Delhi District Court
State vs . : Sadab @ Kachha on 17 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU AGGARWAL:
MM04: SE: SAKET COURTS : NEW DELHI
State Vs. : Sadab @ Kachha
FIR No : 82/13
U/s : 326 IPC
PS : Govind Puri
J U D G M E N T
A. Sl. no. of the case 137/2
B. Offence complained of
or proved U/s 326 IPC
C. Date of Offence 05.02.2013
D. Name of the complainant Mohd Harun
E. Name of the accused Sadab @ Kachha
S/o Shri Akhlaq
R/o B526, Gali No. 24,
Tuglakabad Extension,
New Delhi.
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty.
G. Final order Convicted.
H. Date of Order 17.10.2014.
Brief reasons for decision:
1. The case of the complainant is that on 05.02.2013, DD No. 74B was received regarding admission of complainant, Mohd Harun in AIIMS Hospital, New Delhi. Police reached at the hospital and doctor FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 1 of 8 opined that right hand's little finger of injured has been amputated. Thereafter, statement of complainant Mohd Harun was recorded who informed the police that on 05.07.2013 at about 04.30 PM, accused Sadab had cut little finger of his right hand with his teeth. On the said complaint, present FIR No. 82/13 was registered at PS Govindpuri.
2. The investigation was carried out and after completion of investigation chargesheet was put before the court. The copy of chargesheet was supplied to the accused and charge under section 326 IPC was framed against him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. The Prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case. PW1, Md Harun (complainant in the present case who has deposed about incident); PW2, Md Mukhtiyar (son of complainant); PW3, Ali Raza @ Sonu (son of complainant); PW4, SI Jamil Ahmed (duty officer who has deposed as regard to the registration of FIR); PW5, Ct. Udarybir (part of investigation team); PW6, Ct. Pradeep Kumar (who has proved DD No. 74); PW7, Raju (public witness); PW8, SI Deshraj (IO of case) and PW9, Dr Maghavendra Kumar (who FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 2 of 8 has proved MLC No. 351460). Thereafter, PE was closed.
4. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has stated that he was friend of Sonu and was removed from Dhaba. Sonu S/o complainant used to come to visit him. He has stated that he has not cut the finger of the injured and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. No witness was examined by him.
5. I have heard arguments of Ld. APP for State and learned defence counsel.
6. Learned APP of State has argued that all the witnesses have fully supported the case of the Prosecution. Injured has fully supported the case of the Prosecution and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of any witness. Learned APP for State has further argued that accused deserve to be convicted in the present case. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has argued that it is clear from the statement of the doctor that whether finger of the injured was bitten by human or by any animal cannot be ascertained. He has stated that accused has been falsely implicated and there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses and accused should FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 3 of 8 be acquitted.
7. Let's examine the testimony of complainant, Mohd Harun. PW1, Md. Harun has deposed that in the month of February, 2013 at about 4.15/4.30 PM, his son, Ali Raza @ Sonu was sitting in his dhaba at 517, Gali No. 25, Tughlakabad Extension, New Delhi and when he returned after his namaz at about 04.15/04.20 PM and went to his kitchen which was in front of his dhaba, he found that accused Sadab @ Kachha was pushing his son. He immediately rushed towards them and asked the accused as to why he is shouting on his son. In the meantime, accused took his right hand's little finger in his mouth and bitten it with his teeth. Finger of complainant remained in the mouth of accused, which he spat on the floor. His neighbor picked up his finger and gave it to him. Thereafter, his son took him to the hospital and in the hospital he showed his finger to the doctor but doctor informed him that the finger is dead and it cannot be again put at the same place. He made complaint to the police and present case was registered. Therefore, PW1, Md. Harun has given detailed version of the incident. He has deposed how the incident took place and under what FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 4 of 8 circumstances accused amputated his finger by bitting it with his teeth. There is nothing in the crossexamination of injured, Md. Harun which could raise any doubt on his testimony. His testimony is fully supporting the case of the Prosecution. Even in the crossexamination, nothing has come on record, which could raise any doubt on the testimony of PW1 Md. Harun. Though accused has taken defence that he had not cut the right hand's little finger of Md. Harun but no witness has been examined by him in his defence. In fact, accused himself has stated that he was removed from the dhaba by the injured which shows motive for the commission of the offence. Though, a suggestion is given to PW1 that his finger was cut by a knife but he has negated the same. No evidence has been lead by the accused to show that finger was not cut by him. Learned defence counsel has argued that accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant as complainant was against the friendship of accused with his son. I do not find any merits in the submission of learned counsel. It is highly impossible that to implicate the accused in the false case, complainant would amputate his finger altogether. It is clear from the testimony of complainant that he has lost his right hand's FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 5 of 8 little finger forever as finger became dead.
8. PW2, Md. Mukhtiyar who is son of injured Md. Harun has deposed that at about 04.30 PM, he heard noises coming from ground floor and then he went to ground floor and saw that little finger of right hand of his father had been cut and was separated from his hand. He took his father to Safdarjung Hospital. It is clear from the testimony of PW2 that he was not an eye witness to the accident. However, he reached at the spot soon after the incident and he saw his father's finger cut. He has supported the case of Prosecution.
9. Another public witness Raju, in this case, has been examined as PW7. He has deposed that on 05.02.2013 at about 04.30/05.00 PM, he was present in his shop and he heard noise and came out of his shop. He saw accused in front of his shop and one finger was in the mouth of accused which belonged to Md. Harun who was running dhaba in front of his shop. He handed over the said finger after lifting it from the ground to the elder son of Md. Harun. Testimony of PW7, Raju is fully supporting the case of Prosecution. There is no reason for witness Raju to falsely implicate accused in the present case. PW7, Raju is neighbor FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 6 of 8 of injured Md. Harun. His testimony fully corroborates the testimony of PW1, Md. Harun. PW1, Md. Harun has deposed that one of his neighbor picked up his finger given it to him. PW7, Raju is neighbor of injured and he has deposed that he is the one who saw finger of injured in the mouth of accused. He was the one who picked up the finger from the ground and handed over to elder son of Md. Harun. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW7.
10. Dr. Maghavendra Kumar, JPNA Trauma Center, AIIMS, New Delhi has been examined as PW9 and he has deposed that he prepared MLC No. 351460 of injured Mohd. Harun. He has deposed that the injured had suffered fracture of middle phalanx of his right little finger and there was an amputation of his distal phalanx of right little finger and the injury was grievous in nature.
11. Learned defence counsel has argued that it is clear from the crossexamination of PW9, Dr Maghavendra Kumar that he cannot tell whether the amputation of right little finger was due to human bite or animal bite and therefore it cannot be said that it was the accused who had cut the finger of injured by biting it. I do not agree with the FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 7 of 8 submission of the learned defence counsel. PW9, Dr Maghavendra Kumar is not a forensic expert. He has clearly stated that right little finger of the injured was amputated. Defence has not produced any witness to support argument that it was not a human bite that cut the finger of the injured. It is also clear from the testimonies of other witnesses that it was accused who had cut the finger of Md. Harun by biting it. There is no reason to doubt MLC No. 351460 of injured. No benefit be given to the accused merely because doctor deposed that it cannot be ascertained whether it is human bite or animal bite that caused amputation of finger.
12. Testimonies of PW1, Md. Harun; PW7, Raju and PW9, Dr. Maghavendra Kumar proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had cut the little finger of right hand of injured by biting it. Accordingly, accused Sadab @ Kachha stands convicted for an offence under Section 326 IPC.
Announced in open Court (Anu Aggarwal)
Dated 17.10.2014 MM04/ SE/ Saket Courts/
New Delhi
FIR No. 82/13, PS Govindpuri Page 8 of 8