Delhi District Court
Title : Pramod Kumar Chauhan vs State (Government Of Nct Of Delhi) on 28 May, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURDEEP SINGH, ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI.
C.A. No. : 06/15
Unique Case ID no. : 02403R0038812015
Title : Pramod Kumar Chauhan
S/o Sh. Mahesh Chauhan
R/o House No. 158,
Vasant Village,
New Delhi.
.... Appellant
Vs.
State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
... Respondent
Date of Institution : 28.02.2015
Date of reserving : 27.5.2015
Date of pronouncement : 28.5.2015
(Appearances)
Ms. Sarika Jetley, Ld. Counsel for the appellant.
Ms. Anupama Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
ORDER
1. This is an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 27.10.2014 and sentenced dated 28.01.2015 passed by Sh. Akash Jain, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate whereby the appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 1 / 8 of six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC.
2. Briefly the relevant facts are that the appellant/convict was sent up for trial by police at PS: Vasant Vihar for the offences punishable under Section 323/325/34 IPC on the allegations that on 08.7.2011 at about 10:30 pm he alongwith some unknown persons caused injuries to complainant Sh. Mukesh Singh and cause grievous injuries to one Ct. Sugriv Yadav by giving blows by wooden plank . The accused was charged for the offences under Section 323/325 IPC to which pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.
3. PW1 Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singh is the complainant who proved his statement Ex. PW1/A and identified the wooden plank Ex. P1. PW1. PW 2 Rajesh Kumar is also injured whose crossexamination was deferred on 20.10.2012 and thereafter, he was not examined. Therefore, his evidence could not be read. PW3 Ct. Satish Kumar is the witness of formal arrest after the appellant surrender in the court and proved the arrest memo Ex. PW3/A, personal search memo Ex. PW3/B and his disclosure statement Ex. PW3/C. PW6 ASI Kishan Lal is the C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 2 / 8 duty officer who recorded DD Ex. PW6/B and FIR Ex. PW6/C and also proved his own endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW6/D. PW8 is the record clerk who proved MLC Ex. PW8/A and Ex. PW8/B of the injured as the doctor who had examined the injured had left the services of the hospital. PW5 Dr. Rashmi Kumari proved the Xray report of injured Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B. PW7 is the Investigating Officer.
4. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the prosecution evidence and stated that he would lead defence evidence and examined DW1 his wife in his support.
5. I have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant as well as ld. APP for the State. I have also gone through the record.
6. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that there are major contradiction and inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses. Due weigtage has not been given to defence evidence. FIR was registered after 15 days of the occurrence. It is submitted that the nature of injury has also not been proved as the doctor has not been examined. The testimony of PW4 could not be read for want of crossexamination as his cross examination was deferred and then prosecution evidence was closed without further examination of this witness. C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 3 / 8
7. The case of the prosecution hinges an testimony of PW1. PW1 stated that he does not know the exact date of incident. However, he wants to refresh his memory. It was allowed and thereupon he deposed that he reached at the last point and was about to handover the duty to Randhir and handed over the charge to Randhir and told Rajesh that he is going to his home by that time Ct. Sugriv Yadav, Delhi Police was with him. Rajesh insisted him to have cigarette and Rajesh went to purchase the cigarette on his motorcycle and came back after purchasing of cigarette. Mukesh Kumar and Sugriv Yadav were blowing cigarette and Rajesh without informing him took his motorcycle. They were waiting for him to return at about 10:15 pm. After sometime, Rajesh Kumar came. A person came towards Kothi No. 16 and asked for a match box then PW1 Mukesh told him that he has no match box, on which argument took place between the respondent and the appellant. He slapped and when he questioned this act of that person. In the meanwhile, the appellant who was standing behind him and had tied a handkerchief on his face, hit with a wooden plank on his head and due to which he received severe injuries on his head. He tried to get up. Appellant again attacked him and when he tried to save himself he received injuries on his head C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 4 / 8 as well. Thereafter, his friend Sugriv Yadav tried to help him and lifted the chair, he started hitting him also. The witness ran away from the spot. At another post nearby the guard helped him, made him sit and tied cloth on his head. He did not remember his name. The guard called for police at 100 number. Police came and took both of them. They were discharged on the next day. He gave report to the police on the next date. Wooden plank was shown to him. He identified the same as the same in his crossexamination. He stated that he does not know whether TIP of the accused/appellant was conducted or not as he had received summons for the witness from court. He admitted that it was 10:00 pm. He also admitted that the Naib Court has read his statement to him in the Court. The testimony of this witness is shaky as initially he does not know the time and date and after he was allowed to refresh his memory he deposed. He initially denied that he cannot identify the case property due to darkness on that day, but identified the same later. Although he himself was the injured and his statement was recorded by the police on 22.7.2011 on the basis of which FIR was registered. The delay in recording of his statement and in the manner in which he deposed his testimony does not inspire confidence.
C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 5 / 8
8. Let us examine whether his testimony can be used for the purpose of corroboration of the testimony of other witnesses.
9. PW2 Rajesh who states that on that day his supervisor Mukesh came to him and asked him to bring cigarette. He went to the market by taking motorcycle of Mukesh. When he returned to his post and parked the motorcycle, he notices that one person was talking with Mukesh and he was not interested to talk to that person. He went to them and tried to intervene SIC (Interfere), but that person was not interested to talk and he also misbehaved with him. By that time the appellant came from the side of Kothi no. 17 while covering his face with handkerchief and tried to talk to him, but appellant hit him on his right hand and the other person had also beaten him. The appellant had also beaten him with one danda on his head. He brought two chairs from nearby spot for his defence. Accused also beaten Sugriv Yadav who was present in the Court. The site plan was prepared at the spot. He denied that it was night 10:00 pm and there was no light at the spot. He identified appellant as he talked with him and identified his voice also.
10. The case of both the witnesses is that it was night C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 6 / 8 time and it was dark. PW2 states that it was danda from which accused/appellant had beaten on the head of Mukesh whereas, Mukesh claims that it was wooden plank which he did not identify initially and stated that due to darkness he could not see, but later on identified. Both the witnesses are consistent that the face of accused was half covered with handkerchief, but both of them identified him as he was working in the Kothi as a driver. Rajesh claims that he identify him as he talked with him and identified his voice. Although both the witnesses are consistent that they know him as he was working as driver at Kothi No. 16 and Rajesh claims that he could identify through his voice apparently as his face was covered. One can identify a person even in dark if one is acquainted with him previously through voice and other physical characteristics.
11. The second limb of argument is that there was delay of 15 days in registration of FIR and the weapon of offence is not certain.
12. Keeping in view that testimony of PW1 is shaky and there is some doubt about identity and there is delay in recording statement of injured. Further, there is doubt about the weapon of offence and some unknown other assailants are not identified. In the totality of facts and circumstances, I am of the C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 7 / 8 opinion that reasonable doubt has arisen in favour of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts. Appellant is accordingly given benefit of doubt. The judgment of trial court is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. Bail bond submitted during appeal stands discharged. However, bail bond under Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C shall continue till expiry of six months from the date of this order.
13. Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned Court.
14. Copy of this order be sent to Ld. Trial Court.
15. File of appeal be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court on 28th May, 2015.
(GURDEEP SINGH) ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JDUGE NEW DELHI/ 28.5.2015 C.A. No. 06/15 Pramod Kumar Chauhan Vs. State (NCT) of Delhi Page no. 8 / 8