Delhi District Court
St. vs Virender & Nathu Ram on 21 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE5, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
SC No. 26/14
ID No. 02403R0033072009
FIR No. 366/08
PS. Hauz Khas
U/s. 307/34 IPC
State
Vs.
1. Virender @ Billu
S/o. Sh. Man Singh
R/o. Hiranki, PS Alipur
New Delhi
2. Nathu Ram
S/o. Sh. Man Singh
R/o. Hiranki, PS Alipur
New Delhi
.... Accused
Date of Institution : 07.02.2009
Final arguments heard on : 30.03.2015
Judgment pronounced on : 10.04.2015
Final Order : Conviction
FIR No. 366/08 1/42
St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
JUDGMENT
Accused persons have been tried and prosecuted u/s. 307/34 IPC. Prosecution version unfolded during trial is as under :
1. A quarrel took place between injured Vineet Kumar and accused Nathu Ram one month before registration of FIR in this case. Matter was resolved and no police complaint was made.
Since then, accused Nathu Ram was harbouring revengeful attitude against injured Vineet Kumar. On 08.10.08, injured Vineet Kumar had gone to see his sister Lalita in Safdarjung Hospital as sister of injured had delivered a child and injured came back to his house at about 11.30 pm. In the absence of Vineet Kumar, accused Virender and Nathu Ram who are real brothers along with two of their associates came to the house of injured and inquired about injured Vineet Kumar. At about 12 mid night, accused persons again came to the house of injured and took injured Vineet Kumar with them and started talking with injured in front of Halal Meat Shop no. 202, Shahdpur Jat. After sometimes, Smt. Naveen, wife of injured Vineet Kumar told Nathu Singh, father of injured that accused Billu and Nathu Ram and their two associates are beating Vineet Kumar. On hearing this, Nathu Singh immediately ran towards the spot and found that his son Vineet Kumar was lying on the ground. FIR No. 366/08 2/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Nathu Singh saw that accused Nathu Ram and his two associates were exhorting accused Billu @ Virender to kill Vineet Kumar. Accused Billu picked up a big stone lying nearby and assaulted Vineet Kumar on head with the stone. After hitting Vineet Kumar, accused Virender and Nathu Ram and their associates ran away from the spot. Many people assembled at the spot on hearing the noise. Nathu Singh with the help of his cousin brother Suresh Kumar took injured Vineet Kumar to Trauma Centre. Information about the incident was received in Police Station through DD No. 79B. Another DD No. 48A was recorded at the Police Station and thereafter, ASI Jasbir reached Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital. Injured Vineet Kumar was declared unfit for statement by the doctor. ASI Jasbir met Nathu Singh, father of injured and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A, prepared tehrir Ex. PW12/A and gave the ruqqa to Ct. Mahender for registration of FIR. FIR u/s. 307/34 IPC was registered. ASI Jasbir prepared site plan, obtained the report of Crime Team, lifted the stone used in the crime, glass pieces and blood stained clothes from the spot, sent the stone used in the crime to FSL for opinion. Accused Virender was arrested and was sent to judicial custody. Accused Nathu Ram was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court. FIR No. 366/08 3/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Statement of injured Vineet Kumar could not be recorded as he was in fit condition to give statement. Supplementary statement of injured Vineet Kumar and his wife Smt. Naveen was recorded and supplementary charge sheet was filed in the Court. Two of the associates of accused persons could not be arrested. Accused Virender and Nathu Ram were charged u/s. 307/34 IPC on 02.04.2009. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove its case against the accused persons. Both the accused persons were examined u/s. 313 Cr.PC wherein accused persons took the defence that on the intervening night of 89.10.2008, they were at their house at Village Hiranki. Both accused persons further stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case as injured Vineet Kumar, his wife, his father and his uncle Suresh Kumar wanted to purchase their property which is the ancestral property of accused persons at throw away price. Eight defence witnesses were examined by both accused persons.
2. I have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned counsel for complainant, Mr. D.K. Chhabra, learned counsel for accused Virender and Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram, at length and carefully perused the record. Sum and substance of the FIR No. 366/08 4/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram submissions of Mr. D.K. Chhabra, counsel for accused Virender is as under :
3. PW1 Nathu Singh has talked about pieces of glass in his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC but has not mentioned about those pieces of glass in his examination in chief, PW1 Nathu Singh deposed in the Court that police recorded his statement only once while statement of PW1 Nathu Singh was recorded twice by the police, the time of incident is 12.15 am and as per the deposition of DW8 Ms. Saroj, she made 100 number call about the incident at about 12.45 am, Nathu Singh and Smt. Naveen who are stated to have reached the spot within 15 minutes of the incident were not seen by DW8, even PW5 Suresh Kumar who reached the spot at about 12.20 am was not seen by DW8 Ms.Saroj, DD No. 51A on the basis of which FIR was registered is not on record, as per the tehrir Ex. PW12/A, statement of Nathu Singh was recorded in the hospital while PW1 Nathu Singh in cross examination deposed that his statement was recorded at Halal Meat Shop, there is no public witness to the recovery of stone seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/B, as per the seizure memo Ex. PW1/D, shirt of injured is half sleeves shirt while PW1 Nathu Singh deposed that shirt of injured is full sleeves shirt, PW1 Nathu Singh in his statement Ex. PW1/A deposed that accused persons and their associates fled FIR No. 366/08 5/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram from the spot in TSR while PW2 Smt. Naveen deposed that accused persons ran on foot, PW1 Nathu Singh deposed that no public witnesses were present at the spot while PW2 Smt. Naveen deposed that 45 public persons were present at the spot, Sunil mentioned in the deposition of PW2 Smt. Naveen was not examined as prosecution witness, PW5 Suresh Kumar in his statement recorded u/s. 161 Cr.PC stated that he shifted injured Vineet Kumar in his own vehicle while in cross examination PW5 Suresh Kumar deposed that Vineet Kumar was shifted in a qualis vehicle owned by Vineet, date of arrest of accused Virender is 10.10.08 while date mentioned in the personal search memo of accused Virender is 09.10.08, the application filed by complainant u/s. 311 Cr.PC refers to two unknown persons apart from accused persons who had assaulted injured Vineet Kumar while in his deposition before the Court PW10 Vineet Kumar clearly mentioned those two persons with their names as Satish and Mahender, PW12 ASI Jasbir Singh deposed that information about admission of Vineet Kumar in Trauma Centre was received at 3.30 am while the time mentioned in DD No. 48A is 4.35 am, there is no date in site plan Ex. PW12/B, the summons issued to injured Vineet Kumar in Civil Suit, the Process Server has given that report "on 31.03.09, father of Vineet Kumar told the Process FIR No. 366/08 6/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Server that Vineet Kumar is not residing at the given address", father of injured Vineet Kumar did not tell the Process Server that injured Vineet Kumar is in hospital, as per the order sheet dt. 13.04.09 Ex. DW5/C, injured Vineet Kumar appeared in the Court meaning thereby that he was not in hospital on 13.04.09.
4. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram submitted that there was no motive for accused persons to commit the crime as alleged by prosecution. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram referred to earlier case registered u/s. 307 IPC on the complainant of injured Vineet Kumar against different persons which was subsequently compromised by complainant. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram further submitted that complainant and his father are in the habit of falsely implicating innocent persons. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram referred to cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh wherein he stated that meat shop was closed at the time of incident while PW2 in cross examination deposed that meat shop was open. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram, also referred to cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh wherein it is stated that Vineet Kumar was removed to hospital within 57 minutes of incident while PW2 Smt. Naveen deposed that injured Vineet Kumar was removed to hospital within 3045 minutes of FIR No. 366/08 7/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram incident. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram then referred to cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh wherein PW1 Nathu Singh deposed that he refused to give statement as he was unwell. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram sought to emphasis that statement was not given by PW1 Nathu Singh to police at the earliest and FIR in this case was registered after due deliberation with ulterior motive.
5. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for accused Virender relied upon following judgments :
(i) 2014 (2) RCR (Crl.) Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka
(ii) AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2545 - Sunil Pal & Ors. Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh
(iii) 2012 [2] JCC 1248 - Sheesh Pal Vs. State
(iv) AIR 1999 Supreme Court 49 - Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi
(v) 1992 (2) CC Cases 314 (HC) - Anoop Joshi Vs. State
(vi) AIR 1974 Supreme Court 344 - Harchand Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana
(vii) 2012 (2) LRC 287 (Del.) High Court of Delhi - Ashok Narang Vs. State
(viii) 1975 Legal Eagle (SC) 274 - Bhagan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan FIR No. 366/08 8/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
(ix) 1976 Legal Eagle (P&H) 20 - Balrej Singh Vs. State of Punjab
(x) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408 - Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration)
(xi) Crl. Revision No. 322 of 1986 - Roop Chand Vs. State of Haryana.
(xii) 1997 (3) Crimes 55 - Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State assisted by Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned Counsel for complainant submitted that deposition of injured given in a different case cannot be looked into in this case. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further argued that report on summons which is relied upon by learned counsel for accused persons is not signed by the father of injured and it might have been procured. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further argued that DW6 Amir Ul Hassan, is the tenant and relative of accused and hence he was dropped by prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further argued that accused Nathu Ram is employed with Delhi Police and Daily Diary Entry about his departure from the Police Station on the date of incident has not been produced and hence, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against accused Nathu Ram in view of section 114 of Indian FIR No. 366/08 9/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Evidence Act.
7. Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned Counsel for complainant relied upon following judgments :
(i) 1997 V AD S.C. 48 - Sanjeev Kumar Vs. State of Punjab.
(ii) 2015 II AD (SC) 230 - Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
(iii) 1 (1998) CCR 264 (DB) - State of Karnataka Vs. Firoz @ Jaggur
(iv) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1234 - Matadin & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.
(v) 1998 VII AD (SC) 513 - Kashiram Vs. State of M.P.
(vi) 1985 Crl.L.J. 1633 - Panchu Nahak Vs. State of Orissa
(vii) AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1021 - State of Haryana Vs. Sher Singh & Ors.
(viii) 1980 Crl. L.J. NOC 99 (Delhi) - Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Delhi
(ix) AIR 2002 Supreme Court 3279 Mohar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
(x) (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 462 - Pargan Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.
(xi) Crl. Appeal No. 1842 of 2014 - Balwan & Ors. Vs. FIR No. 366/08 10/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram State of Haryana.
8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further argued that both accused persons absconded from the spot after the incident and therefore, conduct of accused persons subsequent to the incident is relevant u/s. 8 of Indian Evidence Act. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further argued that plea of alibi was not taken by accused persons while cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt. Naveen and PW5 Suresh Kumar.
9. PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt. Naveen, PW5 Suresh Kumar and PW10 Vineet Kumar are the material witnesses in this case. PW1 Nathu Singh inter alia deposed that he is having one son namely Vineet Kumar and two daughters, Vineet Kumar visited his daughter Lalita who delivered a child in the hospital, on 08.10.08, at about 11.30 pm, accused Billu and Nathu Ram along with two more persons came to the house of PW1 and asked for Vineet Kumar, PW1 told that Vineet Kumar was not at home, after sometime Vineet Kumar arrived and both the accused Nathu Ram and Billu again came and called Vineet Kumar and took him along with them, Vineet Kumar told his wife that he would return soon as accused told that they had to talk with him. PW1 Nathu Singh further deposed that house of Billu is situated at a distance FIR No. 366/08 11/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram of about 20 meters from the corner of his house, wife of Vineet Kumar saw that Vineet Kumar was lying on the earth while both the accused along with two other persons were giving beating to him, wife of Vineet Kumar told PW1 Nathu Singh that Vineet Kumar was being beaten up, PW1 Nathu Singh ran out and saw accused Billu was holding a big stone in his hand and Nathu Ram was saying "isko katai khatam kar do" (kill him), accused Billu gave a stone blow on the head of Vineet Kumar causing him serious injuries, thereafter accused ran away. PW1 Nathu Singh further deposed that in the meanwhile, his cousin Suresh Kumar reached there and injured was taken to Trauma Centre, AIIMS, statement of PW1 Nathu Singh Ex. PW1/A was recorded by the police. PW1 Nathu Singh further deposed that police inspected the spot and lifted blood from the spot along with the stone which was used by accused and he signed recovery memo of stone Ex. PW1/B and seizure memo of blood stained earth Ex. PW1/C and PW1 Nathu Singh handed over the blood stained shirt of his son Vineet Kumar to police vide memo Ex. PW1/D. PW1 Nathu Singh further deposed that he can identify the shirt of his son seized by the police and MHC(M) produced parcel no. 4 sealed with the seal of VSN, FSL, Delhi, on opening the same one white colour shirt of half sleeves along with remnants of sealing material FIR No. 366/08 12/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram was taken out, PW1 Nathu Singh stated that shirt was of full sleeves but immediately deposed that it is the same shirt. The shirt was exhibited as Ex.P1. PW1 Nathu Singh identified the stone in the Court as Ex. P2.
10. PW2 Smt. Naveen, who is the wife of injured Vineet Kumar deposed that on 08.10.08, her husband left for hospital when accused Billu along with accused Nathu Ram came to their house and asked about her husband, PW2 told them that her husband has gone to hospital. PW2 Smt. Naveen further deposed that her husband came back at about 11.45 pm and as he parked his bike, both accused Virender and Nathu Ram, along with two more persons again reached their house and took away her husband along with them, before leaving, husband of PW2 Smt. Naveen, told her that he was coming back soon. PW2 Smt. Naveen further deposed that when she was cooking food, she heard some noise of scuffle, when she saw from chaubara towards the street, she saw both the accused along with two more persons giving beatings to her husband who was lying in the street, she immediately called her father in law who left the house and she also followed PW1 Nathu Singh. PW2 Smt. Naveen further deposed that she saw her husband lying there and accused had already left the spot. Both the accused persons were correctly identified by PW2 Smt. Naveen as FIR No. 366/08 13/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram the same persons who gave beating to her husband.
11. PW5 Suresh Kumar is the uncle of injured Vineet Kumar who resides in his neighbourhood and he came out of his house after hearing noise. PW5 Suresh Kumar deposed that on the intervening night of 89.10.08 he was present in his house and on hearing noise, he came out in the chowk and found Virender lying there in a pool of blood. PW5 Suresh Kumar further deposed that Vineet Kumar had sustained injuries on his face and head. PW5 Suresh Kumar further deposed that Naveen wife of Vineet Kumar, was present there and father of injured Nathu Singh was also present there and about four persons were running from there. PW5 Suresh Kumar further deposed that he does not know two of them but the other two were Nathu and Billu. These accused persons were correctly identified by PW5 Suresh Kumar in the Court. PW5 Suresh Kumar further deposed that he took Vineet Kumar in his car first to AIIMS and from there he took him to Trauma Centre, where he was treated.
12. PW10 Vineet Kumar deposed that on 08.10.08, after visiting his sister Lalita in Safdarjung Hospital, he came back to his house at about 12 night. PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that accused Nathu and Billu whose real name is Virender, came to the house of PW10 Vineet and called him to discuss some matter, FIR No. 366/08 14/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram PW10 Vineet Kumar went along with them near their house which is about 1520 steps away from the house of PW10. PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that accused Nathu Ram and Virender demanded the papers of his car bearing no. DL4CE 2100 make Esteem which car was taken by the nephew of accused namely Rakesh as he wanted to purchase it. PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that he had come to know that Rakesh had taken one girl in his car to Panipat where Rakesh got involved in a case of rape incident in December 2005 and his car was also involved, PW10 Vineet Kumar refused to give papers of the car and demanded full payment of the car. PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that Satish and Mahender, two other brothers of accused persons went inside their house where a meat shop is also run, they brought liquor, PW10 Vineet Kumar refused to drink liquor and said that he will only drink pepsi and would take food at his house, PW10 Vineet Kumar took pepsi drink and after consuming the same he felt giddiness in his head, when PW10 Vineet Kumar told about this to Nathu, he asked PW10 Vineet Kumar to take two pegs of liquor and everything will be alright, so PW10 Vineet Kumar took one full peg and and one quarter peg of liquor. PW10 Vineet further deposed that in the meantime, he heard Nathu Singh and Mahender talking amongst each other to kill him. PW10 FIR No. 366/08 15/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Vineet further deposed that he wanted to run away from there, but he was not able to even stand as he was caught by Satish and Mahender. PW10 Vineet further deposed that accused Virender picket up a big stone and hit him on his head, due to which, PW10 sustained injuries on his head and became unconscious, PW10 Vineet Kumar gained consciousness in hospital after about 67 months. Both accused persons were correctly identified by PW10 Vineet Kumar in the Court. PW10 Vineet Kumar was allowed to be cross examined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as he was not coming out with true facts. PW10 Vineet Kumar in cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State denied having met SI Injerjeet and having given any statement to him, PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that after he was discharged from the hospital, he had visited PS Hauz Khas and wanted to give his version of the incident to the police but no police official heard his version and turned him away from the Police Station. PW10 Vineet Kumar further deposed that he has suffered serious ailment on his head and is having difficulty in speaking also and doctor had informed him that he was hit five times on his head.
13. PW12 ASI Jasbir Singh is the first Investigating Officer of this case who recorded the statement of father of injured and got FIR No. 366/08 16/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram the FIR registered. PW12 ASI Jasbir Singh seized the stone used in the commission of the crime, seized the blood stained earth control and shirt of injured. PW12 ASI Jasbir Singh deposed that accused Virender and Nathu Ram were named by complainant, so accused Virender @ Billu was arrested on 10.10.08 vide arrest memo Ex. PW7/A.
14. PW13 SI Inderjeet is the second Investigating Officer of this case who recorded the statement of injured Vineet and his wife Smt. Naveen and collected result from FSL. PW13 SI Inderjeet also formally arrested accused Nathu Ram who was granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble High Court and filed supplementary charge sheet.
15. Medical evidence is also on record. PW14 Dr. Om Prakash, S.R. Trauma Centre, AIIMS Hospital, deposed that he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent in place of Dr. Rahul who has left the services of the hospital. PW14 Dr. Om Prakash further deposed that on 09.10.08, Dr. Rahul had examined injured Vineet vide MLC Ex. PW14/A. PW14 Dr. Om Prakash further deposed that he had identified the signature of Dr. Rahul on the basis of record. In cross examination, PW14 Dr. Om Prakash deposed that injuries received by injured could also be caused by fall from height.
FIR No. 366/08 17/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
16. PW9 Dr. Neeraj Singh, Surgeon, Prayag Hospital and Research Centre, SectorI, Noida, deposed that one Vineet Kumar was admitted in the hospital and he was given treatment by PW9. PW9 Dr. Neeraj Singh further deposed that Vineet had suffered injuries on his cheek bone, upper jaw and lower jaw like bilateral, zygomatic complex, fracture left angle of lower jaw, fracture of bilateral subcondile of lower jaw and fracture of bilateral leafort two, he was operated upon and the plates were put on the fractures and patient was discharged on 23.11.08.
17. DW1 Subhash Chand deposed that on 08.10.08, he was watching Ramleela in his village and at that time, accused Nathu Ram was with him and they were watching Ramleela. DW1 Subhash Chand further deposed that Nathu Ram had come on 08.10.08 to them at about 9 pm and remained there till 12 mid night. DW2 Rattan Singh deposed on the lines of deposition of DW1 Subhash Chand.
18. DW3 Akash Shukla, Banking Assistant, Delhi State Cooperative Bank Ltd. was examined to show previous conduct and record of injured Vineet Kumar.
19. DW4 Ms. Swaran Lata, Junior Judicial Assistant, Record Room Sessions (South), Saket Court, proved the copy of FIR in Sessions Case No. 42/07 as Ex. DW4/A. DW4 Ms. Swaran Lata FIR No. 366/08 18/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram proved the certified copy of charge sheet as Ex. DW4/B, certified copy of deposition of Vineet - PW3 as Ex. DW4/C and certified copy of judgment passed in Sessions Case No. 42/07 as Ex. DW4/F. DW5 Smt. Neetu, JJA, Record Room, Civil, Saket Courts, was examined to prove that injured Vineet Kumar had appeared in Civil Court on 13.04.09. Accused Nathu Ram was allowed to examined himself as DW7. In his deposition before the Court, accused Nathu Ram deposed that he is posted as Constable in Delhi Police, on 08.10.08 he was on duty in PCR Model Town from 9.30 am to 6 pm, after his duty hours were over, he went to his village Hiranki and had dinner at about 7.30 pm and thereafter, at about 10 pm, DW7 Nathu Ram went to see Ramleela being held at his village. DW7 Nathu Ram further deposed that after seeing Ramleela, he came back to his house at about 12 midnight and slept.
20. DW8 Ms. Saroj is the person who informed the police about the incident on 100 number. DW8 Ms. Saroj deposed that on 08.10.08, she was lying inside her house when one of her tenant came to her and told her that one person with blood all over his body is lying in front of the house of DW8. DW8 Ms. Saroj further deposed that she saw outside from the balcony of her house and saw one person lying outside in front of her house with blood FIR No. 366/08 19/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram all over his body. DW8 Ms. Saroj further deposed that she did not see any other person near the person who was lying outside her house and she called up at 100 number at about 12.45 am.
21. A careful analysis of depositions of PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt. Naveen and PW10 Vineet Kumar, would show that these witnesses deposed before the Court in one voice that accused Virender and Nathu Ram along with two unknown persons came to the house of injured Vineet Kumar and took injured Vineet Kumar with them to a place near their house and gave severe beating to injured Vineet Kumar. PW1 Nathu Singh and PW10 Vineet Kumar deposed before the Court that accused Virender on being exhorted by accused Nathu Ram gave stone blow on the head of Vineet Kumar causing him serious injuries. PW5 Suresh Kumar also saw the injured Vineet Kumar in pool of blood and four persons including accused Nathu Ram and Virender ran away from the spot. In other words, PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt.Naveen, PW5 Suresh Kumar and PW10 Vineet Kumar fully corroborated each other in material particulars and their depositions when read together and in entirety becomes a solid and strong piece of evidence to prove the charge against accused persons. The contradictions in the depositions of PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt.Naveen, PW5 Suresh Kumar and PW10 Vineet FIR No. 366/08 20/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Kumar, pointed out by learned defence counsels regarding the time of arrival of injured at his house, time of incident, presence of public persons at the spot, shops and hotels near the place of incident being open or closed, place where statement of PW1 Nathu Singh was recorded by police, mode by which accused ran away from the spot, the time span within which injured was shifted to hospital are minor contradictions and these contradictions do not damage the case of prosecution. When one incident is seen by many persons and that incident is described by all witnesses in the Court, some inconsistencies in their narration of events are bound to occur. Rather, these contradictions goes to show that PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt.Naveen, PW5 Suresh Kumar and PW10 Vineet Kumar, are natural and spontaneous witnesses of crime. Had they been tutored or planted witness, one would have found parrot like repetition in their depositions. These witnesses deposed before the Court what whey saw at the spot and they were consistent and coherent while depositing before the Court. In Balwan Singh and others vs. State of Haryana decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.08.2014 it was held in para 16 as under : "Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater FIR No. 366/08 21/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram credibility because he is the sufferer himself and thus, there will be no occasion for such a person to state an incorrect version of the occurrence, or to involve anybody falsely and in the bargain protect the real culprit"............. "It is trite law that the evidence of injured witness, being a stamped witness, is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness would not want to let actual assailant go unpunished." In Para 17 it was held as under: "The contradictions and variations in the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses, in our considered view do not go to the root of the case and the substratum of the prosecution version remains undisturbed. It is to be borne in mind that both of them are rustic women and not tutored witnesses."
22. In (2015) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 462 Pargan Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, it was laid down in para 22 as under: "We have to keep in mind that PW2 suffered serious injury because of the shot fired at him by the assailants and seriousness of the injury has resulted into conviction under FIR No. 366/08 22/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Section 307 IPC as well. The testimony of an injured witness requires a higher degree of credibility and there have to be strong reasons to discard the same". These observations are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
23. The plea of accused persons is that PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt.Naveen and PW10 Vineet Kumar, have falsely implicated them and they have stated untrue facts before the Court. PW10 Vineet Kumar is the injured himself. PW1 Nathu Singh is the father, PW2 Smt. Naveen is the wife and PW5 Suresh Kumar is the uncle and neighbourer of PW10 Vineet Kumar/injured. It is not conceivable that these witnesses will falsely implicate the accused persons knowing fully well that by doing, so they will actually be protecting the real culprit.
24. Plea of alibi was not taken by accused Nathu Ram at the stage of cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh and PW5 Suresh Kumar. In other words, the defence that accused Nathu Ram was not present at the spot at the time of incident and was watching Ramleela in his Village Hiranki, was not taken at the earliest available opportunity. In 1980 Crl.L.J. NOC 98 (ALL.) Abhai Singh vs. Sanjay Singh, it was held that, "Defence of alibi, if true ought to be raised at the earliest possible moment." FIR No. 366/08 23/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
25. Hence, the plea of alibi taken by accused Nathu Ram is liable to be rejected. Even otherwise, accused Nathu Ram who examined himself as DW7 deposed that on 08.10.08, he was on duty in PCR Model Town from 9.30 am to 6 pm, after hi duty hours were over, he went to his Village Hiranki. The departure entry of accused Nathu Ram from his office was not produced in the Court which could have proved that accused Nathu Ram was infact on duty till 6 pm on 08.10.08 and he left his office at 6 pm and hence an adverse inference u/s. 114 illustration (g) of Indian Evidence Act is liable to be drawn against accused Nathu Ram.
26. The service record and conduct of injured Vineet in his office is not relevant for the purpose of this case and hence the deposition of DW3 Akash Shukla is of no consequence.
27. Similarly, the deposition Ex. DW4/C given by injured Vineet Kumar in Sessions Case no. 42/07 and judgment Ex. DW4/F delivered in that case by the Court is not relevant for deciding this case.
28. I find substance in the contention of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that report given on summons Ex. DW5/B is not signed by the father of injured and same might have been procured. Hence, the report on summons Ex. DW5/B cannot be read against the prosecution.
FIR No. 366/08 24/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
29. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned Counsel for accused Virender relying on the deposition of DW5 Ms. Neetu, JJA submitted that the order sheet dt. 13.04.09 passed in Sessions Case No. 47/08 was exhibited as Ex. DW5/C through the deposition of DW5 and in the order sheet Ex. DW5/C the presence of injured Vineet Kumar is recorded. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned Counsel for accused Virender thus emphasized that injured Vineet Kumar gave false version before the Court that he was hospitalized and regained his consciousness after about 67 months after the incident. The incident took place on 08.10.08 and the order sheet mentioning the presence of injured Vineet before the Court bears the date 13.04.09. In other words, even if it is believed that injured Vineet Kumar appeared before the Court on 13.04.09, he appeared after 6 months of the incident and hence, it cannot be said that injured Vineet Kumar told a lie before the Court when he stated that he was discharged from the hospital after 67 months of the incident.
30. DW8 Ms. Saroj saw the injured from the 3rd floor of her house at night. Because of darkness and distance, DW8 might not have seen other persons present there viz. PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt. Naveen and PW5 Suresh Kumar. It is also possible that these persons were making arrangement of vehicle for taking the injured to hospital and for this reason they might not have been FIR No. 366/08 25/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram seen by DW8 Ms. Saroj at the spot at the relevant time.
31. The motive attributed by accused persons to PW1 Nathu Singh, PW2 Smt.Naveen and PW10 Vineet Kumar, for deposing falsely before the Court is that PW1 Nathu Singh and PW10 Vineet Kumar wanted to grab the property of accused situated adjoining to the house of PW10 Vineet Kumar. No person of ordinary prudence can be persuaded to believe that PW10 Vineet Kumar will get himself injured so badly resulting in his hospitalization for months only to implicate accused persons so as to grab their property. No ordinary person like injured Vineet Kumar or PW1 Nathu Singh, can think of grabbing the property of accused Nathu Ram knowing fully well that accused Nathu Ram is employed in Delhi Police as Constable.
32. The improvements made by PW1 Nathu Singh and PW5 Suresh Kumar over their statements given to police will not make them unreliable witnesses. These witnesses had no control over police officials when their statements were being recorded. In other words, true version given by PW1 Nathu Singh and PW5 Suresh Kumar might not have been recorded by police officials and for this reason their depositions in the Court do not lose there evidentiary value. In AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1234 Matadin and others vs. State of UP it was observed and held as under: FIR No. 366/08 26/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram "The Sessions Judge did not realise that the statements given by the witnesses before the Police are meant to be brief statements and could not take the place of evidence in the Court. Where the omissions are vital, they merit consideration, but mere small omissions will not justify a finding by a court that the witnesses concerned are self contained liars". It is also not material as to whether statement of PW1 Nathu Singh was recorded by police in the hospital or at Halal Meat Shop or as to whether statement of PW1 Nathu Singh was recorded by police once of twice. Non availability of DD No. 51A on record will not make any difference when statement of PW1 Nathu Singh Ex.PW1/A on the basis of which FIR was recorded, is available on record.
33. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned Counsel for accused Virender forcefully argued that there is contradiction in the depositions of prosecution witnesses with regard to shirt worn by injured at the time of incident. PW10 Vineet Kumar in the Court deposed that he was wearing half sleeves white colour shirt at the time of incident whereas PW5 Suresh Kumar in cross examination deposed that injured was wearing jeans and Tshirt. There is no much difference between Tshirt and half sleeves shirt. The shirt FIR No. 366/08 27/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram worn by injured at the time of incident was produced in the Court at the time of examination of PW1 Nathu Singh, the Court observed that MHC(M) has produced parcel no. 4 with the seal of VSN, FSL, Delhi and on opening same, one white colour shirt of half sleeves was taken out and PW1 Nathu Singh first deposed that shirt was of full sleeves but immediately PW1 Nathu Singh deposed that it is the same shirt. Therefore, the argument of Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned Counsel for accused Virender that different witnesses deposed differently with regard to shirt worn by injured at the time of incident has no legs to stand on.
34. Another contention raised by both the accused persons in cross examination that was that PW14 Dr. Om Prakash in cross examination deposed that injuries received by the injured could also be caused by fall from height. It was submitted on behalf of both the accused that this part of deposition of PW14 supports the defence of the accused persons that injured himself fell on a stone and received injuries. If a person fall on a stone he would also receive injuries on his beck, hands, legs etc. apart from the injuries on the head and the face. In the present case injured Vineet Kumar has not received injuries on any part of the body except on face and head. Secondly PW14 Dr. Om Prakash has himself not examined injured Vineet and has not seen the injuries and FIR No. 366/08 28/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram therefore, he was not competent to say that injuries suffered by the injured Vineet Kumar could be caused by fall from the height. PW14 proved the MLC of the injured prepared by Dr. Rahul as Ex.PW14/A as PW14 has identified the signatures of Dr. Rahul on the basis of record. Explanation to section 47 of the Indian Evidence Act lays that : "A person is said to be acquainted with the handwriting of another person when he has seen that person write, or when he has received documents purporting to be written by that person in answer to documents written by himself or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when, in the ordinary course of business, documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him". When PW14 Dr. Om Prakash deposed that he identified the signature of Dr. Rahul on the basis of record what he meant was that in ordinary course of business the document purported to be written by Dr. Rahul have been habitually submitted to PW14 Dr. Om Prakash. Therefore, the MLC Ex.PW14/A was proved by PW14 Dr.Om Prakash in accordance with law.
35. In 2014 (2) RCR (Criminal) - Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka, decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held and FIR No. 366/08 29/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram observed as under :
"In any event, the recovery of the blood stained clothes of Prakash do not advance the case of the prosecution. The reason is that all that the prosecution sought to prove thereby is that the blood group of Gangamma was AB and the blood stains of Prakash's seized clothes also belong to blood group AB. In our opinion, this does not lead to any conclusion that the blood stains on Prakash's clothes were those of Gangamma's blood. There are millions of people who have the blood group AB and it is quite possible that even Prakash had the blood group AB."
36. In AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2545 - Sunil Rai @ Pauna & Ors. Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh, Hon'ble Supreme Court after observing that blood stained jacket of accused was recovered from his rickshaw standing out in open which was accessible to anyone and no effort was made to take blood sample of accused. It was also held that recovery of blood stained jacket on its own, is a circumstance too fragile to bear burden of conviction of accused for murder.
37. In the present case, the blood was detected on the shirt of injured and the stone. However, as per Seriological Report Ex. PW11/B, no reaction was found on the blood found on the shirt FIR No. 366/08 30/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram and on the stone and therefore, the prosecution has not placed much reliance on Biological Report Ex. PW11/A and Seriological Report Ex. PW11/B. Therefore, these judgments will not help the accused persons.
38. In 2012 [2] JCC 1248 - Sheesh Pal Vs. State it was held that delay of 22 ½ years in recording the statement of prosecution witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.PC is fatal to the case of prosecution. In the present case, no doubt, there is delay in recording the statement of injured Vineet Kumar but that delay was occasioned by the fact that injured Vineet was hospitalized for six months and was not in a fit condition to give statement.
39. In AIR 1999 Supreme Court 49 - Sans Pal Singh Vs. State of Delhi, no public persons were associated as witness to recovery of weapons and it was held that it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction for appellant for the offence charged.
40. 1997 (3) Crimes 55 Punjab & Haryana High Court Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab was the case under Opium Act 1878. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court held in para 6 as under :
" It is not necessary in such recoveries that public witnesses must be joined, but attempt must be made to join the FIR No. 366/08 31/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram public witnesses. There can be cases when public witnesses are reluctant to join or are not available. All the same, the prosecution must show a genuine attempt having been made to join a public witness or that they were not available. A stereo type statement of nonavailability will not be sufficient particularly when at the relevant time, it was not difficult to procure the services of public witness".
41. In 1976 AIR (SC) 985 - Bhagwan Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan, it was held that conviction was not permissible when no independent witness were joined in search or seizure.
42. In the present case, the weapon of offence is the stone which obviously was lying in an open place. The said stone was not concealed by accused persons in any secret place. The said stone was pointed out by PW1 Nathu Singh to the Investigating Officer as the same stone with which injured was hit by accused persons. PW1 Nathu Singh was the best witness to the recovery of stone as he had seen accused persons hitting the injured Vineet Kumar with same stone. Therefore, there was no need for the Investigating Officer to associate public person as independent witness to the recovery of stone.
43. In AIR 1974 SC 344 - Harchand Singh and Anr. Vs. State FIR No. 366/08 32/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram of Haryana, it was held that in a case where prosecution leads two sets of evidence, each one of which contradicts the other, it is difficult to found the conviction of accused. In the present case, one does not find two sets of evidence, each one contradicts the other and therefore, this judgment is distinguishable on facts.
44. In AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408 - Suraj Mal Vs. The State (Delhi Administration), it was held that where witnesses makes two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. It has already been held that in case in hand, witnesses have made no inconsistent statements at different stage. There are minor improvements in the depositions of PW1 Nathu Singh and PW5 Suresh Kumar over their statements given to police which do not effect the case of prosecution.
45. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram referred to cross examination of PW1 Nathu Singh wherein PW1 has deposed that police made inquiry from him at the hospital but he declined to give statement as he was not well. Mr.S.K. Atri, further submitted that PW1 Nathu Singh had not suffered any FIR No. 366/08 33/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram injury and therefore, there is no reason why he was unwell in the hospital. Mr.S.K. Atri, learned counsel for accused Nathu Ram further deposed that PW1 Nathu Singh deliberately did not give statement to police in the hospital as he wanted to cook up a story before giving his statement to police so as to falsely implicate accused persons. Injured Vineet Kumar is the son of PW1 Nathu Singh. When PW1 Nathu Singh saw his son being hit by stone on head by accused persons and when the son of PW1 became unconscious, obviously PW1 Nathu Singh would have been mentally disturbed and might not be in fit condition to give his statement in hospital. Therefore, the justification given by PW1 Nathu Singh that he declined to give statement in hospital to police as he was not well is acceptable.
46. It has been thus proved on record by prosecution that accused Virender on being exhorted by accused Nathu Singh gave stone blow on the head of injured Vineet Kumar causing him serious injuries. It has also been proved on record that injured Vineet Kumar remained unconscious for many months after receiving injuries at the hand of accused persons. It has also been proved on record that before causing injuries to injured, both accused visited the house of injured Vineet Kumar which shows that they had made preparation and planning for the crime. FIR No. 366/08 34/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Prosecution has also proved the motive of accused persons to commit the crime and motive was to force PW10 Vineet Kumar to hand over the papers of his car to accused persons as Rakesh, nephew of accused persons, wanted to purchase the same car. Hitting the injured on head with stone causing grievous injuries to injured Vineet Kumar on face and other parts of body make both accused persons liable u/s. 307 IPC. Accused Nathu Ram was present at the spot and infact exhorted accused Virender to kill injured Vineet Kumar and therefore, accused Nathu Ram also becomes liable u/s. 307 IPC with the aid of section 34 IPC. In other words, prosecution has successfully proved the charge u/s. 307/34 IPC against accused Virender and Nathu Ram beyond all shades of doubt. Accordingly, accused Virender and Nathu Ram are convicted u/s. 307/34 IPC.
Let accused Virender and Nathu Ram be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav)
on 10.04.15 Additional Sessions Judge5 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 366/08 35/42
St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANDEEP YADAV, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE5, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 26/14 ID No. 02403R0033072009 FIR No. 366/08 PS. Hauz Khas U/s. 307/34 IPC State Vs.
1. Virender @ Billu S/o. Sh. Man Singh R/o. Hiranki, PS Alipur New Delhi
2. Nathu Ram S/o. Sh. Man Singh R/o. Hiranki, PS Alipur New Delhi .... Accused ORDER ON SENTENCE 21.04.2015 Pr. Substitute Additional Public Prosecutor for the State Mr. D.S. Pawaria, counsel for complainant Mr. D.K. Chabbra, counsel for convict Virender Mr. S.K. Atri, counsel for convict Nathu Ram Convict Virender produced from j/c.
Convict Nathu Ram produced from j/c.
FIR No. 366/08 36/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
1. Virender and Nathu Ram have been convicted u/s. 307/34 IPC vide judgment dt. 10.04.15. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for convict Virender submitted that convict Virender is 40 years old and his family consists of two children i.e, one son and one daughter. It is stated that daughter of convict Virender is of marriageable age while son of convict Virender is studying in 12th standard. On a pointed inquiry by the Court regarding source of income of convict Virender, learned counsel for convict Virender submitted that convict Virender guides people against intoxication in various Nasha Mukti Kendras being run by various NGO's. It is further submitted that convict Virender has clean record and there is no previous involvement or conviction of convict Virender in any case. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for convict Virender further submitted that convict Virender has already spent 9 ½ months in custody during trial in this case. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for convict Virender further submitted that in view of these circumstance, a lenient view may be taken against convict Virender. Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for convict Virender relied upon 2015 (1) RCR (Criminal) - Jage Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, 2013 [2] JCC 997 - Gopal Singh Vs. State of Uttrakhand, 2008 (1) RCR (Criminal) - Rajinder Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab.
FIR No. 366/08 37/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
2. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for convict Nathu Ram submitted that convict Nathu Ram is employed as Constable in Delhi Police and has attained the age of 53 years. It is further submitted that convict Nathu Ram has spent more than 32 years in serving Delhi Police. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for convict Nathu Ram further submitted that convict Nathu Ram has three children and one of the daughter of convict Nathu Ram has already been married. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for convict Nathu Ram submitted that convict Nathu Ram has old mother of almost 85 years old who is present in the Court today and who is totally dependent on convict Nathu Ram. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for convict Nathu Ram submitted that wife of convict Nathu Ram is having various ailments and has been operated upon thrice in past. Mr. S.K. Atri, learned counsel for convict Nathu Ram submitted that keeping in view all these facts and circumstance, a lenient view may be taken against convict Nathu Ram.
3. Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned counsel for injured Vineet Kumar submitted that injured Vineet Kumar was 35 years old at the time of incident and now he is 42 years old having two children. It was further submitted that because of the injuries received in this case by victim Vineet Kumar at the hands of convicts, injured Vineet Kumar was physically disabled and was not in a proper condition to move or speak. Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned counsel for injured Vineet Kumar submitted entire family of injured suffered badly because of the crime committed FIR No. 366/08 38/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram in this case. Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned counsel for injured Vineet Kumar prayed for severe punishment to convicts and adequate compensation to victim Vineet Kumar for his rehabilitation. Mr. D.S. Pawaria, learned counsel for injured Vineet Kumar relied upon (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 441 - State of Punjab Vs. Bawa Singh.
4. As has been discussed above, the case proved against convict Virender and Nathu Ram is that both convicts hit victim Vineet Kumar with heavy stone causing him serious injuries. Injured/victim remained in hospital for months because of the impact of crime. While awarding sentence, the impact of crime on the victim and his family has to be seen. The manner of committing the crime, motive in committing the crime and subsequent conduct of convict are circumstances which have to be taken into consideration while deciding sentence and compensation.
5. In the judgment relied upon by Mr. D.K. Chabbra, learned counsel for convict Virender, it was held that discretion in awarding sentence lies with the Court and the discretion has to be exercised on the basis of settled principles viz. nature of culpability, the antecedents of the accused, the factum of age, the potentiality of the convict to become a criminal in future, capability of his reformation and to lead an acceptable life in the prevalent milieu, the propensity to become a social threat or nuisance and sometimes lapse of time in the commission of the crime and his conduct in the interregnum, etc. FIR No. 366/08 39/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram
6. In (2015) 3 Supreme Court Cases 441 State of Punjab Vs. Bawa Singh, it was held that undue sympathy by means imposing inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and the society cannot endure long under serious threats. It was further held that if the Courts do not protect the injured, the injured would then resort to personal vengeance and therefore, the duty of any Court is to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of offence and the manner in which it was committed.
7. In (1987) 3 SCC 80 - Mahesh Vs. State of M.P., it was held as "
6. .... it will be a mockery of justice to permit these appellants to escape the extreme penalty of law when faced with such evidence and such cruel acts. To give the lesser punishment for the appellants would be to render the justicing system of this country suspect. The common man will lose faith in courts. In such cases, he understands and appreciates the language of deterrence more than the reformative jargon. When we say this, we do not ignore the need for a reformative approach in the sentencing process."
8. It is a settled principle that Court while awarding sentence has to balance mitigating and aggravating circumstances. After considering all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, convict Virender and Nathu Ram are sentenced to simple imprisonment for five years (5 FIR No. 366/08 40/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram years) and fine of Rs. 1 lacs (Rs. one lac) each for the offence punishable u/s. 307/34 IPC. In default, both convicts shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year each. Benefit of section 428 Cr.PC be extended to convict Virender and Nathu Ram.
9. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad vs. State of Maharashtra in AIR 2013 SC 2014 decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that, "
While the award or refusal of compensation in a particular case may be within the Court's discretion, there exists a mandatory duty on the Court to apply its mind to the question in every criminal case. Application of mind to the question is best disclosed by recording reasons for awarding/refusing compensation."
10. On the last date of hearing, an application was filed by Mr. D.S.Pawaria, learned counsel for victim/injured u/s. 357 & 357A Cr.PC for grant of compensation to victim/injured. Along with the application, learned counsel for victim has annexed various medical bills and prayed in the application for compensation to the tune of Rs. 60 lacs. The said application was ordered to be verified through SHO PS Hauz Khas. SHO PS Hauz Khas has sent report and it is stated in the report that all the bills except few were verified. The Court after considering the averments of the application filed by learned counsel for victim/injured u/s. 357 & 357A Cr.PC and the report of SHO PS Hauz Khas, considers it a fit case for award of compensation to injured Vineet Kumar. Out of total fine of Rs. 2 lacs imposed on both convicts, FIR No. 366/08 41/42 St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram Rs. 1,75,000/ be released to victim/injured Vineet Kumar as compensation. Fine of Rs. 1 lacs each has been imposed on both convicts in view of their paying capacity and their economic condition. However, compensation awarded to victim/injured Vineet Kumar u/s. 357 (1)(b) Cr.PC is not found to be adequate for his rehabilitation. Accordingly, a recommendation is made to The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Delhi, (South), u/s. 357A (3) Cr.PC, for compensation to victim/injured Vineet Kumar for his rehabilitation.
Copy of this order as well as judgment dt. 10.04.15, be supplied to both convicts as well as learned counsel for victim/injured immediately, free of cost. Copy of this order be sent to concerned Superintendent, Jail, Tihar.
Copy of this order be sent to The Secretary, District Legal Service Authority, Delhi (South).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Sandeep Yadav)
on 21.04.2015 Additional Sessions Judge5 (South)
Saket Courts, New Delhi
FIR No. 366/08 42/42
St. Vs.Virender & Nathu Ram