ injured) and PW12 Sushil were given danda blows by the accused.
14. Defense has argued that statements of both injured persons are contradictory to each other and the witness Vikas (PW4) has not supported the prosecution version.
15. Evidentiary Value of Injured Witnesses: Testimony of an injured witness has been accorded a special status in law. The fact that Pardeep and Sushil received injuries establishes their presence at the scene of occurrence. In other words, presence of injury is an inbuilt guarantee of their presence at the time of incident. Their evidence cannot be discarded in the absence of compelling reasons. They would not spare actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone.
16. In Sadakat Kotwar & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1046, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"2.....We see no reason to doubt the testimony of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution more particularly, PW7 and PW8 who are the injured eyewitnesses. It is required to be noted that PW7 and PW8 are the injured eye-witnesses. As held by this Court in the case of State of M.P. vs. Mansingh, (2003) 10 SCC 414 para 9, the evidence of an injured eye- witness has great evidentiary value and unless Judgment Page 7 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly....."
17. In Lakshman Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
"9.1.....It is further observed that "where witness to occurrence was himself injured in the incident, testimony of such witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone". It is further observed that "thus, deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
9.2. The aforesaid principle of law has been reiterated again by this Court in Ramvilas and it is held that "evidence of injured witnesses is entitled to a great weight and very cogent and convincing grounds are required to discard their evidence". It is further observed that "being injured witnesses, their presence at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted".
18. In Jodhan vs. State of M.P., (2015) 11 SCC 52, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held, as under:
29. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies. As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-
guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded Judgment Page 8 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
being treated as untrustworthy by the learned trial Judge."
19. Both PW-1 Pardeep and PW12 Sushil are injured witnesses. Let us examine whether there are compelling reasons for discarding their evidence. In his examination-in- chief Pardeep deposed as under:
"On 30.07.2017, at about 7/7.30 P.M I was selling vegetables from my Rehri at Dhobi Ghat Camp No.4 Jawala Puri, Delhi. At that time one TATA 407 came at my Rehri. There was traffic jam on the road. I asked the driver of the TATA 407 to take the vehicle from some other way to avoid congestion on the road. Accused Sachin was sitting the said vehicle. He got down from the vehicle and started doing Hatha Pai with me. And then he left the spot. After one and half hour accused Sachin alongwith three/four persons came at my Rehri. My brother Sushil was also with me. Sachin and his associates started giving beating to my brother Sushil. They gave 3-4 danda blows to my brother Sushil and when I intervened to save my brother, Sachin and his associates also gave beatings to me with danda. My brother was hit on his head by accused Sachin with danda and I was also hit on my head. We both sustained injuries. Ambulance reached at the spot. The Ambulance was called by the person who were also having Rehri at the spot. Both of us were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Hospitall and from there we both were referred to Safdarjung hospital.
On the next day, I regained my consciousness and IO recorded my statement Ex PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. I was discharged from the hospital on 31.07.2017 but my brother Sushil remain admitted in Safdarjung hospital for many days. Police took me to the place of incident and site plan was prepared by the IO at my instance. The site plan is Ex PW1/B, bearing my signature at point B. Judgment Page 9 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
Accused Sachin was arrested and is arest memo is Ex PW1/C and his personal search was conducted. My brother Sushil also got treatment from AMS Patna and i handed over the treatment paper of my brother Sushil to the pollice. Accused Sachin is present in the Court today. (correctly identified).....
20. In his examination-in-chief PW12 Sushil Paswan deposed as under:
"On 30.07.2017 at about 06.45 PM, bhai ne subzi ka thela laga rakha tha aur mai bhi wahin par mojud tha. The accused truck/gadi me saman le ke aaya and due to this, waha par jaam lag gaya aur mere bhai ne kaha ke side se nikal jao, to accused gadi se utra or bhai se hathapai karne laga. Fir uske bad accused waha se chala gaya. Ek dedh gante ke baad accused fir se waha aaya. Hum dono bhai wahi par khade the, achanak piche se ek danda pehle mere sir par maara. Fir mere bhaiya ke sir par bhi maara. Dobara jab danda maara to maine palat kar use dekha fir use baad me behos ho gaya.
...
21. Defense of accused is that injured met with an accident and in order to falsely implicate accused, injured persons have attributed injuries to him.
22. There is no evidence on record that any accident took place at the spot. PW9 Ct Jaideep who reached at the spot with SI Satbir on receipt of DD No. 33A (Ex PW6/A) deposed that they reached and the spot on receipt of information regarding a quarrel. The deposition of PW9 has remained intact in respect of the fact that the information was received in respect of a quarrel. Moreover, no Judgment Page 10 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
suggestion was put to PW9 in his cross-examination that any evidence was found at the spot in respect of an accident.
23. Initially both the injured persons Pardeep and Sushil were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where they were treated. As per their MLCs Ex PW 7/A & B both injured persons were brought to the hospital with history of physical assault. Their MLCs nowhere mentions that any of them sustained a road accident injury.
24. DW1 Rajiv though deposed that injured persons met an accident with a tempo but his deposition does not co- relate to injuries sustained by complainant and his brother.
25. Medical evidence indicates that both PW1 Pardeep and PW12 sustained head injuries. Both of them in unison have described the incident as it happened. They have withstood test of cross-examination and their testimony could not be shaken.
26. No material is brought by defense as to why PW1 & PW12 would falsely depose against accused rather during their cross-examination injured persons have specifically deposed that they do not have any dispute with accused prior to incident. Defence could not elicit anything from his searching cross-examination to discredit them. There is no material contradiction, discrepancy or infirmity in their his evidence which is cogent, consistent and credible.
Judgment Page 11 of 15SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
27. True that PW4 Vikas who is cited as witness to arrest of accused and recovery has not supported the case of prosecution and has resiled from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C but he may have reasons for not deposing against accused. No reason is forthcoming as to why injured persons would falsely implicate the accused and would not name actual assaulter. As stated above, testimony of injured persons that they were assaulted by accused inspires confidence and there is nothing palpable or glaring in the their evidence on the basis of which a view can be taken that he is not true or reliable witness.
28. Weapon of Offence: It is submitted on behalf of accused that recovery of weapon of offence has not proved by the prosecution and the only witness in whose presence the alleged recovery was made has resiled from his statement and has not supported the prosecution case. It is stated that in absence of proof of recovery of weapon of offence case of prosecution becomes highly doubtful.
29. In State through the Inspector of Police Vs. Laly alias Manikandan, Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
Similarly, assuming that the recovery of the weapon used is not established or proved also cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when there is a direct evidence of the eye witness. Recovery of the weapon used in the commission of the offence is not a sine qua non to convict the accused. If there is a direct evidence in the form of eye witness, even in the absence of recovery of weapon, the accused can be convicted. Similarly, Judgment Page 12 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
even in the case of some contradictions with respect to timing of lodging the FIR/complaint cannot be a ground to acquit the accused when the prosecution case is based upon the deposition of eye witness.
21. As observed hereinabove, PW1 is an eye witness. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution. As per settled position of law, there can be a conviction on the basis of the deposition of the sole eye witness, if the said witness is found to be trustworthy and/or reliable. As observed hereinabove, there is no reason to doubt the credibility and/or reliability of PW1. Therefore, it will be safe to convict the accused on the sole reliance of deposition of PW1.
30. In present case, testimony of injured witnesses have found reliable. Both of them have duly identified accused. Nothing is brought on record by the defense as to why prosecution witnesses would falsely implicate accused nor there is any material has been brought by defense to discredit the testimony of injured persons. Therefore, manner of recovery of weapon of offence does not dent the case of prosecution in any manner.
31. Medical Evidence: Ld Counsel for the accused has argued that the deposition of PW13 Dr Subhash Kumar shows that injured Sushil Kumar has misused his other medical record to implicate accused. It is stated the MLC on record does not pertain to the incident in question.
32. It is further submitted that NCCT head of injured Sushil has not proved by the prosecution in the accordance Judgment Page 13 of 15 SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
with law, and his MLC indicates that it was case of simple injury due to motor vehicle accident, but the case has been converted into section 308 IPC by the complainant to falsely implicate the accused.
33. PW-1 Pardeep is complainant and an injured witness. As noted in MLC Ex. PW-7/A, he suffered following injuries:
CLW 4 cm x 2 cm x .5 cm over left parietal region
34. PW-12 Sushil is another injured witness. As noted in MLC Ex. PW-7/B, he suffered following injuries:
1. CLW 4 cm x 2 cm x .5 cm over left parietal region
2. CLW 3cm x 2 cm x .5cm over left parietal region
3. Swelling over left eye
35. Dr Gurdeep Singh Arora (PW7) deposed that as per MLC Ex.PW7/B of injured Sushil, nature of injuries sustained by him were grievous in nature as NCCT head report (Ex. PW 11/A) of injured Sushil mentioned that he suffered hemorrhagic bleed with hemorrhage with comminuted fracture.
36. Medical evidence on record indicates that PW1 Pardeep did not undergo any major medical intervention but PW12 Sushil had a peritoneal breach. Injuries sustained by PW1 & 12 indicates both of them received head injuries and the injury sustained by Sushil were found to be grievous.
Judgment Page 14 of 15SC No. 481/2018 " State. v. Sachin Kumar"
37. Looking at the nature of injuries sustained, manner of assault, parts of the body on which injuries were inflicted to Sushil and Pardeep it reflects that injuries were cumulatively dangerous to life, thus, it is concluded that ingredients of the offence under Section 308 IPC stands made out.
Conclusion
38. In view of reliable testimony of prosecution witnesses, accused Sachin is found to be guilty for causing hurt to injured persons with intention or knowledge on the his part to cause such injuries which would have resulted in the death of the injured persons as a result of which he would have been guilty of murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
39. In view of above discussions, it is concluded that the case of prosecution stands proved against accused Sachin beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, accused Sachin Kumar is convicted for offence punishable under Section 308 IPC. Announced in the open court on 17st day of September, 2024.
Digitally signed GAUTAM by GAUTAM
MANAN
MANAN Date: 2024.09.17
15:49:56 +0530
GAUTAM MANAN
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-09: WEST
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Judgment Page 15 of 15