Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Pushkar @ Pappu S/O Gulab Singh, on 23 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East /
KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Case ID Number. 02402R0066272009
Sessions Case No. 64/2009
Assigned to Sessions. 19.08.2009
Arguments heard on 13.01.2012
Date of Judgment 19.01.2012
FIR No. 118/2008
State Vs 1. Pushkar @ Pappu s/o Gulab Singh,
r/o 13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
2. Smt. Soni w/o Pushkar @ Pappu, r/o
13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
3. Sohan Pal s/o Dori Lal,
r/o 13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
4. Smt. Shakuntala w/o Mahipal,
r/o A11/513, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagri
Under Section 307/506/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1. Station House Officer of Police Station Nand Nagri had filed a challan vide FIR No. 118/2008 dated 06.03.2008 u/s 324/506/34 IPC for the prosecution of accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala in the court of Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate and Ld. MM after compliance of section State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 207 Cr. PC committed this case for trial before this court.
2. In brief, facts of the case are that in pursuance of DD No.41, on 05.03.2008 at about 11:15 p.m. ASI Raghuraj Singh along with HC Vijay Pal Singh reached at the spot i.e. Bhati Market, Gali No.13, in front of House No.772, Mandoli Extension, Delhi and they noticed some stones lying at the spot. They came to know that injured had already been shifted to GTB Hospital. Thereafter, HC Vijay Pal Singh was deputed as a guard of spot and ASI Raghuraj went to GTB Hospital and collected MLC of injured Devi Dayal Gupta and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/DA and made endorsement Ex.PW11/A for registration of FIR. Accordingly, FIR No.118/2008 Ex.PW1/A u/s 324/506/34 IPC was registered and during the course of investigation, all the accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Soni, Sohan Pal and Shakuntala were arrested for offences u/s 324/506/34 IPC.
CHARGE:
3. On the basis of material available on record ld. predecessor of this court vide order dated 05.10.2009 framed a charge against accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala for the offences punishable u/s 307/506/34 IPC to which accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 PROSECUTION WITNESSES:
4. In order to prove its case prosecution has examined 11 witnesses namely PW1 W/HC Poonam, PW2 Devi Dayal Gupta complainant, PW3 SI Ajay Singh Negi, PW4 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram, PW5 Devender, PW6 Arun Kumar Gupta, PW7 HC Sohanvir Singh, PW8 HC Anil Kumar, PW9 W/Ct. Indresh, PW10 HC Vijaypal Singh and PW11 ASI Raghuraj Singh.
5. PW1 W/HC Poonam is a formal witness. She is witness of recording of FIR. This witness has proved FIR Ex.PW1/A u/s 324/506/34 IPC.
6. PW2 Devi Dayal Gupta is a material witness being complainant/injured. This witness has deposed that on 05.03.2008 at around 10:30 p.m. he was present on the roof of his house, accused Pushkar @ Pappey came there along with MCD vehicle and started abusing his sons and family members at his shop. When this witness asked accused Pushkar why he is abusing and came down from the roof. Accused Pushkar was carrying a lathi with him fitted with some sharp object and accused Pushkar had given lathi blow on his right eyebrow.
7. This witness has further deposed that accused Rintoo had caught hold him and other accused persons namely Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala had started pelting stones and bricks and one neighbour Devender took him to the hospital. This witness has further deposed that accused Rintoo had declared P.O. in the present case and accused Rintoo used to visit his house and threatened to State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 kill his family and police is taking no action to arrest him.
8. During his cross examination by ld. defence counsel he reiterated the same facts as deposed by him in examination in chief.
9. PW3 SI Ajay Singh Negi. This witness had formally arrested accused Smt. Soni vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A with the permission of Ld. MM on 23.05.2008.
10.PW4 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram. This witness has proved MLC Ex.PW4/A of patient Devi Dayal Gupta on behalf of Dr. Akhlaq Hussain. This witness has also proved encircled portion Ex.PW4/B on MLC regarding opinion on nature of injury as 'grievous' on behalf of Dr. Brijesh.
11.In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness admits that neither MLC Ex.PW4/A was prepared in his presence nor the nature of injury Ex.PW4/B was opined by Dr. Brijesh in his presence.
12.PW5 Devender is a material witness being eyewitness. This witness has deposed that on the day of incident he saw a quarrel in front of the house of accused Pushkar @ Pappu and complainant Devi Dayal and accused Pushkar @ Pappu along with 34 ladies and one child were pelting stones and piece of bricks from the roof of their house to the roof of house of complainant and when complainant Devi Dayal came down from the roof of his house then he was State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 bleeding from his head. This witness had made a call to police at 100 number and PCR police officials reached at the spot and took injured along with his wife to GTB Hospital. This witness was declared hostile by ld. APP for the State. In his cross examination by ld. APP for the State, this witness had denied that accused Pushkar @ Pappu had manhandling with complainant Devi Dayal and that accused persons namely Soni, Shakuntala and Sonpal were present at the spot and also caused injuries to complainant with stones and bricks.
13.PW6 Arun Kumar Gupta is also a material witness being eyewitness. This witness has deposed that accused Puskar @ Pappu was present in the quarrel and he had noticed injury on the head of complainant Devi Dayal Gupta but he is not aware by whom that injury was caused to Devi Dayal Gupta. This witness has been declared hostile by Ld. APP for the State.
14.PW7 HC Sohanvir Singh is PCR Van Incharge. On receipt of information from control room about a quarrel which had taken place in Gali No.11, in front of Bhati Market, Mandoli, Delhi, this witness had reached at the spot and taken one injured namely Devi Dayal to GTB Hospital and got admitted him there.
15.This witness was cross examined by ld. Defence counsel. In his cross examination by ld. Defence counsel, this witness has deposed that injured had not told him anything about the incident.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
16.PW8 HC Anil Kumar is the witness of arrest of accused Pushkar @ Pappu. This witness has proved arrest memo of accused Pushkar @ Pappu vide Ex.PW8/A, personal search memo Ex.PW8/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C.
17.PW9 W/Ct. Indresh. This witness had arrested accused Smt. Soni vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A on 06.03.2008 and her personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/B on the direction of I.O.
18.On 25.03.2008, this witness had arrested accused Smt. Shakuntla vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/C and her personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/D on the direction of I.O.
19.This witness has deposed that on 17.05.2008 accused Smt. Shakuntla was again arrested by the I.O. at Karkardooma Court vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/E and her personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/F and on 23.05.2008 accused Smt. Soni was again arrested by the I.O. at Karkardooma Court vide arrest memo Ex.PW3/A and I.O. had recorded disclosure of accused Smt. Shakuntala vide Ex.PW9/G.
20.PW10 HC Vijaypal Singh. This witness had remained with I.O. during the investigation. This witness had got recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A from the police station.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
21.This is the witness of arrest of accused Pushkar @ Pappu and Smt. Soni. This witness has proved arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and personal search memo Ex.PW10/A of accused Pushkar @ Pappu and arrest memo Ex.PW9/A, and personal search memo Ex.PW9/B of accused Smt. Soni.
22.This witness has also proved arrest memo of accused Soni vide Ex.PW3/A, of accused Sohan Pal Ex.PW10/B, of accused Trilok Chand Ex.PW10/C and of accused Shakuntala Ex.PW9/C. This witness was cross examined by ld. defence counsel.
23.PW11ASI Raghuraj Singh is material witness being I.O. of the present case. This witness has deposed that on 05.03.2008, at about 11:00pm or 11:15pm copy of DD No.41 of PP Harsh Vihar was assigned to him by Ct. Vijay Pal, he along with Ct. Vijaypal reached at the spot i.e. Near House No.772, Gali No.13, in front of Bhati Market, Mandoli Extension, Delhi, where it came into his notice that injured had already been removed to GTB Hospital by PCR officials, no eyewitnesses met them at the spot. Some pieces of bricks were lying at the spot and about 2025 persons were present there. This witness had deputed Ct. Vijaypal at the spot as a guard and went to GTB Hospital and collected MLC Ex.PW4/A of injuredDevi Dayal Gupta with the help of duty constable at GTB Hospital.
24.This witness had interrogated injured Devi Dayal Gupta but he did not make any statement to him as he was suffering from severe pain. Thereafter, this witness State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 had met with injured again at about 08:00am or 08:30am on 06.03.2008 and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/DA and attested statement Ex.PW2/DA at point X. Thereafter, this witness had made endorsement Ex.PW11/A for registration of FIR. This witness had sent the rukka through Ct. Vijaypal for the registration of FIR for offence u/s 324/506/34 IPC. PWs Arun and Devender came at the spot and they claimed to be eyewitnesses of the incident. This witness had inspected the place of occurrence and prepared unscaled site plan Ex.PW11/B. Ct. Vijaypal came and he delivered rukka Ex.PW11/A along with copy of FIR Ex.PW1/A to him for investigation.
25.This witness had arrested accused Pushkar @ Pappu at about 08:00am on 06.03.2008 from his house vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW10/A and accused Smt. Soni w/o accused Pushkar @ Pappu was also arrested from there vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/A and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW9/B was prepared. This witness had called Lady Ct. Indresh at the spot who had taken personal search of accused Soni.
26.This witness has further deposed that on 25.03.2008, at about 05:00pm accused Sohan Pal, Trilok Chand @ Rintu and Smt. Shakuntla were also arrested from the house of accused Pushkar vide arrest memo Ex.PW10/B and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW11/C of accused Sohan Pal, arrest memo Ex.PW10/C and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW11/D of accused Trilok Chand @ Rintu and arrest memo Ex.PW9/C and Personal Search Memo Ex.PW9/D of accused Smt. Shakuntla were prepared. Lady Ct. Indresh was called and she took the personal search of State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 accusedSmt. Shakuntla.
27.This witness had recorded the statement of PWs namely Arun, Devender, Ct. Vijaypal and Lady Ct. Indresh time to time. During the course of investigation this witness had deposited the MLC of injured to get opinion regarding nature of injury and Dr. Brijesh Kumar had opined nature of injury as grievous. Thereafter, this witness had added Section 326 IPC in this case after discussion with SHO.
28.This witness on 24.04.2008 had formally arrested accused Pushkar @ Pappu with the permission of Ld. MM vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A and recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW8/C.
29.This witness on 15.05.2008 had formally arrested accused Sohan Pal with the permission of Ld. MM vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/E and he recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW11/F.
30.This witness on 17.05.2008 had formally arrested accused Smt. Shakuntla with the permission of ld. MM in the presence of Lady Ct. Indresh, vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/E and recorded her disclosure statement Ex.PW9/G. This witness had also prepared Personal Search Memo of accused Pushkar Ex.PW8/B, Personal Search Memo of accused Smt. Shakuntla Ex.PW9/F and Personal Search Memo of accused Sohan Pal Ex.PW11/F time to time when they were arrested with the permission of ld. MM.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
31.This witness had recorded statement of Ct. Anil, Lady Ct. Indresh and HC Sandeep time to time.
32.This witness had obtained NBW of accused Trilok Chand @ Rintu from concerned court.
33.This witness has further deposed that accused Smt. Soni was arrested by Sub Inspector Ajay Singh Negi when he was on leave. This witness had completed the investigation of this case prepared chargesheet against four accused persons and put the name of accused Trilok Chand @ Rintu in column number 2 of chargesheet and sent to SHO chargesheet against accused persons for offence u/s 147/148/149/307/506/34 IPC.
34.This witness was cross examined by ld. defence counsel. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, this witness submits that he had reached at the spot at about 11:30 p.m. Neither wife nor son of injured Devi Dayal Gupta had met him at the spot. This witness has deposed that he had not received copy of aforesaid DD, but he was informed about it. This witness has further deposed that he had reached at the GTB Hospital in the midnight at about 12:30 a.m. No PCR official had met him in the GTB Hospital.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 CR.P.C.:
35.After prosecution witness. statement of all the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C. State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 were recorded wherein all the accused persons denied all circumstances and evidence put to them and claimed to be innocent and have been implicated falsely. Accused Sohan Pal has deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant with ulterior motive being the uncle of coaccused Pushkar @ Pappu. Accused Smt. Shakuntala has deposed that she has been implicated falsely by the complainant with ulterior motive being the sister of co accused Pushkar @ Pappu and accused Smt. Soni has deposed that she has been implicated falsely by the complainant with ulterior motive.
36.Accused Pushkar @ Pappu has deposed that in fact complainant and his sons used to park their commercial vehicles in the Gali in front of their house which caused inconvenience to public and on the day of incident he had also parked his MCD vehicle in front of his house resulting in blocking the most of the way and the public became annoyed and started pelting stones which caused damage to his vehicle as well as other vehicles parked there and during pelting of stones one or two stones also hit the complainant Devi Dayal Gupta and the complainant wanted that he should dispose off his house to him so that he may have ample parking space for the vehicles for repairing and loading and unloading of goods and complainant with ulterior motives had implicated him and his family in the present case. They had preferred to lead the defence evidence but later on when when accused persons could not call any D.E. At the request of ld. counsel for accused persons, D.E. was closed.
37.Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 ARGUMENTS:
38.Ld. APP for state has argued that on the statement of injured Devi Dayal Gupta Ex.PW2/DA, FIR No. 118/2008 Ex.PW1/A u/s 324/506/34 IPC was registered against the accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala and they were arrested. Thereafter, charge for offence u/s 307/506/34 IPC were framed against them by ld. Predecessor of this court. Ld. APP for the State further argued that accused Rintoo has been declared P.O. and as per prosecution story accused Rintoo had caught hold the injured/complainant Devi Dayal Gupta and other accused persons namely Soni, Sohan Pal and Shakuntala had started pelting stones and bricks upon him.
39.Ld. APP for the State further submits that PW2 Devi Dayal Gupta, PW5 Devender and PW6 Arun Kumar are the material witnesses. PW1 W/HC Poonam is a formal witness being duty officer. PW3 SI Ajay Singh Negi is the witness of arrest of accused Smt. Soni. PW4 Dr. Parmeshwar has proved MLC of injured on behalf of Dr. Akhlaq and nature of injury on behalf of Dr. Brijesh. PW5 Devender and PW6 Arun Kumar are the eyewitnesses. PW7 HC Sohanvir Singh is a witness of formal nature. PW8 HC Anil Kumar is the witness of arrest of accused Pushkar @ Pappu. PW Lady Ct. Inderesh is the witness of arrest of accused Smt. Soni and Smt. Shakuntala. PW10 HC Vijay Pal Singh accompanied I.O. during the investigation. PW11 SI Raghuraj Singh is the investigating officer.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
40.Ld. APP for the State further argued that all the accused persons are known to complainant Devi Dayal Gupta, all accused persons had pelted stones. PW5 and PW6 who are the eyewitness, are hostile witnesses on relevant fact. Hence, Ld. APP for the State has prayed to convict the accused persons under the section for which they have been charged.
41.On other hand Ld. defence counsel for accused persons argued that there is delay in FIR when complainant who was in hospital and fit to make statement, inspite that fact case was registered delayed.
42.Ld. counsel for accused persons pointed out towards cross examination of PW7 wherein PW7 has stated that no family members of complainant disclose the manner of quarrel.
43.Ld. counsel for accused persons pointed out towards cross examination of PW11 wherein no fact of threatening to kill complainant could come on record to which the charges u/s 307 IPC had been proved.
44.Ld. counsel for accused persons further argued that PW5 and PW6 have not supported the case of prosecution or even fact of 506 IPC. There is no previous enmity between accused persons and complainant. PW5 and PW6 had not disclosed about the use of lathi.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
45.All other witnesses are interested witnesses and no recovery of weapon have been affected.
46.Ld. counsel for accused has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case titled as "State of Haryana Vs. Prem Singh, Crl. Appeal No.444DBA of 1997, date of decision 22.02.2007". Ld. Counsel for accused persons has further argued that no case is pending against any of the accused persons except the present case. On this ground, Ld. counsel for accused persons has prayed for acquittal of all the accused persons from the charges. PERUSAL OF RECORD/OPINION:
47.Argument heard. Record perused. On perusal of record it is revealed that on the statement of complainant PW2 Devi Dayal Gupta Ex.PW2/DA, FIR No. 118/2008 u/s 324/506/34 IPC was registered and all the accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala were arrested for offences u/s 324/506/34 IPC. Thereafter, charge for the offence u/s 307/506/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Soni, Sohan Pal and Shakuntala by my predecessor of this court.
48.On perusal of record, it is revealed that copy of DD No.41 is not on record. State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
49.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that I.O. had arrested accused persons two times.
50.On further perusal of record it is revealed that encircled portion Ex.PW4/B of MLC of PW Devi Dayal Gupta Ex.PW4/A shows the nature of injury as grievous.
51.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that PW injured Devi Dayal Gupta who had sustained injuries had correctly identified all the accused persons as culprits. However, it is clear that there was a quarrel between injured Devi Dayal Gupta and accused persons and in that quarrel injured had sustained injuries.
52.On perusal of record, it is revealed that no weapon has been shown to be recovered used by accused persons to cause injury to victim nor any stones/ piece of brick has been shown to be seized by the I.O.
53.On perusal of record, it is further revealed that no lathi with sharp edged object has been recovered in this case.
54.Before reaching at any conclusion let the relevant sections i.e. 307, 506, 323 and 34 IPC be reproduced, which are as under : Section 307 IPC.
Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
Ingredients of offence. The essential ingredients of the offence under sec. 307 are as follows :
(1) The accused did some act.
(2) Such act was done with intention or knowledge that hurt was likely to be caused to the victim by the act.
Section 506 IPC:
Punishment criminal intimidation - Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both, if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 323 IPC : "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."
Sec.34 IPC "When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
55.It is the fundamental principle of criminal law that in case of conviction of accused persons the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hon'ble Supreme Court on this point has observed in a case titled as 'Vijayee Singh Vs State of UP AIR 1990 SC 1459' that:
"'Reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man The 'reasonable doubt' is one which occurs to a prudent and State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 reasonable man. Section 3 while explaining the meaning of the words 'proof', disproved' and 'not proved' lays down the standard of proof, namely about the existence or nonexistence of the circumstances from the point of view of a prudent man. The section is so worded as to provide for two conditions of mind, first, that in which a man feels absolutely certain of a fact, in other words, 'believe it to exist' and secondly in which, though he may not feel absolutely certain of a fact, he thinks it so extremely probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances act on the assumption of its existence. The act while adopting the requirement of the prudent man as an appropriate concrete standard by which to measure proof at the same time contemplates of giving full effect to be given to circumstances or condition of probability or improbability. It is this degree of certainty to be arrived where the circumstances before a fact can be said to be proved. A fact is said to be disproved when the court believes that it does not exist or considers its nonexistence so probable in the view of a prudent man the fact is not proved, i.e. neither proved nor disproved. It is this doubt which occurs to a reasonable man, has legal recognition in the field of criminal disputes. It is something different from moral conviction and it is also different from a suspicion. It is the result of a process of keen examination of the entire material on record by 'a prudent man'."
Now the sole question arises as to whether the injuries inflicted by the accused persons were caused with the intention or knowledge to attempt to commit culpable homicide.
56.Theme of section 307 IPC is that injury must have been caused with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder.
57.Since the present case has been registered on the statement of injured Devi Dayal Gupta and MLC suggest that nature of injury is grievous, however, it reflects injury which has been sustained in the quarrel. It is a human nature that in a quarrel one tried to save himself from injury.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009
58.Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in judgement "Desh Raj Vs. Kewal Krishan and others, CRL. Rev. P.544/2001," has held that :
"Court had gathered the intention and knowledge on the part of the accused person from this oral and ocular versions of PW1 and PW2 as also the manner in which the assault had taken place ; the part of the body on which the injury had been caused. The fact that the only one injury had been suffered by the victim; the fact that all the three accused persons were armed with three separate weapons i.e. a danda, an iron rod and a thapi yet the injury was a single blunt blow on the scalp of Desh Raj; had the accused persons the criminal intention to cause death they could have caused the death and injuries would have been in the plural and would have been on other vital parts of the body as well. The single simple blow injury suffered by Desh Raj had led the Court to conclude that the offence made out against the accused persons is one under Section 323 of the IPC".
59.This court is also of the view that since the injured/victim Devi Dayal Gupta had sustained grievous injuries as per MLC and sustained no others injury on the vital part of his body. It is clear from the acts of accused persons that they acted without knowledge and intention to cause death of complainant. If they had any such intention they would have caused multiple injury on vital part of his body. It is not necessary that nature of the injury suffered by a victim may always be true test to determine the offence committed by accused persons.
60.Since the present case was registered on the complaint of PW2 Devi Dayal Gupta on complaint of quarrel and his case is supported by PW5 Devender and PW6 Arun Kumar who are interested witnesses but they could not identify the accused State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 persons. Moreover, no recovery of weapon has been affected by IO hence it cannot be presumed that accused persons had committed the offence under section 307 IPC.
61.As far as section 506 IPC is concerned, contents of this section is also not met out. Hence, accused persons acquitted from the charge u/s 307/506 IPC.
62.Therefore, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that prosecution has been failed to prove its case for the offence u/s 307/506/34 IPC against accused persons Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala beyond reasonable doubt as ingredients of these sections do not meet out.
63.However, fact of quarrel has been proved by the prosecution and one injury had been suffered by the injured. Hence, this court at this stage alter the charge u/s 307/506 IPC to 323/34 IPC and hold the accused persons namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala guilty under section 323/34 IPC.
PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 19.01.2012 (RAMESH KUMARII) ASJ01/ NORTH - EAST KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 IN THE COURT OF SH. RAMESH KUMAR - II, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - 01 : North East / KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
FIR No. 118/2008State Vs 1. Pushkar @ Pappu s/o Gulab Singh, r/o 13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
2. Smt. Soni w/o Pushkar @ Pappu, r/o 13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
3. Sohan Pal s/o Dori Lal, r/o 13/764, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
4. Smt. Shakuntala w/o Mahipal, r/o A11/513, Mandoli Extn., Delhi.
Police Station Nand Nagri Convicted under 323/34 IPC Section ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE 23.01.2012 Pre: Ld. APP for the state. Convicts are on bail. Sh. S.K. Raizada, Ld. counsel for convicts.
Ld. APP for State submits that since the offence has been proved against the convicts namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala under section 323/34 IPC. Ld. APP for the State further submits that they must be sentenced according to provisions of law.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others SC No.64/2009 On other hand, Ld. counsel for convicts submits that they are very poor persons and there are no previous criminal antecedents against them. Ld. counsel for convicts further submits that they are facing trial since 2008. Ld. counsel for convicts further submits that convict Pushkar @ Pappu has remained in the JC for three days and convict Sohan Pal has remained in JC for one week. Ld. counsel for convicts has requested for lenient view and requested to release the convicts only on fine.
Arguments heard. After taking into consideration the fact that the convicts belong to a poor family and they are facing trial since 2008 and convict Pushkar @ Pappu has remained in the JC for three days and convict Sohan Pal has remained in JC for one week, this court comes to the conclusion that ends of justice will meet if convicts namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala sentenced to fine of Rs.1,000/ each in default S.I. for 15 days. Fine of Rs.4,000/ paid.
Accordingly, convicts are released. In terms of section 437 A Cr. P.C. convicts namely Pushkar @ Pappu, Smt. Soni, Sohan Pal and Smt. Shakuntala are hereby directed to execute bail bond in sum of Rs.10,000/ each with one surety in the like amount. Orders accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
PRONOUNCED THE OPEN COURT
ON THIS 23.01.2012 (RAMESH KUMAR - II)
ASJ01/N.E./KKD COURTS,
DELHI.
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others
SC No.64/2009
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others
SC No.64/2009
State Vs. Pushkar @ Pappu and others
SC No.64/2009