Delhi District Court
State vs . Anil Kumar on 17 March, 2011
1 FIR No.629/05
PS:Ambedkar Nagar
IN THE COURT OF SH. SAMAR VISHAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05,
SOUTHEAST DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Anil Kumar
FIR NO: 629/05
P. S. Ambedkar Nagar
U/s 341/323/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case and : 1034/2 (27.1.2011) Date of its institution : 17.2.2006 Name of the complainant : Sh. Ram Singh Date of Commission of offence : 26.8.2005 Name of the accused : Anil Kumar Offence complained of : Section 341/323/506 IPC Plea of accused : Not Guilty Case reserved for orders : 3.3.2011 Final Order : CONVICTED Date of Judgment : 17.3.2011 BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION: 2 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar
This is the prosecution of the accused Anil Kumar upon a charge sheet filed by the police station Ambedkar Nagar U/s 323/341/506 IPC.
The prosecution story is that on 26.8.2005 in the evening at Egg Rehri in the area of Ambedkar Nagar, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Ambedkar Nagar, accused assaulted and wrongfully restrained the complainant Sh. Ram Singh voluntarily caused simple injuries and threatened to kill the complainant Ram Singh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341/323/506 IPC.
After completing the formalities, the investigation was carried out by PS Ambedkar Nagar and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The charge was framed against the accused U/s 341/323/506 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The trial started on framing of charge and to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as six witnesses.
PW 1 is the duty officer, SI Gian Chand who has proved the FIR Ex.PW1/A upon a rukka.
PW 2 is Sh. Ram Singh, complainant who deposed that he along with his family was residing at S109, Khanpur, New Delhi and while he was eating egg at a Reri put in the corner of Shiv Park, accused identified by him in court had an altercation with the complainant. Accused also started giving him kick and fist blows. Accused was known to him as he reside in same locality. He had a grudge against him as once he had intervened in the matter between one Sardarji and the accused as Sardarji was bent upon to beat him. Incident happened at about 10.30 pm. He had sustained fracture in his chest following the said beating. However, on the next morning his son informed the police who came at the spot and took him to the hospital by the PCR Van. Thereafter he made complaint to the police in writing but police did not take any action. Complaint is Ex.PW2/A which bears his signature at 3 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar point A. Same was duly received at police station. Following the injury he felt unconscious and one public person had taken to his house. As nobody was there in the house so he could not report the matter to the police and remained in pain throughout the night. Doctor had also not mentioned his exact injury including fracture in the MLC. He had made complaint in the Court and thereafter the present FIR has been registered.
PW 3 is Ct. Satpal Singh who deposed that on 5.10.05 he along with ASI Dalip Singh went to investigation of this case to F109, School Road, Khanpur. They took complainant Ram Singh with them and reached at F2, School Road, Khanpur where accused Anil was called and he was identified by complainant. Accused was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He got medically examined and put in lock up.
PW 4 is HC Jarnail Singh who deposed that on 27.8.05, DD no.4 at PP Madangir was received and he went to 109, Khanpur Village with Ct. Sahab Singh. It was revealed that injured had been removed to the hospital by PCR. DD no.9 was received and he went to AIIMS where he obtained MLC of injured. He was not present in casualties. He came back to the spot. He was not found there. He was told at his house that the accused was taken to Police Post. Complainant Ram Singh went to PP same day and his statement was recorded and was also called to PP and he was put up in lock up u/s 107/151 Cr.PC and MLC result was not obtained.
PW 5 is Dr. Ram Karan Chaoudhary who proved the MLC of the injured as Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the signatures of the doctor who prepared the MLC. The nature of injuries opined as simple blunt.
PW 5A is ASI Dalip Singh who deposed that on 26.8.05 investigation was done by HC Jarnail Singh. On 1.10.05 investigation was marked to him and he reached at the spot and at 4 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar the instance of complainant prepared the site plan Ex.PW5/A. Statement of witnesses were recorded. On date he do not remember at the instance of complainant and was arrested from Khanpur, JJ Colony vide Ex.PW3/A and B and was sent to judicial custody. Challan was prepared and filed through SHO.
This is the overall evidence of the prosecution.
On the other hand, accused has examined DW 1 on his behalf. DW 1 is Sh. Dinesh Kumar who deposed that he was residing at the abovesaid address. On the fateful day i.e. 26.8.2005, at about 9/10 pm he along with accused Anil were eating egg on the reddy in front of his house. In the meantime, one person namely Ram Singh came from behind in drunk condition and the weary cloth of his were very dirty. Ram Singh told him that he want to eat eggs and he eaten the eggs. When the owner of the reddy asked money from him, they scuffled each other. He pacified him and dropped him in front of his house. When he along with his chacha (uncle) went to his home, he told him that he was feeling some pain on his ribbs and after dropping, he came to his home.
After the prosecution evidence was recorded, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating evidences were put to him as required by the provisions of that section wherein he explained that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Although, he preferred not to lead defence evidence.
Ld. APP for State has argued that the case against the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of the accused that the witnesses are interested witnesses and there is no ground for convicting the accused and he deserve acquittal in this case.
I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the records of the case. 5 FIR No.629/05
PS:Ambedkar Nagar Now I will appreciate the evidence in this case. As far as the witness of fact is concerned, complainant/injured is its sole witness. However he has categorically supported the prosecution story and deposed in the manner how the offence alleged has been committed by the accused. He deposed that an altercation took place between him and accused. He was acquainted with the accused and accused give him kicks and fist blows. The motive is alleged to be a some grudge harboured by accused with complainant as he had once intervened in some dispute.
Regarding the injury caused to the complainant, he has deposed that he sustained chest fracture due to the beating by accused. He deposed that following injury he felt unconscious and some public person took him to his house. Regarding the evidentiary value of the testimony of the injured and necessity of corroboration Hon;blr Gujrat High Court has observed in the case of State of Gujrat vs Bharwad Jakshibhai Nagribhai and Others 1990 CrLJ 2531 "For appreciating the evidence of the injured witnesses the Court should bear in mind that :
(1) Their presence at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted.
(2) They do not have any reason to omit the real culprits and implicate falsely the accused persons.
(3) The evidence of the injured witnesses is of great value to the prosecution and it cannot be doubted merely on some supposed natural conduct of a person during the incident or after the incident because it is difficult to imagine how a witness would act or react to a particular incident. His action depends upon number 6 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar of imponderable aspects.
(4) If there is any exaggeration in their evidence, then the exaggeration is to be discarded and not their entire evidence. (5) While appreciating their evidence the Court must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies, but must consider broad spectrum of the prosecution version. The discrepancies may be due to normal errors of perception or observation or due to lapse of memory or due to faulty or stereotype investigation. (6) It should be remembered that there is a tendency amongst the truthful witnesses also to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. In this type of situation the best course for the Court would be to discard exaggerated version or falsehood but not to discard entire version. Further, when a doubt arises in respect of certain facts stated by such witness, the proper course is to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the root of the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
Regarding his injury the medical evidence of Dr. Ram Karan Chaudhary CMO Casualty AIIMS hospital had come. The MLC is proved as Ex.PW5/A and injuries on the person of accused was opined as simple blunt. Therefore the allegation of complainant is further corroborated by the medical evidence.
The complainant was previously acquainted with the accused. They both know each other. He has deposed against the accused. Previous to this case a kalandra was also filed by police where the accused pleaded guilty.
To explain the incriminating evidence against him the accused stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He stated that complainant was drunk 7 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar on that date and he had accompanied him to drop him at his place. He has been falsely implicated due to family enmity.
Now considering this explanation, the accused has not denied his presence at the spot of incident. On the contrary he stated that he left the complainant to his house as he was drunk. But if he was there, it is not explained that how the complainant suffered injury and in case there was family enmity between them, why such philanthropy is shown by accused dropping him his place.
The accused stated that he has been falsely implicated on account of family enmity. But the contrary can also be true that due to that enmity the complainant might be beaten. It has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case of State Vs. Maharashtra Vs. Tulsi Dass Babu Ram Kamble and others 2007 AIR SC 3042 that enmity is a double edged weapon. It can be ground for false implication, but it can also be a ground for correct implication.
In the present case also the injured has deposed categorically about the alleged offence and he is a natural witness. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony.
The counsel for defence has tried to harp upon certain contradictions in the testimony of witness, some faults in the investigation and upon a previous kalandra which I do not think are material.
Like it is argued by defence counsel that complainant in his examination in chief stated that he become unconscious after the incident but in cross examination he said that he had walked away.
The kalandra was u/s 107/151 Cr.PC which was a sort of preventive action of the police. Overall there is nothing in the testimony of the complainant which can impeach his credit or compell the Court to disregard his testimony. The injured is the best witness of the 8 FIR No.629/05 PS:Ambedkar Nagar incident.
Now I come to the issue that what offence has been committed by the accused in the present case.
As far as offence under section 323 IPC is concerned, the offence is clearly proved by oral as well as medical evidence discussed above.
As far as offence under section 341 IPC is concerned, it deals with wrongful restraint. Wrongful restraint is defined in section 339 IPC which reads as under; Wrongful restraint Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
As far as the present case is concerned, the complainant was simply beaten by the accused. It is not the case that he was going in a particular direction and was prevented from proceeding in that direction. It is a case of simple hurt and no wrongful restraint is made out.
As far as the offence u/s 506 IPC is concerned, not even a single word is there in the testimony of complainant that there was any criminal intimidation on behalf of accused to the complainant, hence no offence u/s 506 IPC is made out.
Therefore, on the basis of overall consideration of evidence on record, the accused is convicted of offence u/s 323 IPC.
Announced in the open court (Samar Vishal)
on 17th March, 2011 Metropolitan Magistrate05,
South East, New Delhi