Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Devender @ Bablu on 10 September, 2007
IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI,
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
SC No.54/07
State Vs 1. Devender @ Bablu
S/o Sh. Nain Singh
R/o Jhuggi No.A-92,
Udham Singh Park,
Wazir Pur Industrial Area,
Delhi.
2. Golu Lal,
S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal,
R/o Jhuggi No.20/429,
Opp. A-98/6,
Udham Singh Park,
Wazir Pur Industrial Area,
Delhi.
FIR No.782/05
Under Sec. 420/411/307/34 IPC
PS : Ashok Vihar
Date of Institution : 22.12.2005
Arguments heard on : 30.8.07
Order pronounced on : 5.9.07
***
JUDGMENT
Accused Devender @ Bablu and Golu Lal have been sent to face trial for committing the offence punishable under Sec. 420/411/307/34 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, on 18.11.2005 Sh. Veer Singh @ Veeru had gone to Jhuggis behind factories in Wazir Pur Industrial Area where many tempos were parked to sell cameras and watches. One person i.e. accused 1 Golu met him who expressed his desire to purchase a watch. After seeing the watches, he selected one watch and asked about the price which he told as Rs.100/-. In the meantime one other person i.e. accused Devender came and said that they would not pay Rs.100/- for that watch. On this, the matter precipitated and in the meantime, accused Golu, who selected the watch left the spot, so he demanded the price of the watch from the second person i.e. accused Devender. On this accused Devender denied any relationship with the person who left with the watch without paying for the same and the quarrel started. Accused Devender hit on his neck with some object and he started bleeding. In order to save his life, the injured Sh. Veer Singh @ Veeru rushed towards Ring Road, hired a TSR and reached home from where he was taken and got admitted in the hospital. Due to fear, he informed his father and the Doctor that he had met with an accident and received injuries in that accident. Police was informed by the hospital and on receipt of information, when the police reached the hospital, he narrated the true facts vide his complaint on the basis of which FIR was recorded.
2. As required under Section 207 CrPC, after supplying the copies, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
3. Accused Devender was charged for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC and accused Golu Lal was 2 charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 420 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in all in support of its case. Both the accused persons were examined under Section 313 CrPC to enable them to explain about the evidence appearing against them. They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case and have nothing to do with the alleged occurrence. Both the accused have not led any evidence in their defence.
5. PW7 Ct. Manohar Lal and PW11 SI Rajpal Singh are the police officials who arrested the accused persons on the pointing out of the complainant and recovered the watch from accused Golu. PW9 Dr. Sandeep Sehgal and PW10 Dr. J.P. Verma had examined the injured and proved the MLC Ex.PW9/A. Remaining witnesses are police officials of formal nature.
6. PW2 Veer Singh @ Veeru, the complainant/injured has stated that he is a hawker and sell electronic items like watches and cameras. On 18.11.2005 at about 7 pm he was present to sell electronic items near factories behind Richi Rich restaurant, WPIA where some vegetable sellers were also present. One person whose name was subsequently revealed as accused Golu wanted to purchase electronic watch from him so 3 some electronic watches were shown to him. On being asked about the price of a watch (Sonata Quartz), he quoted Rs.100/- for that watch. In the mean time one another person i.e. accused Devender came there and told that he would not pay a single penny. Accused Golu went away from there and accused Devender took away all his electronic articles. When he asked accused Devender to return his articles, a quarrel started and thereafter accused Devender caused injuries on his neck with some object and blood started oozing out of his neck. He put his handkerchief on the neck to control the bleedings and ran towards Ring Road to save his life. He hired a TSR and reached home from where he was taken by his father to the hospital. The police arrived there and recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A. He remained admitted in the hospital for about two days and joined investigation on 23.11.2005 but accused could not be traced on that day. On 24.11.2005 he again joined the investigation of this case and went to Ring Road in search of them with the police. In the mean while both the accused persons, whose names were subsequently revealed as Devender Sharma @ Bablu and Golu, were pointed out by him to the police to be the same persons who cheated him and caused injuries on his neck with some object. The police arrested both the accused persons and their personal search were conducted vide memos Ex.PW2/B to E. 4 Their disclosure statements Ex.PW2/F and G were also recorded and both the accused also pointed out the place of occurrence vide memos Ex.PW2/H and J. At that time accused Golu was wearing the wrist watch Sonata Quartz which was also identified by him to be the same and it was also seized vide memo Ex.PW2/K. This witness has also identified the Sonata Quartz watch to be the same which belong to him but recovered from accused Golu on that day.
7. PW3 is Sh. Badal who removed the injured to hospital when he came bleeding from his neck.
8. PW1 Ct. Manoj was posted as DD writer on 18.11.2005 at PP WPIA when ASI Kartar Singh of PS Shalimar Bagh handed over to him the statement of injured Veer Singh alongwith his MLC informing that the occurrence had taken place within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar, so he made the relevant entry in the roznamcha vide DD No.28 Ex.PW1/A and on the direction of Incharge, PP WPIA handed over the statement and MLC of injured to HC Dalbir Singh for necessary action.
9. PW4 ASI Kartar Singh has also deposed that on recipt of DD No.12A on 18.11.2005 he visited Janki Dass Kapoor Hospital, Naraina Road and after the injured was declared fit for statement, he recorded his statement and as the place of 5 occurrence was within the jurisdiction of PS Ashok Vihar, he got delivered the statement and MLC of injured at PP WPIA. PW5 Ct. Kishan Chand accompanied HC Dalbir Singh to Janki Dass Memorial Hospital and also to the spot near Richi Rich but no eye witness could be found. Thereafter IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to him for getting the FIR registered. After getting the case registered, he handed over the rukka and copy of FIR to HC Dalbir Singh. PW6 W/ASI Urmila was working as Duty Officer at PS Shalimar Bagh on 18.11.2005. On receipt of telephonic information from Janki Dass Hospital regarding admission of Veer Singh in injured condition, she recorded the information vide DD No.12 copy of which is Ex.PW6/A and handed over the same to ASI Kartar Singh who visited the hospital. On the same day PCR call was also received through wireless operator regarding admission of the same injured which information was also recorded vide DD No.13 copy of which is Ex.PW6/B and it was kept pending as ASI Kartar Singh had already left with the earlier DD. PW8 HC Dinesh Singh was Duty Officer at PS Ashok Vihar on 18.11.2005 and on the basis of rukka sent by HC Dalbir, he recorded the FIR copy of which is Ex.PW8/A. PW9 Dr. Sandeep Sehgal had stated that on 18.11.2005 he was working as Consultant Surgeon at Janki Dass Memorial Hospital and at 6 about 10.50 pm injured Veer Singh was brought by one Badal who was examined in casualty and referred to surgical unit where the injured was attended by him and Dr. Madan and they repaired the wound on the neck. He also gave opinion about the nature of injury as 'grievous' on the MLC Ex.PW9/A. PW10 Dr. J.P. Verma attended the injured at Casualty and referred him to Surgery Unit after preparing the MLC Ex.PW9/A.
10. PW7 Ct. Manohar Lal and PW11 SI Rajpal are are witnesses to the apprehension of the accused persons at the instance of complainant and recovery of watch from accused Golu. As per statement of PW11 SI Rajpal on 18.11.2005 while he was patrolling in the area, on a telephonic call from HC Dalbir he reached SS Nagar, Udham Singh Park, WPIA where HC Dalbir with Ct. Kishan were present. HC Dalbir handed over to him rukka and copy of FIR for further investigation. He conducted further investigation but no eye witness could be found.
11. PW-11 SI Rajpal Singh has also stated that on 23.11.2005 complainant Veer Singh came to the PP and joined the investigation and at his instance he prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A but there was no clue of the offenders. Further on 24.11.2005 the complainant again came to the PP and joined the investigation. They reached the spot where two boys were found 7 standing on the road in front of A-96/6 and complainant identified both the boys to be the same involved in this occurrence. Both those boys were apprehended and on inquiry their names were revealed as Devender and Golu. They were interrogated and their disclosure statements were recorded and thereafter they were arrested. At the time of arrest, accused Golu was wearing a wrist watch which was identified by the complainant to be the same belonging to him so he kept the said watch in a pullanda and after sealing the same seized vide memo Ex.PW2/K. He has identified the wrist watch Ex.P1 to be the same belonging to the complainant and seized from accused Golu. After arresting the accused persons and completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet. PW7 Ct. Kishan has also deposed on identical lines.
12. I have heard Sh. S.C. Sharma, Addl.PP for the State, Ms.Sadhna Bhatia counsel for accused Devender and Sh. Ravi Chaturvedi, counsel for accused Golu and carefully perused the record.
13. On behalf of accused persons it has been submitted that they were not involved in this occurrence and they have been falsely implicated by the complainant. It has been further submitted by ld. Counsels for the accused persons that there is no document of ownership with the complainant to prove that the 8 watch Ex.P1 belongs to him nor the weapon of offence was recovered. It has also been contended that as per the MLC, the complainant was admitted with the alleged history of RTA and in the circumstances there is no question of prosecution proving its case against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and 420 IPC.
14. I have considered the submissions made by ld. Defence counsels for the accused persons and gone through the record. First of all the contention of ld. Defence counsel that complainant was admitted with alleged history of RTA is concerned, no doubt it is mentioned so on his MLC but the complainant has given the explanation in his complaint to the police and also while deposing in the Court that due to fear he could not narrate the true facts in the hospital. The nature of injury suffered by the complainant i.e. only on the neck further shows that it was not a case of RTA but of inflicting injuries with a sharp weapon on his neck. So far as document of ownership regarding the watch is concerned, it cannot be ignored that complainant used to sell cheap electronic items which can be informed from the fact that the price quoted for Sonata Quartz watch was only Rs.100/- and with bargaining it could have been lowered down further. For such type of items it is not expected either from the complainant or for that matter from Golu from 9 whom the watch was recovered subsequently, that they were carrying any document of ownership. It also cannot be ignored that complainant had described the role of each accused separately and has not involved accused Golu for the offence under Section 307 IPC by attributing common intention to accused Golu when the injuries were caused by accused Devender. Accused persons were stranger to the complainant and the complainant was present in that area just for the purpose of his business i.e. to sell cheap electronic items. In the circumstances the complainant had absolutely no motive to falsely implicate any of the accused persons or falsely identify the watch which was recovered from accused Golu. I am of the opinion that from the statement Ex.PW2/A of the complainant initially made before the police where name of the accused persons is not mentioned, it is clear that it is not a case of false implication. Considering that there was a quarrel with the accused persons and complainant had ample opportunity to see them while selling the watch and during the quarrel, during investigation by police they had been arrested on his identification and only thereafter they were arrested by the police and recovery of watch was made from accused Golu.
15. So far as accused Golu is concerned, from the statement of the complainant it is proved that the accused Golu 10 took the watch from the complainant Veer Singh @ Veeru on the pretext of seeing before purchasing, but during the quarrel, preferred to slip away from the spot taking advantage of the situation and had no intention to pay for the watch while taking it from the complainant on the above pretext.
16. Thus the statement of the complainant is sufficient to prove that accused Golu dishonestly induced him to part with watch Ex.P1 to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and wrongful gain to him. Hence, I hold accused Golu guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.
17. Now coming to the case against accused Devender, in order to prove its case against this accused, the prosecution has required to prove the evil intent or knowledge and secondly an act done. The parts of the body of the victim selected for causing the injuries and severity of the blow is also an important factor for deciding whether the accused had committed the offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC. In this regard, the statement of the complainant/injured Veer Singh coupled with the injuries mentioned on the MLC and the surgical treatment given to him by repairing his neck, is sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Devender hit on the neck of the victim Veer Singh with an object and immediately thereafter the blood started oozing out from his neck. It was 11 only with the help of handkerchief that he tried to control the bleedings but it could not be controlled and when he was taken to the hospital, his condition was very critical as pulse was feeble thready, BP was not recordable and immediately he was removed to surgery unit for admission and repair of wound in OT. Considering that the blow with an object was given by accused Devender on the neck region, it is sufficient to attribute the necessary knowledge to this accused while causing injuries on his neck so as to constitute the offence under Sec. 307 IPC. It is not necessary to show that bodily injury capable of causing death was inflicted. What the Court has to see is whether the act, irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section. If the injury is actually caused, its nature may give assistance in coming to a finding whether the accused had the intention of causing the death of the victim. If the surrounding circumstances make no contribution to the proof of intention or knowledge, it can be inferred only from the nature of the act itself. In such a case the accused must be presumed to intend only the natural consequences of the act. It is not necessary that the injury actually caused to the victim of the assault should be sufficient in ordinary circumstances to cause the death of the victim.
12
18. From the statement of the complainant/injured Veer Singh which is duly supported and corroborated by his MLC and the statement of two doctors namely PW-9 Dr. Sandeep Sehgal and PW-10 Dr. J.P. Verma, it is established that accused Devender while inflicting injury on the neck region of Veer Singh might not had the intention to murder him as there was no previous enmity between the two but had the necessary knowledge when he hit him on his neck with an object. The prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused Devender for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. I hold accused Devender guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC.
19. In view of the discussion, accused Devender is held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC and accused Golu is held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC and convicted accordingly.
Announced in the open Court ( PRATIBHA RANI) 5.9.2007 Addl. Sessions Judge/Delhi 13 IN THE COURT OF SMT. PRATIBHA RANI, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI SC No.54/07 State Vs 1. Devender @ Bablu S/o Sh. Nain Singh R/o Jhuggi No.A-92, Udham Singh Park, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, Delhi.
2. Golu Lal, S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal, R/o Jhuggi No.20/429, Opp. A-98/6, Udham Singh Park, Wazir Pur Industrial Area, Delhi.
FIR No.782/05 Under Sec. 420/411/307/34 IPC PS : Ashok Vihar Date of Institution : 22.12.2005 Arguments heard on : 10.9.07 Order pronounced on : 10.9.07 *** ORDER ON SENTENCE I have heard the convict Devender and his counsel Ms. Sadhana Bhatia, Advocate and convict Golu and his counsel Sh. Ravi Chaturvedi, Advocate on the point of sentence. Sh. S.C. Sharma, Addl. PP has also made submissions on behalf of State.
2. On behalf of convict Devender, it has been submitted 14 that the convict is the only bread earner of the family and he has aged father and two siblings to support hence prayer for lenient view has been made.
3. On behalf of convict Golu, it has been submitted that he is first offender belonging from a very poor family and pryaer for lenient view has been made on the ground that the case property was only a wrist watch for which price of Rs.100/- only was quoted for which convict had also remained in custody for about 24 days.
4. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the convicts. So far as convict Golu is concerned, he is about 27 years old, belonging to a very poor family and has clean antecedent as this was his first involvement in a case. Taking into consideration that may be due to sudden temptation to keep the watch, he slipped away from the spot with the watch which was subsequently recovered from him, I am inclined to take a lenient view in view of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, especially the value of the wrist watch i.e. about Rs.100/-, I hereby sentence the convict Golu to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one week.
5. So far as convict Devender is concerned, he has 15 unnecessarily involved himself when other convict Golu was in the process of purchasing a watch from the complainant and without any reason or provocation, he tried to show his supremacy and attacked the complainant with some object on his neck. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby sentence the convict Devender to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- for the offence punishable under Sec.307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The period of detention already undergone by both the convicts during investigation/trial of the case, if any, shall be set off under Sec. 428 CrPC.
5. Case property be confiscated to the State. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court 10.9.2007 ( PRATIBHA RANI ) Addl. Sessions Judge/Delhi 16