Delhi District Court
State vs Ravi Prakash on 22 June, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIMESH KUMAR
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No. 933/2005
U/s 325/34 IPC
PS : Uttam Nagar
Date of Institution : 11.10.2006
Date of Judgment : 22.06.2024
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 6743/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Munna Khan, S/o Sh.
Basim Khan, R/o K-2/79,
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
3. Date of commission of offence : 11.10.2005
4. Name of accused : (1) Amit Arora S/o Harish Kumar (abated) (2) Ravi Prakash, S/o Parmeshwar Prasad, R/o L-2B/69, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Offence charged : 325/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 1 of 24
7. Ld. APP for the State : Sh. Pramod Kumar
8. Final Order : Acquittal BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused persons namely Amit Arora and Ravi Prakash have been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 325/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
During the pendency of the trial, the accused Amit Arora had passed away. Therefore, proceedings against him were abated vide order dated 11.01.2011.
2. As per the prosecution, the present FIR was registered on the basis of the complaint filed by the complainant Munna Khan. On 11.10.2005, at around 10:30 PM, the complainant was going towards him home on bicycle after getting down from bus at Uttam Nagar Bus Terminal. At that time, he used to work in a printing press situated at Kotla Mubarakpur. At around 11:30 PM, when he reached near Yadav General Store and Stationary, the accused persons namely Amit Arora and State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 2 of 24 Ravi Prakash were already present there. The complainant already knew them. They stopped the complainant and started giving filthy abuses to the complainant. When the complainant protested then the accused Amit Arora punched the complainant due to which he fell down from his cycle. Thereafter, the accused Ravi also started beating him on his shoulder. When the complainant raised alarm, the accused persons fled away from the spot. Thereafter, the complainant gave the complaint to the police. During the investigation, the medical examination of the complainant was conducted as per which he had sustained grievous injuries.
3. After conclusion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed against the accused persons under Section 325/34 IPC.
4. On receipt of chargesheet, cognizance of offence was taken. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures was supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 3 of 24 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving an opportunity to State as well as accused persons for making submissions on charge, charge for offences punishable U/s 325/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 18.07.2007 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case.
7. As PW-1, the complainant, injured and eye-witness of the present case i.e. Munna Khan was examined by the prosecution. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on he used to work in the Mikki Printing Press as binder which was situated in Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. On 11.10.2005 at about 11:30 PM, he was going to his home on his bicycle after getting down from the bus in Uttam Nagar Bus Terminal. When he reached near Yadav general Store behind the Gagan Bharti Public School, the accused Amit and Ravi stopped his bicycle and abused him in filthy language. The accused Ravi also inserted his hand into his pocket State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 4 of 24 and the accused Amit attacked him on his eye with some brick like object. Consequently, the complaint fell down on the ground and the accused Ravi had also beaten him on his shoulder with kicks and blow. He sustained injuries on his right eye. Thereafter, the complainant PW-1 raised alarm and cried for help. The accused persons fled away from the spot. He further stated that both the accused persons were the resident of Mohan Garden and he had seen them before in the area. He correctly identified the accused in the Court. He further stated that some public person had called the police which came at the spot and took him to the DDU Hospital where he was provided medical treatment. His statement Ex. PW-1/A was recorded by the police. He had also point out place of occurrence and site plan was prepared at his instance. Both the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW-1/B and Ex. PW-1/C respectively. Their personal search was also conducted vide personal search memo Ex. PW-1/C and Ex. PW-1/D respectively.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 5 of 24
8. Dr. Nishu Dhawan was examined as PW-2. She had identified the handwriting of Dr. Pooja Bhasin who had prepared the MLC of the complainant. The said MLC is Ex. PW-2/A.
9. Constable Birbal Singh was examined as PW-3. During his examination-in-chief, he deposed that on 11.10.2005, at around 11:30 PM, on the receipt of DD No. 57B, he along with ASI Randhir Singh went to the spot i.e. NT Yadav General Store, Mohan Garden where they were informed that some quarrel had taken place and the victim was already taken to the hospital by the PCR van. He further stated that he had also received another call vide DD No. 26A from DDU Hospital. IO went to the hospital and obtained MLC of the complainant and recorded his statement. IO prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. After the registration of the FIR, he went to the house of the complainant.
10. Sh. Deshraj, Record Clerk, DDU Hospital was examined as PW-4 by the prosecution. He had identified the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 6 of 24 signature of Dr. Nanli Gupta on the MLC No. 27283 dated 12.10.2005 of injured Munna. The said MLC is already Ex. PW-2/A.
11. ASI Hansraj was examined as PW-5. He deposed that on 11.10.2005, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as DD writer. Upon receiving wireless call regarding quarrel, he had made DD entry no. 57B. The same is Ex. P-A. He further stated that he could bring the original registered as the same was already destroyed vide order dated 10.03.2022.
12. Retired SI Omkar Singh was examined as PW-6. He deposed that in the intervening night of 11/12.10.2005, he was posted at PS Uttam nagar and his duty was in PCR van. At around 11:30 PM, upon receiving PCR call regarding the quarrel at H. No. L-1, Yadav General Store, Stationary shop, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw the victim in injured condition. He took the victim Munna in his PCR van to the DDU hospital and got him admitted at the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 7 of 24 hospital. He was duly cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
13. The accused Ravi Prakash had also admitted the genuineness of FIR and site plan u/s 294 Cr.P.C. Hence, formal proof of these documents was dispensed with.
14. After the examination of the prosecution witnesses, prosecution examination was closed vide order dated 13.03.2024. Statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on the same day wherein the accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence.
15. Thereafter, final arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties.
16. The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs and prosecution has not been able to prove the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 8 of 24 guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
17. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
LAW INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE
18. Section 319 IPC provides the definition of "hurt" as "whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt". In other words, the victim must suffer some physical harm or pain due to the actions of the offender. The main requirements of hurt are bodily pain, disease or infirmity.
19. Section 321 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt which is a punishable offence u/s 323 IPC. It reads as under:
"Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said 'voluntarily to cause hurt'."
20. Further, when the hurt is caused by dangerous weapons State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 9 of 24 or means, the same is punishable u/s 324 IPC. It states that when a person is voluntarily hurt by the use of a dangerous weapon or means, the act comes under the purview of voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. The Section further states that voluntary hurt is caused by:
• Any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting; or • Any instrument used as a weapon of offence that is likely to cause death; or • Fire or any heated substance; or • Any type of poison; or • Any corrosive substance; or • Any explosive substance; or • Any substance that is deleterious to the human body for inhaling, swallowing or receiving into blood; or • Any animal.
21. Section 322 IPC provides for the offence of voluntarily causing grievous harm which is a punishable offence u/s 325 IPC. It reads as under:
"322. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-- Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 10 of 24 hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".
Explanation.--A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind."
22. "Grievous hurt" is defined in section 320 IPC in the following manner:
"Grievous hurt.--The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":--
(First) -- Emasculation.
(Secondly) --Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. (Thirdly) -- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, (Fourthly) -- Privation of any member or joint.
(Fifthly) -- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
(Sixthly) -- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
(Seventhly) --Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
(Eighthly) --Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
23. A bare reading of the provision enshrined in section 322 IPC clearly suggests that the person causing hurt must State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 11 of 24 have the intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt and the hurt which is caused in consequence must also be grievous in nature as defined in section 320 IPC. It is not sufficient that the hurt which is caused is "grievous" if there is no prior intention or knowledge to cause grievous hurt. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Mushirkha Bashirkha Musalman vs State Of Maharashtra 1982 SCC Online Bom 266 wherein while discussing the scope and applicability of section 325 IPC, it held the following:
"The Judge is not to trouble himself with seeking for direct proof of what the offender thought was likely to happen, but is to infer the nature of his act, taking him to have intended grievous hurt, or at least to have contemplated grievous hurt as likely to occur, when he did what everybody knows is likely to cause grievous hurt, and the more certainly drawing this conclusion where there is evidence of previous enmity against the party who was suffered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensure from it, then although grievous may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be his duty to convict the offender of simple hurt only. A person can State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 12 of 24 be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and the intention correspond, or when grievous hurt has been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, though it may be of a different kind. Though grievous hurt may be caused in an assault, it does not at all follow that the person who assaulted is guilty of causing grievous hurt under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. A person is only liable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code if he voluntarily cause grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt"
according to section 322 means if he intends to cause grievous hurt or knew himself to be likely to cause such hurt."
24. The above mentioned ratio was reiterated by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Rabari Varva Jesang vs State Of Gujarat 1984 SCC OnLine Guj 68 wherein it was held that:
"Courts should not overlook the act itself. In considering the act not only the result but knowledge or intention is to be considered. If the act was such that nothing more than simple hurt could reasonably be thought likely to ensue from it, then, although grievous hurt may unexpectedly have ensued, it would be Court's duty to convict the offender of simple hurt, judging that grievous hurt was not in his contemplation; for, according to Section 322 of the Indian Penal Code, a person can be convicted of grievous hurt only when the result and intention correspond or when grievous hurt had been suffered from an act which was intended to cause grievous hurt, State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 13 of 24 though it may be of a different kind. In the instant case, from the act of the petitioner- accused intention of causing grievous hurt cannot be inferred. In view of this, the conviction of the petitioner-accused for the offence under Section 333 of the Indian Penal Code requires to be set aside."
25. Hence, conjoint reading of the provision enshrined in section 325 IPC and the above mentioned decisions of the Hon'ble Courts enlightens that if the grievous hurt is caused to the victim due to the act of assailant, he can be convicted for causing grievous hurt u/s 325 IPC only if he either intended to cause grievous hurt or had the knowledge (while doing the said act) that grievous hurt could be ordinarily caused. If intention/knowledge is missing then the accused cannot be convicted u/s 325 IPC even if grievous hurt is caused due to his act. CULPABILITY OF THE ACCUSED RAVI PRAKASH
26. After discussing the offence briefly, I shall now be examining the guilt of the accused Ravi Prakash by appreciating the materials available on record in the backdrop of the settled legal positions. State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 14 of 24
27. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused Ravi Prakash in the present case, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant. He was the sole eye-witness who was examined by the prosecution.
28. It is a settled proposition of law that an accused can be convicted based on the testimony of solitary witness if the same is unblemished and gains the confidence of the Court. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act clearly provides that no particular number of witnesses is required to establish a case. It is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity which is to be seen.
29. At this stage, reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Ramesh Krishna Madhusudan Nayar vs. State of Maharashtra 2008 Crl. LJ 1023 , wherein the Apex Court had upheld a conviction under Section 302 IPC based on the sole testimony of a witness. The Hon'ble Court has held that "on the basis of solitary evidence State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 15 of 24 conviction can be maintained. Conviction can be based on the testimony of a single witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained."
30. The above discussed principle was reiterated (albeit with certain qualifications) recently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh vs. State (NCT OF Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2015 decided on 12th October 2020 wherein it was held that conviction can be based on sole eye witness testimony only if he is wholly reliable. But if there are doubts about the testimony then the Courts will insist on corroboration.
31. Hence, in view of the above discussions, it becomes very clear that an accused can be convicted based on State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 16 of 24 the sole testimony of witness/ complainant. However, the said testimony must be unblemished and wins the confidence of the Court. If there is any contradiction or doubt over the reliability of the witness, then the Courts can insist on corroboration.
32. In the instant case, it should be noted that there are certain contradictions in the statement made by the complainant in his complaint Ex. PW-1/A given to the police and his testimony given in the Court during the trial. In his complaint Ex. PW-1/A, the complainant had interalia stated that at the time of the incident, the accused persons had stopped him, gave filthy abused to him, the accused Amit punched near his right eye. However, in his testimony given in the Court as PW-1, the complainant interalia deposed that the accused Amit had attacked him with a brick like structure. This is clear contradiction in the statements given by the complainant. He had changed the weapon of offence in his statement given during his examination in the Court. State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 17 of 24
33. Also, the complainant in his testimony recorded in the Court during the trial did not disclose the reason as to why he was attacked by the accused persons. Motive is an essential ingredient of any offence. It is imperative for the prosecution to prove the "motive/intention" or "mens rea" on the part of the accused persons for committing the offences as alleged in the charge-sheet.
34. It is one of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence that there must be a wrongful act- actus reus combined with a wrongful intention-mens rea. This principle is embodied in the maxim "actus non facet rum nice mens sit rea" which means an act does not make one guilt unless there is a guilty mind or wrongful intention. No act is per se illegal unless the same has been done with a guilty mind. This principle has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Prasad vs. State of West Bengal AIR 1954 SC 724 wherein it has interalia held that no external conduct, howsoever serious in its consequences, is State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 18 of 24 generally punished unless the prohibited consequence is produced by some wrongful intent, fault or mens rea. The only exceptions to this general rule are the offences of strict liability.
35. In Ravule Hariprasada Rao vs. State [1951] SCR 322, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that unless a statute either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent element of a crime, a person should not be held guilty of an offence unless he had guilty mind at the time of commission of the act. This ratio was also reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nathulal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 SCC 43 and Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569.
36. In the instant case, PW-1 complainant is the only eyewitness examined by the prosecution in order to bring home the culpability of the accused persons. During his examination in chief, he had supported the case of prosecution to the extent that the accused State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 19 of 24 persons had abused and beaten him. However, PW-1 in his entire testimony did not disclose the reason as to why the accused persons had beaten him on the date of incident. This would be more relevant in light of the fact that the complainant knew the accused persons from before. There has to be some reason for the alleged acts done by the accused persons. However, that reason has not been brought on record by any of the prosecution witnesses.
37. The above discussions would show that there are many contradictions and loopholes in the testimony of the complainant which do not inspire complete confidence in his testimony. Thus, the testimony of the complainant needs to be corroborated from some other evidence. However, the prosecution did not examine any other eye-witness. It would be more relevant in light of the fact that as per the complainant, the PCR call about the incident was made by a public person. Hence, it could not be said that no public persons were present at the State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 20 of 24 spot at the time of the incident. However, no efforts were made by the investigating agency to examine these public witnesses.
38. Be that as it may, even if I rely upon the testimony of the complainant PW-1 without any corroboration, the same would not be sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the accused Ravi Prakash for the offence punishable u/s 325 r/w 34 IPC. It should be noted that in order to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 325 IPC, it is imperative for the prosecution to also prove that the accused persons have beaten the said injured with the intention to cause grievous injury or with the knowledge that the grievous injury will be caused. If this fact is not duly proved by the prosecution; then the accused cannot be convicted for the offence u/s 325 IPC even though grievous hurt has been caused to the injured. Legal position on this aspect has already been discussed in detail in the preceding part of this judgment.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 21 of 24
39. In the instant case, in order to prove that the accused persons had beaten the complainant PW-1 with the intention to cause grievous injury or with he knowledge that grievous injury would be caused, the prosecution had primarily relied upon the testimony of the complainant PW-1. He did not depose anything from which it could be inferred that the accused Ravi Prakash had intention to cause grievous hurt to the complainant or had knowledge that grievous hurt was liked to be caused during the assault.
40. The prosecution had failed to prove that the accused persons had assaulted the complainant with the intention of causing grievous hurt or after having the knowledge that grievous hurt would be likely caused. No such incriminating circumstance could be conclusively established by the prosecution in the present case. Even the nature of the weapon from which the complainant was assaulted remained disputed.
41. It is a settled proposition of law that in a criminal trial, State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 22 of 24 the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and the benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. In the case titled as Dr. S. L. Goswami vs State of Madhya Pradesh, 1972 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 258, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"i) The onus of proving all the ingredients of an offence is always upon the prosecution and at no stage does is shift to the accused. It is no part of the prosecution duty to somehow hook the crook.
Even in cases where the defence of the accused does not appear to be credible or is palpably false that burden does not become any the less.
ii) The standard of proof to prove a defence plea is not the same as that which rests upon the prosecution. Where the onus shifts to the accused, and the evidence on his behalf probabilizes the plea he will be entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt."
42. Therefore, in view of the above discussions and findings, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused Ravi Prakash in the present case beyond reasonable doubts. Hence, benefit of State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 23 of 24 doubt needs to be extended to the accused.
43. Thus, the accused Ravi Prakash S/o Pameshwar Prasad stands acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC.
44. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open court, on this day of 22nd June, 2024. This judgment consists of 24 signed pages.
(ANIMESH KUMAR) MM-08/South-West Dwarka Court/ New Delhi 22.06.2024 State Vs. Ravi Prakash & Ors.
FIR No.933/2005, PS Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 22.06.2024 Page No. 24 of 24