Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. Abrasion on exterior aspect of right hand.

2. Scratch marks of 3 cm below right elbow (exterior surface).

3. Two abrasions on left elbow.

4. Two bruises on flexor surface of left forearm 1 cm x 1 cm each.

5. Two scratch marks on forehead on left side 2 cm x 2 cm.

6. Scratch mark just above left eye 2 cm.

(41) She has testified that the patient had refused her internal examination and as per the local examination findings the nature of injury was opined to be Simple by Dr. Deepak, CMO. She has proved the MLC of patient Sushma which is Ex.PW18/A. She has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted. (42) PW19 Dr. Rahul has deposed that on 28.09.2012 at about 9:00 PM, he medically examined Premwati W/o Ranbir, female, 65 years old at the casualty of the hospital who was brought by her son Rajan with alleged history of physical assault. According to the witness, after her medical examination he prepared the MLC No. 48045 which is Ex.PW11/A according to which the patient was unconscious and sluggish response to deep painful stimuli with labored breathing. He has further deposed that on examination the pulse was not palpable and BP was not recordable. The witness has proved that he had not found any fresh external injury on the person of Premwati at the time of her examination, after which the patient was referred to surgery and medicine department for further management. He has further proved the MLC No. 47951 which is Ex.PW18/A in respect of Sushma who was examined by Dr. Roshan on 28.09.2012 who also gave his opinion as nature of injuries was Simple. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

Police / official witnesses:

(44) PW1 SI Manohar Lal is a formal witness being the Draftsman who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having prepared the scaled site plan which is Ex.PW1/A. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity in this regard and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(45) PW2 HC Subhash is a formal witness being the Duty Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW2/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the copy of FIR No. 252/12 which is Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.PW2/B. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel despite opportunity and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (46) PW3 HC Jai Pal is also a formal witness being the MHCM who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW3/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the entry in register no. 19 vide S.No. 3453/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/A; entry at S. No. 3479/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/B; entry in register no. 21 vide RC No. 142/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C and receipt issued by the FSL copy of which is Ex.PW3/D. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and his testimony has gone uncontroverted. (47) PW4 Ct. Bijender is a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW4/A (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved that on 9.11.2012 he took the exhibits of this case vide RC No. 142/21/12 copy of which is Ex.PW3/C and deposited the same with the FSL Rohini and obtained a receipt which is Ex.PW3/D. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(49) PW6 WCt. Reena is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW6/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein she has proved having got conducted the medical examination of injured Sushma. She has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence her testimony has gone uncontroverted.

(50) PW7 Ct. Deepak is again a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW7/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having gone to the spot of incident along with ASI Tahir Hussain and having taken the rukka to the Police Station and got the FIR registered. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted.

(51) PW8 Ct. Inderjeet is a formal witness being the PCR Officer who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW8/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved the PCR form which is Ex.PW8/A. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted. (52) PW9 Ct. Jaipal is also a formal witness who has been examined by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW9/1 (as per the provisions of Section 296 Cr.P.C.) wherein he has proved having got verified the addreses of the accused persons. He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted. (53) PW10 Sh. Jaipal TGT, Government Boys Senior Secondary School has brought the summoned record i.e. admission record pertaining to Ashwani Kumar. He has placed on record the copy of admission and withdrawal register which is Ex.PW10/A showing the relevant entry at serial No. 9087; copy of admission form which is Ex.PW10/B; copy of Birth certificate of Ashwani which is Ex.PW10/C; copy of undertaking given by Suresh Kumar, father of Ashwani at the time of admission which is Ex.PW10/D; copy of ration card in support of undertaking at the time of admission which is Ex.PW10/E (running into two pages). He has not been cross­examined by the Ld. Defence Counsel and hence his testimony his gone uncontroverted.