Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 325,341,506 of i.p.c in State vs . : Avinash Sungar Etc. on 17 February, 2020Matching Fragments
1. Accused persons Avinash Sungar @ Pankaj and Manoj Kumar @ Mannu have been sent for trial on the allegations that on 25.11.2017 at about 04:00 PM at Subway Siddharth Nagar Ashram, Sunlight Colony, within the jurisdiction of PS Sunlight Colony, they both in furtherance of their common intention have voluntarily obstructed the complainant Premvir to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which he had a right to proceed. It is also alleged that both the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, have voluntarily beaten the complainant with fist and leg blows and caused grievous injuries to him and also threatened him with dire consequences. Thus, as per the prosecution, both the accused herein committed offences made punishable u/s. 341/325/506(I)/34 IPC.
2. The IO, after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet before this court.
3. It may be noted that initially the chargesheet was filed for offences made punishable u/s. 325/341/506/34 IPC against both the accused persons. Thereafter, charge for commission of offences made punishable u/s. 341/325/506(I)/34 IPC was framed upon both the accused persons vide order dated 07.09.2018 to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 462/17 State V/s. Avinash Sungar Etc. 2 of 13
16.Thus, in the light of the testimonies of both the witnesses, the weight of evidence is sufficient to hold both the accused herein guilty for offences made punishable u/s. 325/341/506(I)/34 IPC. Victim / complainant had suffered a nasal bone fracture which is a grievous injury within the meaning of section 325 IPC. As per record, both accused had acted in tandem with each other with accused Manoj @ Mannu holding the complainant from his hands while he was beaten up by accused Avinash Sungar @ Pankaj. During this process, complainant was stopped from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed. Thus, ingredients of section 325/341/34 IPC are complete. Yet again, for the threat extended on the next day of the incident, it appears that both accused criminally intimidated the complainant so as to prevent him from filing a criminal case against them. The complainant got frightened because of the said threat and FIR No. 462/17 State V/s. Avinash Sungar Etc. 9 of 13 left for his village. These facts show that the complainant was criminally intimidated within the meaning of section 504 IPC for which both the accused are held guilty which is punishable u/s. 506(I)/34 IPC.
19.Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the testimony of PW1 and PW3 is sufficient to bring home the guilt of both the accused herein for offences made punishable u/s. 325/341/506(I)/34 IPC. Accordingly, they both are convicted for offences made punishable u/s. 325/341/506(I)/34 IPC.
FIR No. 462/17 State V/s. Avinash Sungar Etc. 11 of 13
20.Before parting with this judgment, I may note that two defence witnesses namely DW1 / Vipin Kumar and DW2 / Shriram Prajapati were produced by the accused persons who claimed that accused Manoj Kumar @ Mannu was in Gandhi Nagar Delhi at the alleged time of incident. During crossexamination of the said witnesses, it transpired that while witness DW1 / Vipin Kumar is brother in law of accused Manoj, DW2 / Shriram Prajapati was a casual staff of accused Manoj. Both the said witnesses have given a vague account on the basis of which they claimed that accused Manoj was not present at the spot of incident. While, DW1 / Vipin Kumar claims that accused Manoj was at Gandhi Nagar because he had sent certain pictures on Whatsapp to him, DW2 / Shriram Prajapati claimed that he called Manoj on phone and learnt from him that he is in Gandhi Nagar Delhi. DW1 was not even present at the spot to witness the fight and only on the basis of some pictures (which are not on record), this witness claimed that accused Manoj was at Gandhi Nagar Delhi. Again, DW2 is stated to be a casual staff of accused Manoj. In my opinion, both the said witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimony does not inspire confidence. It appears that only to help the accused Manoj, they have stepped in the witness box and made statements in support of accused Manoj. Without any credible fact being stated by them to establish the plea of alibi for accused Manoj, in my opinion, their testimony cannot be taken as true and correct. More so, when the testimony of the complainant / PW1 and his wife / PW3 had stood the test of crossexamination and nothing has come out therefrom to FIR No. 462/17 State V/s. Avinash Sungar Etc. 12 of 13 disbelieve the presence of accused Manoj at the spot and also his involvement in the incident. That being the case, both the accused herein have been held guilty in the aforesaid manner.