Delhi District Court
State vs Shashikant Etc on 6 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE 05, ROOM NO. 513,
DWARKA, DELHI.
STATE
VERSUS
SHASHIKANT ETC.
FIR No. 141/04
P.S Inderpuri
U/s 341/323/506/114/34 IPC.
1. Serial No. of the case : 02403R0122552011
2. Date of commission of offence : 01.07.2004
3. Name of the Complainant : ARVIND,
S/o Rameshwar Parkash,
R/o 9241/C9,Vasant Kunj,
New Delhi.
4. Name of the accused, and (1) SHASHIKANT
his parentage and residence : S/o Sh. Harihar Kamat,
R/o I9, Janak Vihar, IARI
Inderpuri, Delhi.
(2) VIJAY KUMAR
SHARMA,
S/o Sh. Devraj Sharma,
R/o E24, Pusa Campus,
Inderpuri, Delhi.
(3) PRAMOD KUMAR
KATARIA,
S/o Late Sewa Ram,
R/o 241, IARI Staff
Quarter, Krishikunj,
Inderpuri, Delhi.
(4) DHARAMPAL,
(Since expired, trial
abated)
5. Date when judgment : 09.10.2012
was reserved
6. Date when Judgment : 06.11.2012
was pronounced
FIR No. 141/2004
PS- Inderpuri
State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 1/10
7. Offence Complained of : U/s 341/323/506/114/34 IPC
or proved
8. Plea of accused : All pleaded not guilty.
9. Final Judgment : Shashikant and Pramod
Convicted for offence U/s
341/323/506/34IPC and
Vijay Sharma convicted for
offence U/s 114 r/w
341/323/506 IPC.
Brief Statement of reasons for the decision of the case
1. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 01.07.2004 at about 11.30 am at the office of complainant within the jurisdiction of PS Inderpuri, on instigation of accused Vijay Sharma, coaccused Shashikant, Dharampal (since deceased) and Pramod in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained and threatened to kill the complainant and further Shashikant, Dharampal (since deceased) and Pramod caught hold of complainant and beaten him with kicks and blows and caused simple hurt. Accordingly, FIR No. 141/04, PS Inderpuri was registered. Before the filing of the chargesheet accused Dharampal expired and therefore proceedings against him were abated after verification of his death.
2. On appearance of the accused persons, notice for offences under Section 341/323/506/34 IPC was served upon Shashikant and Pramod and to Vijay Sharma for offence u/s 114 read with 341/323/506/34 IPC for which all pleaded not guilty and claim trial. Thereafter, the matter was put up for prosecution evidence.
3. In support of their case, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 2/10 namely PW1 Arvind, PW2 Smt Poonam, PW3 Smt Shakuntala, PW4 Retd SI Alam Singh, PW5 Shailesh Bhatnagar, PW6 HC Mahender Singh, PW7 WASI Kailash, PW8 SI Anil Kumar, PW9 Dr. Yashwant Singh, PW10 Dr. Urvashi Miglani, PW11 Dr. K.R Koundal and PW12 Dr Kiran Choudhary to prove the case against the accused persons. The evidence of each of PWs is very relevant and the same is analyzed and discussed later on at appropriate places.
4. After the prosecution evidence was closed, statement of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded and all the incriminating evidence were put to them to which all denied the allegations against them. They further stated that they do not wish to lead defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
5. Ld APP for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons addressed useful and pertinent arguments. Ld. APP for the state has argued that the accused persons were correctly identified by the complainant as well as other witnesses as the persons who either abetted and/or wrongfully restrained, threatened and beaten the complainant and the case has been proved beyond doubt against all the accused persons and prays for conviction of all the accused persons. Ld app has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Binay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar and in the case of Vadivelu Thevar vs. State of Madras where it was held that unless corroboration is statutorily required, conviction can be done on the basis of sole testimony of a witness.
6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for all the accused persons argued FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 3/10 that there is no evidence against Vijay Sharma. He also submitted that there is a delay in registration of FIR and complaint is an after thought. He also pointed out that as per record of DD no. 25A, their was no quarral found by the visiting police officials at the spot. Ld. Counsel also argued that accused persons were falsely implicated at the instance of senior officials as accused persons belongs to employees Union. Ld. Counsel also argued that material witnesses have gave contradictory statements and PW Poonam denied any quarrel in her presence. He prays for acquittal of the accused persons.
7. APPRECIATION OF PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
7.1 PW1 is the complainant. He stated that on 01.07.2004 while he was present in his office at about half past eleven, accused Vijay, Pramod, Shashikant and Dharampal entered his room and occupied the chair without his permission. He further stated that all the accused asked him as to how he dare to report to the Director, IARI about non joining of Dharampal and when he tried to give reason to them, they started shouting and stated that he need to be taught a lessons. He specifically pointed out that the accused Shashikant caught hold of his collar and accused Pramod and Dharampal started beating and gave heavy blows.
Complainant also gave reasons as to why he was beaten. He stated that few months ago from the date of incident, accused Dharampal was transferred to his office but he never gave his joining report and on 19.05.2004, he came and put his signatures at one go in the attendance register which act was repeated on 30.05.2004. He also stated that due to beatings, he fell down on the ground and fell unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he called the PCR which took him to RML FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 4/10 hospital and on 03.07.2004, he made a formal complaint to the police and accused were arrested on 19.07.2004 vide Ex. PW1/B, PW1/C, PW1/D and PW1/E. He correctly identified all the accused persons as the persons who have assaulted him. He was cross examined by accused persons wherein he denied the suggestion that he gave beatings to Shashikant first and thereafter, they started beating him. He also denied the suggestion that all other accused persons tried to settle the quarrel between complainant and accused Shashikant. He was also recalled for further cross examination on the application moved by the accused persons. During his further cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he has not stated the facts mentioned in the complaint to PCR officials and only stated use of bad words by accused persons. He denied the suggestion that no quarrel took place and therefore, he did not give any statement on 01.07.2004 and made false complaint in connivance with other officials. He also denied the suggestion that since accused persons were from different political group and therefore, were falsely implicated and since accused Dharampal belongs to Scheduled Caste category he deliberately avoided allowing joining to him in the office. He admitted that PW Shakuntala and Poonam were working in the department and were present at the time of incident.
7.2 PW2 is another witness who was present at the time of incident. She stated that on 01.07.2004 she alongwith Shakuntala Manjul were present in the office and complainant was also present and at that time Vijay, Shashikant alongwith one or two other persons came and talked about joining of Dharampal and complainant told them that whatever they want to know regarding the joining of Dharmpal, they can know from the office. She identified accused Shashikant, Vijay and Pramod. This witness was FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 5/10 cross examined by Ld APP for the State wherein she admitted that at the alleged time and place, Dharampal, Shashikant, Pramod and Vijay came talking about joining of Dharampal but denied the suggestion that scuffle took place in her presence between the complainant and accused persons. 7.3 PW3 is another eyewitness. She stated that she alongwith PW Poonam and complainant were also present in the office on 01.07.2004 and at about 10.30/11.00 am Vijay, Pramod and Shashikant came and talking about joining of Dharampal. This witness was cross examined by Ld APP for the State. During cross examination, she admitted that all the accused persons i.e Vijay, Pramod and Shashikant came at the office and asked about joining of Dharampal but denied the suggestion that all three accused persons started abusing and gave beatings to Arvind or threatened him to change his behavior. She admitted that police recorded her statement but stated that statement recorded is not the same of her. During her cross examination by defence counsel she admitted that the statement shown by the Public Prosecutor is not the same statement which was recorded by the police.
7.4 PW5 is the witness who proved the office order of transfer of accused Dharampal. He proved the copy of the said order vide Ex. PW5/A. During his cross examination he stated that he had communicated the order dated 05.05.2004 to Dharampal through Officer Incharge and he has no knowledge about any dispute regarding transfer of Dharampal. 7.5 PW6 is the police office who reached the spot on receipt of DD No. 13A. He stated that he alongwith Ct Dinesh reached the spot and met Arvind who told that some persons had quarreled and beaten him. He further stated that since Arvind did not gave any statement therefore, DD was kept pending vide DD No. 25A. During his cross examination he stated FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 6/10 that information was received at about 11/11.30 am and he reached within 10 minutes. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely regarding the beating of Arvind by the accused persons but admitted that in the contents of DD No. 25A, it is mentioned that no quarrel was found at the spot when he reached the spot.
7.6 PW8 is the IO of the case. He stated that on 03.07.2004, investigation of the present case was marked to him by the SHO and thereafter he recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared the site plan. He further stated that all the accused persons surrendered and thereafter he interrogated and arrested them. During his cross examination he denied the suggestion that site plan was not prepared at the instance of Poonam. He also denied the suggestion that he has not recorded any statement of Poonam. He also denied the suggestion that he has not filed the original statement of Shakuntala in the chargesheet. 7.7 PW9 is the doctor who conducted the Xray of injured. As per the X ray report Ex. PW9/A, there was no fracture in skull bone. 7.8 PW10 is the doctor who deposed as expert witness on behalf of Dr. Satwik who initially gave opinion about the nature of injuries as simple vide MLC which is Ex. PW10/A. During her cross examination she admitted that she had not treated the patient Arvind and has not brought any record pertaining to the MLC. She also admitted that injuries mentioned in the MLC may occur due to fall but she specifically opined the nature of injuries as simple.
7.9 PW12 is the doctor who initially treated patient Arvind. She stated that she found redness in eyes with complaint of blurring of vision and on local examination tenderness of abdomen more on upper, abrasion on left palm was found. During her cross examination she denied the suggestion FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 7/10 that there was no injuries on the person of the complaint.
8. In their statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C, accused persons denied the allegations leveled against them. On the other hand PW1 i.e complainant has categorically stated that Shashikant caught hold of his collar and accused Pramod and Dharampal started beating and gave heavy blows at the instance of Vijay Sharma. Complainant also gave motive behind the crime that since he has stopped accused Dharampal from marking his attendance for his days of absence all accused attacked him.
9. The argument of Ld. Defence counsel that their was delay in registration of FIR is humbly rejected as their was no delay in reporting the matter to the police as the quarrel stated to have taken place at about 11.30 am and as per DD no. 13A the PCR call was received at about 11.35 am about the quarrel. It was only the formal registration of FIR which was done at a later stage. Moreover, the factum of quarrel was also admitted by the accused persons as in the cross examination of the complainant it was suggested to him that firstly complainant started beating the accused persons which manifestly proves that indeed a quarrel took place.
Another argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that eyewitnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution is also rejected as even PW Poonam and Shakultala Munjal has also not denied the presence of the accused persons at the relevant time at the spot. Moreover, during cross examination by Ld. APP for the state PW Shakuntala admitted that accused persons came and were asking the complainant about joining of accused Dharampal and even PW Poonam admitted that fact. Admittedly accused persons belonging to workers Union and both PW Poonam and FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 8/10 Shakuntala appeared to have denied the factum of quarrel due to that reason only and appears to be interested witnesses to the point of their denying the quarrel as working in the same organization and at the same level of hierarchy as of accused persons both might be having some sympathy with accused persons. The evidence of PW Poonam and Shakuntala notwithstanding making a different version provides some corroboration as both admitted the presence of accused persons.
10. The complainant was subject to detailed cross examination on two occasions and he stood his testimony despite such lengthy cross examination. He not only stated the manner in which the offence was committed but also explained the role played by each accused persons. It is settled principle of law that as held in number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that to prove an offence it is not the quantity but quality of evidence would bring success to the case of the prosecution or give benefit of doubt to the accused and even the testimony of one single witness if wholly reliable, is sufficient to prove or disprove the case. Moreover, Section 134 Indian Evidence Act also provides that no particular number of witnesses shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact.
11. The argument of Ld. Counsel that there is no evidence against Vijay is also rejected as in his examination in chief Complainant categorically stated the name of Vijay Kumar Sharma as the persons who came alongwith other accused persons and started shouting and he heard as someone saying that he need to be taught a lesson. Complainant further stated that that Shashikant caught hold of his collar and accused Pramod and Dharampal started beating and gave him heavy blows at the FIR No. 141/2004 PS- Inderpuri State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 9/10 instigation of Vijay. The other official witnesses have also supported the case of the prosecution. Since it was not specifically stated that Vijay actively participated in beating the complainant, his role is therefore limited to of an instigator. Accused Vijay was arrested on the pointing out of the complainant as the person who instigated coaccused persons.
12. On the basis of evidence and discussion above, I am satisfied that prosecution is successful in proving the allegations of voluntarily restraining, threatening and causing hurt to the complainant by the accused Shashikant and Pramod Kumar alongwith Dharampal (Since deceased) at the instigation of Vijay Kumar Sharma while acting in furtherance of their common intention beyond reasonable doubt.
13. Accordingly, accused Shashikant and Pramod Kumar are convicted for the offences U/s 323/341/506 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and accused Vijay Kumar Sharma is convicted for the offences u/s 114 r/w 323/341/506 IPC.
Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the convicts. Put up for arguments on sentencing on 21.11.2012.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
COURT ON 06.11.2012 METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE05
DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
FIR No. 141/2004
PS- Inderpuri
State Vs. Shashikant Etc Page 10/10