Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Sachin @ Satya Prakash on 20 August, 2015
FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI Session Case No. 120/14 Unique Case ID No. 02404R0383302013 State Vs. (1). Sachin @ Satya Prakash S/o Sh. Ram Gopal R/o 42A, Shiv Mandir Colony, Badli, Delhi. (2) Rameshwar S/o Sh. Ram Gopal R/o 42A, Shiv Mandir Colony, Badli, Delhi. (3) Dinesh Pal S/o Sh. Naresh Pal R/o 42B, Shiv Mandir Colony, Badli, Delhi. (4) Mahesh Pal S/o Sh. Naresh Pal R/o 42A, Shiv Mandir Colony, Badli, Delhi. FIR No. : 198/13 Police Station : S.P. Badli Under Sections : 308/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 20.02.2014 Date on which judgment was reserved : 14.08.2015 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 20.08.2015 State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 1 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 JUDGMENT
1. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
(i). That on 24.04.2013 at about 10.48 pm, information was received in PS S.P Badli regarding quarrel and one person being injured in the said quarrel. Same was recorded vide DD no. 63A( Ex. PW3/A) and it was handed over to HC Rajpal ( PW5) for appropriate action;
(ii). On receipt of DD no. 63A, HC Rajpal alongwith Ct. Parmesh (PW6) reached the place of information i.e. Shiv Mandir Chowk Badli, where it was revealed that PCR Van had already removed injured to BSA Hospital. Accordingly, both the said police officials reached BSA Hospital, where HC Rajpal collected MLC of injured Nitin Yadav (PW1) who was declared fit for statement;
(iii). HC Rajpal recorded statement (Ex.PW1/A) of complainant/injured Nitin Yadav wherein he claimed that on 24.04.2013 at about 10.00 pm when he had returned back alongwith his mother Ms. Mithlesh (PW2) on motorcycle, the accused persons were found sitting in the gali. When he requested them to give way so that he can go to his house situated in the said gali, all the accused persons started assaulting him due to which he fell down from the motorcycle. Accused Dinesh and Rameshwar gave danda blows on his head and chest whereas State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 2 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 accused Mahesh and Sachin gave fist and kick blows to him due to which he sustained severe injuries on his person. When his mother raised alarm, all the four accused persons fled away from the spot;
(iv). On the basis of aforesaid statement, HC Rajpal got the FIR in question registered through Ct. Parmesh. Investigation was entrusted to SI Rajesh ( PW9) who prepared site plan at the instance of mother of complainant and also recorded statements U/s 161 Cr.PC of the witnesses;
(v). Investigation was transferred to SI Dhirender (PW8) who got all the four accused persons joined in the investigation, on being granted interim bail to them by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the weapons of offence i.e. dandas could not be recovered despite efforts made by him. Thereafter, SI Dhirender was also transferred and further investigation was handed over to SI Jai Kumar (PW7) who formally arrested the accused persons on 15.08.2013. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to this Court.
CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, this Court was pleased to frame the charge u/s 308/34 IPC against the accused persons State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 3 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 namely Sachin @ Satya Prakash, Rameshwar, Dinesh Pal and and Mahesh Pal vide order dated 26.02.2014 to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, prosecution has examined eleven witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Nitin Yadav, PW2 Smt. Mithlesh Bala, PW3 HC Navratan, PW4 Dr. Brajesh Narayan, PW5 HC Raj Pal, PW6 Ct. Parmesh Kumar, PW7 SI Jai Kumar, PW8 SI Dhirendra, PW9 SI Rajesh Kumar, PW10 HC Rameshwar Singh and PW11 Dr. Tariq Shahshad, during trial.
5. It may also be mentioned here that Ld. Additional PP dropped PW Ct. Baljeet from the list of witnesses on 02.03.2015 as he was the witness of repetitive facts in respect of which other witness namely PW8 SI Dhirendra Singh had already been examined during trial.
6. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all the four accused persons were recorded during which all the incriminating evidence which came on record, were put to them which they denied. All the four accused persons claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. All four accused persons claimed in their respective statements that the brother of PW1 Nitin Yadav i.e. Sachin Yadav was posted in Delhi Police and he got them falsely implicated in this case in order to harass them and also to malign their image in the locality. However, all the four accused persons opted not to lead any evidence towards their defence.
7. I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional PP on behalf of State and Ld. counsel Sh. Neeraj Pal, Adv. on behalf of all accused persons. I have also gone through the material available on record. State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 4 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses which have come on record. The said testimonies are detailed as under: PUBLIC WITNESSES
9. PW1 Sh. Nitin Yadav: He is the injured/complainant in this case. He deposed on the lines of prosecution story by deposing that on 24.04.2013, at about 10.00 pm when he reached inside gali of his house while driving his motorcycle on which his mother was sitting as pillion rider, he saw all the four accused persons sitting near his house in the said gali. When he requested accused persons for giving passage so that he could take his motorcycle to his house, accused persons used abusive language against him and uttered the words " Yeh Gali Tumare Baap Ki hai" and started assaulting him due to which he fell down from the motorcycle. Even thereafter, the accused persons assaulted him with fist and kick blows. Accused Dinesh and Rameshwar assaulted him with dandas on his chest and head due to which he sustained multiple injuries over the said parts. When his mother raised noise, all the four accused persons fled away alongwith the dandas. Someone had made PCR call at 100 number on which PCR Van came and removed him to BSA Hospital, where he was medically examined. He also deposed that police reached in the hospital and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/A. He had also received stitches on his State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 5 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 head.
In his cross examination, he admitted that his brother Sachin Yadav was posted as Constable in Delhi Police. He had no knowledge as to who had made call at 100 number but explained that some public person had made the said call. He admitted that accused Sachin was residing in front of his house. The width of the gali where occurrence took place, was about 15 feet. Accused Dinesh and Rameshwar were carrying one danda each with them. He could not disclose the registration number of motorcycle driven by him. Public persons had gathered after the occurrence when his mother had raised alarm but in his presence, police had not examined any of those public persons. His brothers namely Sachin Yadav and Mahesh were not present at the time of occurrence. His mother did not accompany him to hospital as no other family member was present in the house at that time. His statement had already been recorded before arrival of his brothers in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that due to old enmity with the accused persons, they were got falsely implicated in this case at the instance of his younger brother Sachin Yadav who was working in Delhi Police.
10. PW2 Smt. Mithlesh Bala: This witness is the mother of injured i.e. PW1 Nitin Yadav. She also deposed on identical lines as deposed by PW1 Nitin Yadav.
In her cross examination, she admitted that house of accused Sachin was situated in front of her house. She had not accompanied Nitin State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 6 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 Yadav to hospital. She had no knowledge as to who had made call at 100 number. Her statement was recorded by police at her residence on the same intervening night of the incident. The width of the gali in which incident took place, was about 15 feet. She denied the suggestion that accused persons were not involved in the incident in question or that they were got falsely implicated in this case at the instance of her son Sachin who was working in Delhi Police.
POLICE WITNESSES
11. PW3 HC Navratan: He deposed that a call was received from Control Room on 24.04.2013 at about 10.48 pm regarding quarrel at Shiv Mandir Chowk, Mohalla S.P. Badli. Said information was recorded vide DD No. 63A in Roznamcha by HC Banwari Lal who was working as Duty Officer on that day. HC Raj Pal was telephonically informed about the said DD entry for necessary action. He proved copy of said DD entry as Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that on 25.04.2013, he was working as Duty Officer. He has proved factum regarding registration of FIR in question. He proved computerized copy of said FIR as Ex.PW3/B, certificate U/s 65 of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW3/C and his endorsement Ex.PW3/D made on the rukka.
In his cross examination, he deposed that it took about 60 minutes in recording the FIR through computer. He admitted that there was an overwriting appearing at point B in his endorsement Ex. PW3/D. State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 7 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 However, he explained that due to non availability of space for making the endorsement, he had to rewrite his name at the portion of over writing appearing at point B. He had made departure and arrival entry in respect of Ct. Parmesh vide DD no. 7A in the relevant roznamcha and also produced the relevant roznamcha containing said DD entry. Copy of said DD no. 7A was exhibited as Ex. PW3/DA in his cross examination. He admitted that time of departure of Ct. Parmesh was not mentioned in the said DD entry.
12. PW5 HC Raj Pal and PW6 Ct. Parmesh Kumar: These two witnesses were on emergency duty in the intervening night of 24/25.04.2013. They deposed that at about 10.50 pm after receipt of DD No. 63A in PS S.P. Badli, they both went to the place of occurrence. They further deposed that when they reached the place of incident, injured was revealed to have already been shifted to BSA Hospital by PCR Van. Thereafter, they both went to BSA Hospital, where PW5 collected MLC of injured Nitin Yadav and said injured was declared fit for statement by the concerned doctor. PW5 recorded statement (Ex.PW1/A) of said injured and on the basis of said statement and contents of MLC, PW5 prepared rukka and handed over the same to PW6 Ct. Parmesh for registration of FIR. Accordingly, PW6 got the FIR registered and handed over copy thereof to IO SI Rajesh Kumar to whom investigation was assigned.
PW6 further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO SI Rajesh went to the spot, where IO prepared site plan at the instance of mother of injured Nitin Yadav.
State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 8 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 In his cross examination conducted by ld. defence counsel, PW5 deposed that at the spot, he met 34 public persons and requested them to make statement, but they refused. He denied the suggestion that injured Nitin Yadav had not made any statement to him or that he had recorded statement of Nitin Yadav subject to his convenience. He further deposed that he had handed over rukka to Ct. Parmesh from BSA Hospital at about 2.50 am.
In his cross examination conducted by ld. defence counsel, PW6 deposed that on receipt of DD No. 63A, when he alongwith HC Raj Pal (PW5) reached the place of information, no PCR official was found present there. However, there were 2530 public persons found present at the said place at that time. PW6 further deposed that HC Raj Pal (PW5) did not record statement of any of the public persons found present at the spot. He further deposed that HC Raj Pal did not record statement of any other person except injured Nitin Yadav in BSA Hospital. He had left BSA Hospital alongwith the rukka at about 2.50 am. He had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Rajesh at about 4.25 am. He further deposed that except himself and IO SI Rajesh Kumar, no other police official had visited the spot after registration of FIR. He denied the relevant suggestions put to him on behalf of accused persons.
13. PW7 SI Jai Kumar: He is a formal witness. Further investigation of this case was marked to him on 22.06.2013. During investigation, he had attended the bail matters of accused persons. He State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 9 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 deposed that after grant of anticipatory bail, he formally arrested accused persons namely Sachin @ Satya Prakash, Rameshwar, Dinesh Pal and Mahesh Pal vide arrest memos Ex.PW7/A, Ex.PW7/B, Ex.PW7/C and Ex.PW7/D. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
14. PW8 SI Dhirendra: He is also a formal witness. Further investigation of this case was marked to him on 15.05.2013. He deposed that disclosure statements Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D were made before him by accused Dinesh, Rameshwar, Sachin @ Satya Prakash and Mahesh Pal. Said accused persons had also pointed out the place of commission of offence and he had prepared pointing out memo Ex.PW8/E at their instance. He also made efforts for recovery of dandas used in the commission of offence, but in vain. He prepared non recovery memos Ex.PW8/F and Ex.PW8/G in this regard.
Nothing material has come on record during cross examination of this witness.
15. PW9 SI Rajesh Kumar: He is also a formal witness. After registration of the present case, investigation was marked to him. He deposed that Ct. Parmesh had handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to him. Thereafter, he accompanied Ct. Parmesh to the place of occurrence, where he met mother of the complainant Nitin Yadav namely Smt. Mithlesh Bala. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW9/A at the instance of said Mithlesh State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 10 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 Bala and had also recorded her statement.
He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
16. PW10 HC Rameshwar Singh: This witness was posted as Incharge of PCR Van Libra68 on 24.04.2013. He deposed that on receipt of call at about 10.45 pm regarding quarrel and injury near Shiv Mandir, Samaypur Badli, he alongwith other staff rushed to the spot, where injured Nitin found present there. They removed said injured to BSA Hospital and handed over him to Duty Constable in the said hospital and also narrated the entire facts to the concerned operator in PCR Control Room.
In his cross examination, he deposed that they had reached the place of information within 45 minutes after receipt of information. No public person met them at the spot except injured Nitin. MEDICAL WITNESSES
17. PW4 Dr. Brajesh Narayan: This witness deposed that on 24.04.2013, patient Nitin Yadav was brought by HC Rameshwar of PCR with alleged history of physical assault. The said patient was examined by Dr. Deepak Garg under his supervision. He further deposed that on examination of Nitin Yadav, Dr. Deepak Garg had found the following injuries:
1. A lacerated wound approximately V shaped 1 cm each x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm in size was present over the left frontal region of the scalp.
State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 11 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015
2. Bruises of size 2 cm x 2 cm approximately over left side of neck.
He identified the signature of Dr. Deepak Garg at pointA on MLC Ex.PW4/A. In his cross examination, he deposed that it was quite possible to sustain such type of injury as suffered by injured Nitin Yadav mentioned in MLC Ex.PW4/A, due to falling down on the ground and such type of injury could not have been caused by sharp edged weapon. He further deposed that V shaped lacerated wound as suffered by injured Nitin Yadav, could be caused in two eventualities i.e. when a person falls down on hard object having V shape or when the object with which blow is inflicted, is having V shape. However, he volunteered that such type of injuries were also possible when repeated blows are given from different directions through blunt object.
18. PW11 Dr. Tariq Shahshad: This witness appeared to depose on behalf of Dr. Shahnawas, S.R. (Surgery). He deposed that on 24.04.2013, injured Nitin Yadav was admitted in BSA Hospital. After primary medical examination by Dr. Brajesh, said patient was referred to S.R. (Surgery) for further management and appropriate treatment. Said patient was examined by Dr. Shahnawaz vide MLC already Ex.PW4/A. This witness identified the signature of Dr. Shahnawaz on said MLC at pointB. He further deposed that Dr. Shahnawaz had opined the injury as simple in nature on the person of injured Nitin Yadav, as per review from State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 12 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 Neurosurgeon point of view, vide opinion at portion Z to Z1 on the MLC Ex.PW4/A. In his cross examination, he admitted that Dr. Shahnawaz had not examined the patient Nitin Yadav in his presence and he had no personal knowledge regarding the observations made by Dr. Shahnawaz in the MLC Ex. PW4/A. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
19. While opening the arguments, Ld Additional PP vehemently argued that both the public witnesses namely PW1 Sh. Nitin Yadav and PW2 Smt. Mithlesh have fully supported the case of prosecution on all material points. He also referred to the medical evidence in the form of testimonies of PW4 Dr. Brajesh Narayan and PW11 Dr. Tariq Shahshad, in order to bring home his point that the prosecution has been able to prove its case in view of ocular evidence in the form of testimonies of aforesaid public witnesses coupled with the medical evidence brought on record. Therefore, all the four accused persons should be convicted in this case.
20. On the other hand, Ld defence counsel vehemently argued that prosecution has failed to establish the charge levelled against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Ld defence counsel argued that the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 do not inspire confidence and should not be considered by the Court as both the said public witnesses are interested witnesses being related to each other. He submitted that a false case was got registered by the complainant (PW1) on account of previous enmity State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 13 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 between him and accused Sachin who was undisputedly residing in front of the house of the complainant. In this regard, Ld defence counsel pointed out towards the relevant portions of testimonies of PW1 and PW2, wherein they have admitted that one of their family members namely Sachin was working as Constable in Delhi Police during the relevant period. Ld. defence counsel submitted that incident is claimed to have taken place at public place and despite availability of public persons, no independent public witness has been joined during investigation or produced during trial.
21. No doubt, it has come on record in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that one of their family members was posted as Constable in Delhi Police but in the absence of any cogent evidence being brought on record from the side of accused persons either by way of cross examination of prosecution witnesses or otherwise, it does not lead to inference that false case was registered against accused persons. Except the bald suggestion given to said two public witnesses, there is nothing on record to suggest that brother of complainant who was working in Delhi Police, had any role in the registration of FIR against the accused persons. This is more so when PW1 Nitin Yadav categorically testified during cross examination that his brother Sachin who was working in Delhi Police, was not even present at the scene of crime and his statement had already been recorded by the police in hospital prior to arrival of his said brother. Said portion of his testimony has not been disputed by the accused persons. Not even a suggestion has been put to said witness that his brother was either present at the time of occurrence or was instrumental in getting the statement of State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 14 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 complainant recorded by the police in the hospital.
22. The other plea raised by Ld defence counsel that there was any previous enmity between accused Sachin and the complainant or his family members, is also not sustainable in the eyes of law. The onus to prove the said plea was undoubtedly upon the accused persons more particularly upon accused Sachin. However, the accused persons failed to prove the said defence throughout the trial. All the four accused persons more particularly accused Sachin preferred not to lead any evidence in their defence.
23. There is no force in the argument advanced on behalf of accused that PW2 Ms. Mithlesh Bala had been introduced subsequently in order to support false story propounded in the charge sheet. Ld defence counsel had argued that there is no mention of presence of said witness in the police statement ( Ex. PW1/A) made by complainant i.e. PW1 Nitin Yadav before the police. He also referred to the said statement in support of said contention. He therefore, contended that the testimony of PW2 is liable to be rejected. The careful perusal of police statement (Ex. PW1/A) of Nitin Yadav goes to show that he has disclosed therein that he alongwith his mother had been returning on motorcycle after purchasing goods from market, to their house when the incident in question had taken place. Even in her statement U/s 161 Cr.PC dt. 25.04.2015, PW2 had stated that she was sitting as pillion rider on the motorcycle being driven by her son Nitin Yadav i.e. the complainant herein. She has duly explained that she had got down from the said motorcycle prior to the commission of occurrence.
24. The next argument raised on behalf of accused persons that State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 15 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 prosecution has failed to explain as to why PW1 Nitin Yadav kept sitting in the gali till arrival of PCR Van due to which reasonable doubt is created in the story of prosecution, is also not acceptable in the eyes of law. According to the testimonies of both the public witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2, they had reached the place of occurrence at about 10.00 pm when after verbal duel, the accused persons assaulted PW1 with fist and kick blows followed by assault with dandas over his chest and head. It would have taken sometime in commission of occurrence against the said witness. It has come on record in the testimony of PW1 that his father and both brothers namely Mahesh Yadav and Sachin Yadav were not present at the house at the time of occurrence. PW1 himself was not in a position to go to the hospital on account of injuries sustained by him. In this backdrop, he had no other option but to wait for arrival of the police for removing him to the nearest hospital.
25. Ld. defence counsel tried to displace the case of prosecution by submitting that PW2 could not disclose the name of PCR caller which shows that she was not present at the spot. The said argument is considered to be devoid of any merit. It has consistently been deposed by both the public witnesses that when they had raised alarm, few public persons had collected over there while accused persons managed to flee away from there and someone amongst those public persons, had made PCR call at 100 number.
26. Ld defence counsel had also argued that PW1 could not disclose the registration number of motorcycle being driven by him just State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 16 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 prior to the alleged incident, which shows hollowness in the deposition made by him with regard to occurrence. No doubt, said witness could not disclose registration number of the said motorcycle but he had already explained in earlier part of his cross examination that the said motorcycle was belonging to his brother Mahesh Yadav. In any case, the testimony of said witness cannot be outrightly rejected or discarded by the Court merely because he could not disclose the registration number of said motorcycle.
27. Ld defence counsel also made feeble attempt to destroy the case of prosecution by arguing that weapon of offence i.e. danda allegedly used by accused in the commission of offence, has not been recovered. However, there is no merit in the said submission for the simple reason that incident in question had taken place on 24.04.2013 and the accused persons are shown to have joined the investigation for the first time on 30.05.2013 i.e. after a gap of more than one month. In this backdrop, non recovery of said danda is immaterial and same is not fatal to the case of prosecution.
28. There is no substance in the contention raised by Ld defence counsel that testimonies of PW1 and PW2 are liable to be discarded or should not be looked into by the Court as they are interested witnesses. There is also no force in the contention raised on behalf of accused that for want of any independent corroboration, testimonies of said two public witnesses are liable to be disbelieved. Firstly, it has been duly explained by both the said public witnesses that it was only after the incident had taken place, public persons had gathered at the spot on hearing the noise raised by State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 17 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 Ms. Mithlesh (PW2) but by that time, the accused persons had already fled away from the spot. Secondly, the complainant i.e. PW1 Nitin Yadav is shown to have sustained injuries on his left frontal region of scalp as well as over left side of his neck as can be noted from his MLC Ex. PW4/A proved during trial. In other words, PW1 Nitin Yadav is an injured witness in this case.
29. It is well settled law that the testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside merely because he happens to be complainant/injured himself. Instead, the law is otherwise which provides that testimony of stamped witness can be taken into consideration by the Court and same can form basis of conviction of the accused in case it inspires confidence.
30. The testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant to go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein.
31. In the recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter titled as "Mano Dutt & Anr. Vs. State of U.P" decided on 29th February, 2012, it has been held as under: State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 18 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 "xxxxx In our view, nonexamination of Nankoo, to which the accused raised the objection, would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. Normally, an injured witness would enjoy greater 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. We need not discuss more elaborately the weightage that should be attached by the Court to the testimony of an injured witness. In fact, this aspect of criminal jurisprudence is no more res integra, as has been consistently stated by this Court in uniform language.
xxxxxx"
32. In another judgment delivered in the matter titled as "Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" reported at 2010 IX AD (S.C) 615, Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "xxxxxx
28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by the Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a builtin guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.
xxxxxxx"
33. Moreover, the testimony of complainant(PW1) has been duly corroborated by PW2 Smt. Mithlesh who is an eye witness to the incident in question as she was sitting as a pillion rider on the motorcycle of the victim. State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 19 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 She has also narrated about the entire sequence of facts which led to the incident in question and also about the role played by the accused persons. She has also successfully withstood the test of cross examination and accused persons could not impeach the testimony of said witness through litmus test of cross examination.
34. Further more, PW4 Dr. Brajesh Mishra has categorically deposed during cross examination that injuries of the nature sustained by complainant/victim Sh. Nitin Yadav(PW1),were possible when repeated blows are given from different directions through blunt object.
35. All the police witnesses examined by the prosecution, have also deposed about the relevant investigation carried out in this case. They have duly corroborated each other on those points and accused persons have not been able to discredit their testimonies during their respective cross examination. Ld defence counsel pointed out that PW5 HC Raj Pal has claimed that they had met 34 public persons when he alongwith Ct. Parmesh (PW6) had reached the spot on receipt of DD no. 63A as contrary to deposition made by PW6 who claimed to have met about 2530 public persons at that time. However, the said contradiction is minor in nature, which does not go to the root of the prosecution case so as to create reasonable doubt in the prosecution story thereby entitling the accused persons to benefit thereof.
36. Even otherwise, it would be anybody's guess as to why police officials would have falsely implicated the accused persons. If the accused want this Court to believe that they have been implicated falsely, the least State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 20 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015 which was expected from them was to at least come out as to what could have been the motive for the police for their false implication and as to what was that reason for which police officials could have done so. But no such reason is even mentioned or suggested to the police witnesses. The accused cannot expect this Court to believe their version by simple bare allegation that they are falsely implicated. At least some reason should have been put forth by the accused to suggest as to what could have been motive of the police in implicating them. In the absence of this, I do not find any reason to throw out the testimonies of police witnesses.
37. In the case titled as "State Vs. Sonu Sharma & Anr."
reported at 2015 V AD (DELHI) 173, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held as under: "For the applicability of Section 34 to a coaccused, who is proved to have common intention, it is not the requirement of law that he should have actually done something to incur the criminal liability with the aid of this Section. It is now well settled that no overt act is necessary to attract the applicability of Section 34 for a coaccused who is otherwise proved to be sharing common intention with the ultimate act done by any one of the accused sharing such intention".
38. The evidence available on record speaks sufficiently about the circumstances and the manner in which offence is shown to have been committed by the accused persons. It is duly established from the testimonies of relevant eye witnesses that all the accused persons had participated during commission of offence and thus, there is no iota of doubt that all four of them were sharing common intention to commit the offence within the meaning of Section 34 IPC.
State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 21 of 22 FIR No. 198/13; U/s 308/34 IPC; PS S.P. Badli D.O.D. 20.08.2015
39. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has been successful in establishing on record that all the four accused persons namely Sachin @ Satya Prakash, Rameshwar, Dinesh Pal and Mahesh Pal had shared common intention with each other and they all in furtherance of their said common intention, caused injuries on the head and neck of complainant/victim Nitin Yadav (PW1) S/o Sh. Chetan Yadav on 24.04.13 at about 10.00 pm near House No. 53, Village Badli within the jurisdiction of PS S.P Badli. Consequently, all the said four accused persons are hereby convicted for the offence punishable U/s 308/34 IPC.
Announced in open Court today
On 20.08.2015 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts/Delhi
State Vs Sachin @ Satya Prakash etc. ("Convicted") Page 22 of 22