Delhi District Court
State vs . Narender Etc. on 30 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRAYANK NAYAK, MM02, KARKARDOOMA
COURTS/SHAHDARA, DELHI.
State Vs. Narender etc.
FIR No. 107/12
PS: Harsh Vihar
U/S: 324/451/34 IPC
ID number of the case : 83229/16
Date of commission of offence : 11.10.2012
Date of institution of the case : 18.05.2013
Name of the complainant : Sh. Rinku, S/o Sh. Palu Ram.
Name of accused and address : 1) Narender, S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
2) David, S/o Sh. Dalip Singh
3) Arun, S/o Sh. Dalip
All R/o H.No. 271, Rana Chopal Village,
Saboli, Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 324/451/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Convicted
Date of judgment : 30.08.2019
State Vs. Narender etc. 1
JUDGMENT
1 All the three accused persons are alleged to have committed house trespass to commit an offence and causing injury to one Palu Ram and Rinku with sharp weapon in furtherance of their common intention. The alleged incident is said to have taken place on 11.10.2012 around 6.30PM at the terrace of H.No.273, Rana Chaupal, Saboli Village, Delhi. They stand charged for offence punishable under 324/451/34 IPC.
2 Ld. APP for the State has argued that the evidence of PW1 & PW2 conclusively proves the commission of alleged offences by the accused persons and prays for the conviction. He has also submitted that MLC has been admitted by the accused persons which also establishes the injuries on the complainant.
3 Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there are various discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution and hence benefit of doubt should be given to the accused persons. He has submitted that no weapon of offence was recovered and hence offence does not stand proved. He has further stated that the prosecution witnesses have not given their statement immediately to the State Vs. Narender etc. 2 police and hence they cannot relied upon.
4 Both the victims/injured have been examined as PW1 & PW2 respectively.
Both of them have deposed that the accused persons had caused injury to them with some object and they incurred injuries. The MLC of the victims dated 11.10.2012 have been admitted by the accused persons.
5 It is to be noted that PW1 & PW2 are injured witness and have supported the case of the prosecution. It is settled position of law that testimony of injured witness has to be accorded special status. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Harender Singh vs. State of Delhi, in CRL.A.25/2004, where it was held as below: "In the case of Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 the Apex Court relying on its earlier judgments reiterated that special evidentiary status should be accorded to an injured witness. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced as under: "28. Darshan Singh (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tubewell. In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. State of Karnataka, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 235, this Court has held that 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, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 29. In State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand, (2004) 7 SCC 629, a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped State Vs. Narender etc. 3 witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In CRL.A.25/2004 Page 9 of 23 case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy crossexamination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of Darshan Singh (PW4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below." 22. A similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh,(2010) 10 SCC 259, whereby the Apex Court discussed the evidentiary value of the testimony of an injured witness in the following words: "26. 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 this 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". 28. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that 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 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."
6 Applying the legal position as stated above and considering the fact that MLC was prepared without any delay on the day of incident itself and the police was also informed on the same day, this court finds no ground to reject the testimony of PW1 & PW2 insofar as allegation of causing hurt to him are concerned.
State Vs. Narender etc. 4 7 Merely because weapon of offence was not recovered, does not disprove the case of the prosecution. The minor discrepancies in their testimony does not cast suspicion over the prosecution version. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled Rajender Singh @ Raju Mental vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 2 April, 2018, wherein it was held "19. Before proceeding to discuss the occular evidence of PWs 2 and 4, the legal position in that regard may be recapitulated in brief. The settled legal position is that the Court must attempt, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, separate the truth from falsehood and not reject an eye witness testimony entirely only because there are some embellishments. In Ugar Ahir v. State of Bihar AIR 1965 SC 277, the Supreme Court explained the legal position as under:
"The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice. Hardly one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is, therefore, the duty of the court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of the felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest."
20. Further as explained in State v. Saravanan AIR 2009 SC 152, the Court can overlook "minor discrepancies on trivial matters" which do not affect "the core of the prosecution case". In State of U.P. v. Krishna Master AIR 2010 SC 3071 the Supreme Court emphasised that that "it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from the truth, in sifting the evidence". 8 Having found the testimony of PW1 & PW2 reliable, it stands proved that the State Vs. Narender etc. 5 accused persons have committed offence punishable u/s 324/451/34 IPC. As a result accused persons namely Narender, David and Surender stands convicted for offence punishable U/s 324/451/34 IPC. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convicts.
This judgment contains 06 pages & each page bears my signature.
Dictated directly into the computer (Prayank Nayak)
and announced in the open Court, MM02 (SHD)/Delhi
On 30th August, 2019. 30.08.2019
Digitally
signed by
PRAYANK
PRAYANK NAYAK
NAYAK Date:
2019.08.30
16:11:52
+0530
State Vs. Narender etc. 6