Delhi District Court
State vs Rajeev Singh & Ors. on 10 August, 2016
State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHANT CHANGOTRA,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (SOUTH) 05,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
State versus Rajeev Singh & Ors.
FIR No. 555/11
PS Mehrauli
U/s 323/324/341/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
1 Serial No. of the case : 164/1/11
2 Date of commission : 31.12.2011
3 Date of institution of the case : 02.05.2012
4 Name of complainant : Sh. Firoz Alam
5 Name of accused : (i) Rajiv Singh S/o Sh.
Gulab Singh R/o H.No.265,
Gosain Mohalla, Rajpur
Khurd, New Delhi.
(ii) Manu Kumar S/o Sh.
Jitender, Village Jaroli,
Thana Khanpur, District
Bulandsher, UP.
(iii) Yogesh S/o Sh. Gulab
Singh R/o H.No.265, Gosain
Mohalla, Rajpur Khurd, New
Delhi.
6 Offence complained of : U/s 323/324/341/34 IPC
7 Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
8 Arguments heard on : 10.08.2016
9 Final order : Convicted
FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 1 of 10
State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors
10 Date of judgment : 10.08.2016
BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION
1. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 31.12.2011 at 12.30 p.m at Picnic Hut, near Jain Dadabari Temple accused Rajiv Singh, Manu Kumar and Yogesh gave beatings to Firoz and Suresh with cricket bat. Thus, the present FIR U/s 323/341/34 IPC was registered. In the MLC of Suresh, the doctor opined that injury on the person of Suresh was simple and it was caused by a sharp object. Therefore, Section 324 IPC was also added.
2. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Copies of challan were supplied to all accused persons in compliance of section 207 of CrPC.
3. Prima facie case of commission of offence under Section 323/324/341/34 IPC was found to be made out against all the accused. Former charge was framed on 23.11.2012. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined seven witnesses. PW1 Sh. Suresh deposed that on 31.12.2011 at about 02.15 PM, he was going towards Chattarpur, Sherwali gali. As he reached Picnic Hut Park, he saw that all accused were playing FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 2 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors cricket. Some other persons were also present near them. Accused persons were not allowing them to play cricket. He also stated that the children complained to him. He knew them as they were residing in his locality. He requested accused persons to allow them to play cricket, but accused persons started abusing him. Accused Rajiv pushed him and folded his hand due to which his ring came in his palm. He requested accused Rajiv to return his ring but Rajiv caught hold of collar of his shirt. His golden chain again came in his palm. He again requested accused Rajiv to return his chain and ring. He tried to take back his golden chain and ring from Rajiv. Accused Rajiv gave a blow of bat on his face, Yogesh caught hold of his collar and Monu caught hold of him from left side. One person namely Firoz who was known to him came to the spot. He intervened but he was also beaten by accused. Rajiv gave blow of bat thrice on his head and face and he became unconscious. He regained his consciousness in AIIMS Trauma Centre. Thereafter, he was shifted to Batra hospital by his brother Bharat and other family members. After 7/8 days police recorded his statement.
5. PW2 Sh. Firoz Alam deposed that on 31.12.2011 in between 01.00 PM to 01.30 PM, he alongwith 67 persons went to the ground situated near Picnic Hut, Jain Mandir for playing cricket. As they reached the ground, they found that accused persons were playing cricket in the ground. They requested accused persons that FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 3 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors since they play cricket, therefore, they should allow them to play there, but accused persons told them that to run away. In the meantime, a person namely Suresh @ Kale who used to arrange cricket tournaments in Mehrauli came to the spot. They told Suresh that accused persons were not allowing them to play cricket. Suresh requested the accused to allow them to play cricket in the ground but the accused persons started abusing Suresh. In the meanwhile, Rajiv gave a blow of bat on the face of Suresh due to which he fell down on the surface. Then again Rajiv gave two blows of bat to Suresh. Yogesh gave kick blow to Suresh. They became afraid and tried to run away from the spot. Accused Manu started throwing bat upon them. The witness sustained injury on his left leg due to fall when he tried to run away. They raised alarm for help. Public persons came to the spot but accused persons ran away towards jungle while their motorcycles remained at the spot. Someone called at 100 number and police reached at the spot. Suresh was admitted in the hospital by PCR Van. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW2/A. Police prepared arrest memos Ex. PW2/B to PW2/D of accused. Motorcycle bearing registration No. DL 3SBT 6517 was seized by the police vide memo Ex.PW2/E.
6. PW3 HC Mala Ram proved the FIR Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka Ex. PW3/B.
7. PW4 HC Ram Swaroop deposed that on 31.12.2011, he FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 4 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors received information regarding quarrel having taken place near picnic spot in Jain Dadabari, Mehrauli. He went to the spot and met two injured persons. Both injured were got admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre. Thereafter, he went to the spot and met IO SI Lal Singh.
8. PW5 ASI Gurusharan and PW7 SI Lal Singh deposed that on 31.12.2011, on receiving of DD No. 18B they reached at the spot i.e. picnic hut, Mehrauli, near Jain Dadabari. They came to know that the quarrel had taken place on the point of playing of cricket and injured had already been shifted to AIIMS Trauma Centre by PCR. They went to AIIMS Trauma Centre and met injured persons namely Suresh and Firoz. IO SI Lal Singh moved an application for recording the statement of injured persons to the concerned doctor. Injured Suresh was declared unfit for statement but injured Firoz was declared fit for statement. They proved statement of Firoz Ex.PW2/A. IO SI Lal Singh prepared a tehrir Ex.PW7/A and handed it over to Ct. Gursharan for getting FIR registered. Injured Firoz came back to the spot and IO SI Lal Singh prepared site plan Ex. PW7/B. They proved arrest memos Ex. PW2/B to PW2/D of all accused.
9. PW6 Dr. Amit Singla deposed that on 31.12.2011, injured persons namely Suresh and Firoz were admitted in AIIMS Trauma Centre. They were examined by Dr. Mohd. Shahid Akhtar.
FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 5 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors
Dr. Mohd. Shahid Akhtar prepared MLC No. 291163 & 291164 vide Ex. PW6/A & PW6/B. The doctor opined the nature of injury on MLC No. 291163 as simple and caused by sharp weapon and on MLC No. 291164 as simple and caused by blunt object.
10. All accused admitted MLC No. 291163 and 291164 which are Ex. PW6/A and PW6/B.
11. PE was closed on 25.08.2015. Statement of all accused under Section 313 r/w 281 Cr.PC were recorded on 15.07.2016. All the accused opted not to lead defence evidence.
12. I have heard the arguments of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. defence counsel. I have also gone through the evidence on record very carefully.
13. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2011, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention gave beatings to Suresh @ Kale and Firoz Alam. The case of the prosecution is based on the depositions of PW 1 Suresh and PW 2 Firoz Alam. Both these witnesses have categorically deposed that on 31.12.2011, all the accused persons were present in the ground. Some alternation took place between them. Then accused Rajeev gave blows of cricket bat on the face of Suresh.
14. PW1 Suresh also stated that accused Yogesh had caught hold of his collar and accused Monu had caught hold of him from left side. The other witness i.e PW 2 Firoz Alam deposed that FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 6 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors accused Yogesh gave kick blows to Suresh and accused Monu started throwing bat upon them. Although there is slight contradiction in the depositions of both the witnesses qua the roles played by accused Yogesh and Monu, however, the said contradictions are minor. It has to be kept in mind that both the witnesses were examined after a gap of 2/3 years. In Prakash Kumar @ Pakka versus State CRL.A. 1433/2010, Hon'ble High Court reiterated principles laid down in Gore Lal vs. State 2010 III AD (Delhi) 34, and observed the principles which are to be followed while evaluating evidence of eye witnesses: Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentence torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigation officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole.
Too serious a view to be adopted on minor variation falling in the narration of an incident (either as between the evidence of two witnesses or as between two statements of the same witness) is an unrealistic for judicial scrutiny.
By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of the incident, details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 7 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors mental screen.
Thus, such minor contradictions as mentioned above are natural and they do not make the testimonies of the witnesses doubtful.
15. In the complaint Ex.PW2/A, complainant Suresh had stated that all accused gave a blow of cricket bat on his ankle. However, in his cross examination, he stated that he did not sustain any injury from beatings given by accused persons. He further stated that he informed the police that he had sustained injury when he was trying to run away from the spot and had fallen down. However, the said fact does not make the deposition of PW 2 Firoz doubtful in totality. It is settled proposition of law that legal principle "Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus" is not applicable in India. It is the duty of the court to separate grain from a chaff. The complete reading of depositions of PW1 Suresh and PW2 Firoz have ring of truth around them.
16. Morever, accused Rajeev and Yogesh in their statements recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C stated that all three of them were present at the spot. Thus, the accused persons also admitted their presence at the spot.
17. The prosecution was under obligation to establish that accused had caused simple injuries with sharp object as well as with blunt object. The prosecution has brought on record the MLC of FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 8 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors Suresh i.e. Ex. PW 6/A and MLC of Firoz Alam Ex.PW6/B. As per MLC, the injuries to PW1 Suresh were as follows:
(i) Incised wound (over right parietal region on scalp); &
(ii) Abrasion (over nose and middle of forehead).
18. The doctor had also opined that the injury was caused with sharp object. However, it is not the case of the prosecution that any of the accused had used any sharp object to cause injuries to PW1 Suresh. The case of the prosecution is that accused Rajeev had given blows of cricket bat on the face of Suresh and other two accused had assisted him. Thus, there is no evidence as to who used sharp object for causing injury to Suresh. Therefore, it has to be concluded that prosecution has failed to establish that any of the accused had committed offence u/s 324 IPC.
19. The MLC of PW1 Suresh Ex.PW6/A shows that he had received simple injuries with blunt object which landed on his nose and middle of forehead. The said medical evidence corroborates the depositions of PW1 Suresh and PW2 Firoz qua injuries caused to Suresh.
20. Prosecution witnesses have further deposed that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention had prevented complainant/PW1 Suresh from moving.
21. Hence, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has successfully established its case that all accused had caused simple FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 9 of 10 State v. Rajeev Singh & Ors injuries with blunt object to PW1 Suresh. Accordingly, all the accused persons are convicted for offences punishable u/s 323/341/34 IPC.
22. Let all the accused be heard on quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open (SUSHANT CHANGOTRA)
court on 10.08.2016 MM5 (South), Saket Courts
New Delhi
FIR No. 555/11 PS: Mehrauli 10 of 10