Delhi District Court
State vs . Hasruddin @ Tedha on 21 June, 2012
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NAVITA KUMARI BAGHA: MM, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. HASRUDDIN @ TEDHA
FIR No. : 277/08
P.S. : TILAK MARG
U/Sec. : 324/186/353 IPC
JUDGMENT :
1. Srl. No. of the case & Date of institution : 2A/2 & 03.11.2008
2. Date of commission of offence : 03.09.2008
3. Name of the complainant : State through A.S.I. Desh Raj
4. Name of the accused : Hasruddin @ Tedha S/o Sh.Allauddin R/o AII/275, Madangir, Delhi
5. Nature of offence complained of : U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC
6. Plea of the accused person : Accused pleaded not guilty
7. Final Order : Convicted
8. Date of such order : 21.06.2012 BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE CASE:
1. In brief the accused Hasruddin is facing trial for offences U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC on the allegations that on 03.09.2008 at 4.00 p.m. at Court No.5, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, he voluntarily caused simple and sharp injuries by means of blade to A.S.I. Desh Raj and voluntarily caused obstruction to A.S.I. Desh Raj who was a public servant, in discharge of his public duties and he further caused hurt to A.S.I. Desh Raj, a public servant to deter him in the execution of his duties as such public servant and committed offences punishable U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC.
State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 2
2. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed. After supplying the copies to accused persons U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and after consideration of the entire material, the Ld. Predecessor Court vide order dated 12.02.2009 held that prima facie a case U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC was made out against the accused and accordingly charge was framed against him U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The prosecution had cited 13 witnesses and all the witnesses were examined.
4. Statement of accused was recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. on 23.07.2011 in which he denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded innocence. He said that no such injury was inflicted by him. However, he opted for not leading any evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard the final arguments from Ld. APP Sh. Honey Goel for the state and Ld. Legal Aid Counsel Sh. Piyush Aggarwal for the accused and perused the entire record.
6. Let us first examine the evidence led by the prosecution. The first witness of the prosecution i.e. PW1 is A.S.I. Deshraj who deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day he was I.O. of case FIR No. 383/08 U/Sec. 356/379/411 IPC, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and in that case he had arrested accused Hasruddin @ Teda and brought him to the Court of Sh. Gautam Manan, MM, Patiala House Court, for his production after arrest in the custody of Ct. Padam Chand and in the supervision of Ct. Rajender and Ct. Sanjay. He further deposed that at about 4 p.m., after the hearing, while they were taking the accused to the lockup, the accused, by taking advantage of the State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 3 rush in the court, suddenly picked up one blade from the table in the Court room and stabbed him twice at his left cheek with the blade and also threatened to kill him and thereafter he stabbed himself also in his abdomen and at his head with the same blade. He further deposed that the accused was overpowered by the constables accompanying him and two pieces of blade were recovered from his hand. He further deposed that he informed the police control room and after some time S.I. Rajender Singh alongwith H.Ct Deepak came to the spot and he handed over the accused alongwith recovered pieces of blade to him which were taken into possession by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and were kept in a match box by making its cloth pullanda and sealing the same with the seal of RS. He further deposed that he was shifted to RML hospital in CATS ambulance where he was medically examined by doctors. He further deposed that the accused was also brought to RML hospital by the police. He further deposed that S.I. Rajender Singh recorded his statement Ex.PW1/B and prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/C at his instance. The witness was shown the case property i.e. two pieces of shaving blade, brought by the MHC(M) in sealed pullanda which he correctly identified. The witness also correctly identified the accused in the Court. Though the opportunity was given to accused for crossexamination of this witness but no cross examination of this witness was conducted by or on behalf of the accused.
7. PW2 is Ct. Rajinder Prasad who deposed that on 03.02.2008 he was posted at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar as Constable and on that day he alongwith A.S.I. Deshraj and accused Hasruddin @ Tedha appeared before the Court of Ld. MM Sh. Gautam Manan, after the arrest of accused in the custody of Ct. Padam Chand, Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Sanjay for seeking judicial custody remand of the accused and at about 4.00 p.m. after the hearing when they were taking the accused to State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 4 the lockup, suddenly the accused picked up one blade from the table of the Court room and attacked twice A.S.I. Desh Raj on his left cheek. He further deposed that the accused also stabbed himself at his head and in his abdomen with the same blade and also threatened to kill A.S.I. Desh Raj. He further deposed that the accused was immediately overpowered by him and other police officials and two pieces of blade were taken from his hand and were handed over to the A.S.I. Desh Raj. This witness also correctly identified the accused. This witness was also not crossexamined thought the opportunity for the same was given.
8. PW3 is Raj Kumar, Record Clerk from RML hospital who deposed that Dr. Mayank Nautiyal had examined the injured Desh Raj and made endorsement regarding the nature of injury as 'simple' on the MLC Ex.PW3/A. He further deposed that he could identify the handwriting and signature of Dr. Mayank Nautiyal as he had seen him writing and signing in his routine official work and accordingly, he identified the signatures of Dr. Mayank Nautiyal at point A on MLC Ex.PW3/A.
9. PW4 is S.I. Ramesh Chander, who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Duty Officer at P.S. Tilak Marg from 4.00 p.m. to 12 night and on that day, on receipt of rukka sent by S.I. Rajinder Singh through H.Ct. Deepak, he recorded the FIR Ex.PW4/A and made endorsement on the rukka which is Ex.PW4/B.
10. PW5 is H.Ct. Padam Singh who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day he alongwith Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Sanjay, under the supervision of A.S.I. Deshraj, took the accused Hasruddin @ Tedda to Court No.5, Patiala House Court for producing the State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 5 accused before the Court of Ld. MM for seeking judicial custody as he was arrested on 02.09.2008 in case FIR No.383/2008. He further deposed that after the hearing, when the accused was being taken outside the Court room at about 4.00 p.m., the accused suddenly took a blade from the table of Court room and attacked A.S.I. Desh Raj with blade twice on his left cheek and also threatened to kill A.S.I. Desh Raj. He further deposed that the accused also caused injury to himself on his stomach and his head with the help of the blade. He further deposed that the accused was immediately overpowered by him, Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Sanjay and they recovered two pieces of blade and handed over the same to A.S.I. Desh Raj. He further deposed that I.O. reached the spot and A.S.I. Desh Raj handed over both the pieces of blade and the accused to the I.O. and they took the accused to RML Hospital for his medical examination, from where he was taken to P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. This witness also correctly identified the accused. This witness was also not crossexamined though the opportunity for the same was given.
11. PW6 is Ct. Sanjay who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day he alongwith Ct. Rajinder and Ct. Padam took the accused Hasruddin @ Tedda under the supervision of A.S.I. Desh Raj to the Court room No.5, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for seeking judicial remand as he was arrested on 02.09.2008 by A.S.I. Desh Raj. He further deposed that when, after appearance, the accused was being taken out of the Court, he took a blade lying on the table of the Court and attacked with the same on A.S.I. Desh Raj on his left cheek. He further deposed that the accused also stabbed himself in his abdomen and in his head with the same blade. He further deposed that he, with the help of Ct. Rajinder, overpowered the accused and took the blade from him. He further deposed that police was State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 6 called on 100 number and I.O. came from P.S. Tilak Marg and thereafter the accused Hasruddin was taken to the hospital and after his medical examination, he was taken to the P.S. Ambedkar Nagar. This witness also correctly identified the accused. This witness was also not crossexamined though the opportunity for the same was given.
12. PW7 is H.Ct. Deepak Kumar who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he received DD No.28A regarding the accused having attacked one I.O. and himself with the blade and he alongwith I.O/S.I. Rajinder Singh went to Court room no.5, Patiala House Court where they were informed that all the injured persons were taken to RML Hospital by CAT Ambulance and thereupon he alongwith I.O./S.I. Rajinder Singh went to RML Hospital. He further deposed that in the hospital they met A.S.I. Desh Raj who handed over them two pieces of blade which were used in the attack by the accused Hasruddin @ Tedda and both the pieces of blade were kept in a matchbox and same was converted into a pullanda and was sealed with the seal of RS. He further deposed that there was one impression "NLESS" on one piece of blade and on the other piece the impression was of "Z". He further deposed that the pieces of blade were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. He further deposed that I.O. recorded the statement of A.S.I. Desh Raj which is Ex.PW1/B and converted the same into rukka and handed over the same to him for the registration of the case. He further deposed that he got the case registered at P.S. Tilak Marg and thereafter went back to the hospital and handed over the original rukka and the copy of FIR to S.I. Rajinder Singh.
13. PW8 is H.Ct. Wazir Singh who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he was Duty Officer from State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 7 08.00 a.m. to 05.00 p.m. and on receipt of a call from PCR Headquarter regarding infliction of injury to I.O. and upon himself by a blade by one under trial from P.S. Ambedkar Nagar in front of Gate no.5 of Patiala House Court, he recorded DD entry No. 28A which is Ex.PW8/A.
14. PW9 is A.S.I. Ramvir Singh who deposed that on 02.09.2008 he was posted as Head Constable at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar and on that day he was a Duty Officer at P.S. Ambedkar Nagar from 04.00 p.m. to 12.00 a.m. and that at about 09.45 p.m. Ct. Robinder brought Rukka sent by A.S.I. Deshraj and he got the FIR No.383/08 i.e. Ex.PW9/A registered against accused Hasruddin on the basis of said Rukka.
15. PW10 is H.Ct. Banwari Lal who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Naib Court in the Court of Sh. Gautam Manan, the then Ld. M.M. at Room No. 5, Patiala House Court and on that day at about 04.00 p.m. A.S.I. Deshraj produced the accused Hasruddin before the Court in FIR No.383/08, U/Sec. 379/356/411 IPC, P.S. Ambedkar Nagar for J.C. remand. He further deposed that after getting the J.C. Remand order, when A.S.I. Deshraj took the accused out of the Court, the accused Hasruddin inflicted injury on the left cheek of A.S.I. Deshraj with the blade and thereafter the accused Hasruddin also made bruises on his neck with the blade. He further deposed that at that time Ct. Sanjay, Ct. Rajender and Ct. Padam Singh were also present there and they apprehended the accused and took the blade from the accused.
16. PW11 is Ajab Singh, Assistant Ambulance Officer from CATS who deposed that on 03.09.2008, he was posted as Incharge of CAT Alfa13 and upon receiving information from their control room regarding an incident in Patiala State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 8 House Court, he alongwith his staff and CAT Ambulance reached at Patiala House Court at about 4.305.00 p.m. and met A.S.I. Deshraj who was bleeding from his cheek. He further deposed that he got to know that A.S.I. Deshraj was being attacked by a surgical blade and they took the injured to RML Hospital.
17. PW12 is Ct. Pravesh who deposed that on 04.09.2008 he was posted as Constable at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day he accompanied S.I. Rajinder Singh and accused Hasruddin was arrested at Patiala House Courts vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B.
18. PW13 is S.I. Rajinder Singh who deposed that on 03.09.2008 he was posted as Sub Inspector at P.S. Tilak Marg and on that day on receipt of DD No.28A, he alongwith H.Ct. Deepak reached at Patiala House Court Room No.5 where he recorded the statement of A.S.I. Desh Raj and made endorsement Ex.PW13/A and got registered the case FIR No.277/08. He further deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW1/C and he seized two pieces of blade vide memo Ex.PW1/B and sealed the said blade in a pullanda with the seal of RS and on 04.09.2008 accused Hasruddin was arrested vide memo Ex.PW12/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW12/B. This witness also correctly identified the case property and accused. Despite grant of opportunity this witness was also not crossexamined.
19. Ld. APP has argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused and he be punished U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC. But the counsel for the accused has argued that the accused Hasruddin is falsely implicated in this case and the recovery has been planted upon him. He has argued that the State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 9 prosecution has failed to prove its case as none of the independent/public person was made witness by the police though it is admitted fact that many public persons including the Court staff members were present at the time of the incident. But it is settled law that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away merely on the ground that the public witnesses are not examined. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appabhai Vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1988 SC 696, "It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable."
It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ambika Prasad Vs. State, AIR 2000 SC 718 that the independent witnesses generally do not come forward to depose as they are reluctant to be witnesses because of threat to their safety and delay in Courts and the prosecution cannot be blamed if independent persons are not willing to cooperate with the investigation and it is no ground to reject evidence of other witnesses. Similarly in the present case also the prosecution's case could not be thrown away merely because the public witnesses were not examined. The testimony of PWs could not be discarded merely because they themselves are the police officials. It has been held in Thakur Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1996 (1) RCR (Criminal) 713, State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 10 "It has been pointed out from time to time that the testimony of the official witnesses has not to be rejected as a matter of rule merely on the ground of their official status and if it is found that the police officials had no hostility towards the culprit, the Court may be perfectly justified in accepting their testimony. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police officer as all other persons."
Thus the testimony of police officials is as trustworthy as any other witness if it is otherwise credible and unimpeachable. It would not lose value merely because none of the public persons were made witnesses. The testimony of all the PWs in the present case is throughout consistent and corroborative. The eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW10 have consistently deposed that the accused had attacked A.S.I. Desh Raj on his left cheek with the blade. The accused himself has not led any evidence to the contrary. He has simply stated in his statement recorded U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. that he had not inflicted any injury. But he has neither alleged nor proved any previous enmity with the complainant or other police officials and thus there is absence of any motive on the part of complainant to falsely implicate the accused. So in the absence of any hostility of police officials towards the accused, there is no ground for not relying upon the testimony of PWs.
20. The counsel for the accused has further argued that the PW7 had deposed that two pieces of blade were handed over to I.O. in hospital but as per PW1/complainant it was handed over on the spot and thus there is contradiction between the testimony of both the witnesses. But this Court is of considered opinion that this contradiction is not such a material contradiction which could be fatal for the case of the prosecution, especially when all the witnesses have corroborated each other on the material particulars of the case. State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 11 The next contention of the Ld. Counsel for accused that PW11 has stated that the blade was surgical and it has not been proved that the surgical blade was distributed in stationery to the Court staff, is also not tenable because the evidence of PW11 on this point is just hearsay evidence as he has categorically stated that he had reached the spot after the incident and came to know from others that the accused had attacked A.S.I. Desh Raj with surgical blade. The testimonies of eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW10 are throughout consistent, coherent and corroborative. They have categorically deposed that the accused had inflicted injuries on the left cheek of complainant/injured A.S.I. Desh Raj with the blade which was later on recovered from him and handed over to the I.O. All these witnesses have correctly identified the case property i.e. the two pieces of blade as well as the accused. Though the opportunity was given for crossexamination of all these witnesses but none of them except PW10 were crossexamined by and on behalf of accused. But even during the crossexamination of PW10 he remained firm on his version stated in his examinationinchief. It is settled law that if the opposite party fails to crossexamine the witness on a certain point, then the said party is deemed to have accepted the same as true. It is held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3652, "It is a rule of essential justice that whenever opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his case in crossexamination, it must follow that evidence tendered on that issue ought to be accepted."
It is also held by Hon. High Court of Delhi in Satyendra Kumar Sharma Vs. Jitender Kudsia, 2005 DLT 498, State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg 12 "Sec.137 & 138 of Evidence Act - Crossexamination - If a witness is not crossexamined on a particular point, the opposite party must be deemed to have accepted truth of the statement."
Since the accused has failed to crossexamine the witnesses PW1, PW2, PW5 and PW6, so in view of the abovesaid caselaws their version is deemed to be admitted by him. The accused himself has failed to lead any evidence in his defence. As the testimonies of all the witnesses are coherent, consistent, credible, truthful and trustworthy and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimonies, so from the testimonies of material/eyewitnesses i.e. PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6 and PW10, it has stood proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Hasruddin had inflicted injuries with blade on the left cheek of A.S.I. Desh Raj and also threatened to kill him when A.S.I. Desh Raj was discharging his official duty i.e. when he was taking the accused out of the Court after producing him before the then Ld. MM and taking him to the judicial lockup as the accused was sent to J.C. by the Ld. Court. Thus apart from inflicting injury with blade on A.S.I. Desh Raj, the accused had obstructed him in discharge of his public function and further assaulted and used criminal force to deter ASI Desh Raj, a public servant from discharging his duty and thus committed offence U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC U/Sec.353 IPC. Hence the accused is convicted U/Sec.324/386/353 IPC.
(Announced in open
Court on 21.06.2012) (Navita Kumari)
MM, New Delhi.
State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha
FIR No.277/08
P.S. Tilak Marg
13
FIR No. 277/08
U/Sec. 324/186/353 IPC
P.S. Tilak Marg
21.06.2012
Present: Substitute APP for State.
Accused Hasruddin is produced from J.C.
Vide separate judgment the accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/Sec.324/186/353 IPC.
Heard on the point of sentence.
Ld. Substitute APP has prayed for maximum punishment to the convict. The convict, on the other hand has prayed for lenient view by stating that he has already undergone imprisonment for 2 years and 3 months and further that he is the sole bread earner of his family and having responsibility of old ailing parents, wife and one minor child. So, in view of these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone by him.
File be consigned to Record Room. Copy of order and judgment be given to convict free of cost immediately.
(Navita Kumari) MM/ND/21.06.12 State Vs. Hasruddin @ Tedha FIR No.277/08 P.S. Tilak Marg