IN THE COURT OF SH.

PITAMBER DUTT, SPECIAL JUDGE

(PC ACT) CBI-02 CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

Unique ID No.02401R0571652015
CA No.21/15

1. Sonu S/o Sh. Ramesh

R/o H. No.6567, Neemwala Chowk
Gali No.15, Nabi Karim, New Delhi.

2. Sh. Shankar S/o Sh. Ramesh

R/o H. No.6567, Neemwala Chowk
Gali No.15, Nabi Karim, New Delhi.

3. Ravi @ Dale S/o Sh. Ramesh

R/o H. No.6567, Neemwala Chowk
Gali No.15, Nabi Karim, New Delhi.

4. Manoj S/o Sh. Prahlad

R/o H. No.6567, Neemwala Chowk
Gali No.15, Nabi Karim, New Delhi. .....Appellants

VERSUS
State. .....Respondent

Date of institution : 23.10.2015

Date of Decision : 20.02.2016

ORDER

1. Vide this order, I shall decide an appeal filed by

appellants against impugned judgment dated

09.09.2015, whereby appellants have been held guilty

for the commission of an offence punishable under

section 323/34 IPC. The brief facts giving rise of filing of

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 1

 present appeal are given as under:-

2. FIR No.335//2007 dated 14.09.2007 was registered

under section 323/451/452/34 IPC on the complaint of

Smt. Laxmi who alleged in her complaint that she went

at the residence of her daughter Smt. Babita at H.

No.BB-216, Neemwala Chowk, Nabi Karim, New Delhi.

At about 1.30 pm all accused persons, whom she earlier

known, entered into the house of her daughter Smt.

Babita and started abusing. Accused Ravi stated that her

daughter and son in law had falsely implicated him in a

case and he would teach them a lesson. Accused Manoj

caught hold the complainant Smt. Laxmi and accused

Ravi attached with some article at her abdomen and

hand and when her son in law and daughter tried to save

her then accused Sonu started giving beatings to her

daughter and accused Shankar started giving beatings

to his son in law. They raised an alarm then all the

accused persons ran away from there after beating

them. On the basis of that allegations, the said FIR was

registered. The police investigated the case and

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 2

 recorded the statements of witnesses and submitted the

charge sheet before the Ld. MM.

3. After compliance of necessary requirements under

section 207 Cr. P. C, Ld. Trial Court heard the

arguments on the point of charge and framed the

charges against all the accused persons vide order

dated 14.09.2009. Thereafter matter was posted for

prosecution evidence.

4. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to

prove its case against all the accused persons. After that

statements of accused persons under section 313 Cr. P.

C were recorded and all incriminating material was put to

them to which they all denied. Accused persons have

also examined two defence witnesses namely Charan

Dass as DW-1 & Sh. Laxmi Narayan as DW-2.

5. The Ld. Trial Court heard the arguments and vide

impugned judgment dated 09.09.2015, Ld. Trial Court

reached to the conclusion that the prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubts qua offence

punishable under section 323/34 IPC against all the

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 3

 accused persons but could not prove its case beyond

reasonable doubts qua offence punishable under section

452/34 IPC. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned

judgment dated 09.09.2015, the present appeal has

been filed by the appellants.

6. Sh. Manoj Kumar, Ld. counsel for appellants

contended that Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned

judgment dated 09.09.2015 in violation of settled law and

the impugned judgment is not based on the facts and

circumstances of the case. He further contended that the

basic ingredient for conviction under section 323/34 IPC

has not been proved by the prosecution in the instant

case and Ld. MM has over stretched the evidence and

has convicted the appellants without any basis. He also

contended that Ld. Trial Court has not appreciated the

discrepancies in the evidence of public witnesses and

Ld. Trial Court should have acquitted the appellants for

offence punishable under section 323/34 IPC as well.

Ld. counsel for appellant prayed that the appeal filed by

appellants may be accepted. The impugned judgment

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 4

 dated 09.09.2015 may be set aside and appellants may

be acquitted under section 323/34 IPC.

7. Per contra, Sh. G. S. Guraya, Ld. Addl. PP for State

has contended that the prosecution has placed sufficient

material on record to prove the commission of offence

punishable under section 323/34 IPC and the Ld. Trial

Court after examining all the evidences placed on record

has passed the judgment which is based on well

supported reasoned. He further contended that there is

no infirmity in the judgment dated 09.09.2015 passed by

the Ld. Trial Court. He prayed that the appeal filed by the

appellants may be dismissed.

8. I have heard Sh. Manoj Sharma, Ld. Counsel for

appellants, Sh. G. S. Guraya, Ld. Addl. PP for State and

have perused the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2015

as well as the entire trial court record.

9. A perusal of the above shows that FIR was

registered against all the accused persons under section

323/451/452/34 IPC on the complaint of Smt. Laxmi who

was examined by the prosecution as PW-2. A perusal of

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 5

 testimony of PW-2 Smt. Laxmi clearly shows that she

stands with her version as stated by her in her complaint

against all the accused persons. She identified all the

accused persons present in the court.

10. PW-2 Smt. Laxmi has been thoroughly cross

examined but no incriminating material came out in her

cross examination. She simply mentioned in her cross

examination that accused persons were beating them

outside house in the gali at that time they made noise

and neighbourers of the locality gathered there. Whereas

in her complaint, she stated that the beatings were taken

place in the house of her daughter Smt. Babita itself.

11. The prosecution has also examined Smt. Babita as

PW-3. PW-3 Smt. Babita in her examination in chief

categorically deposed that on 14.09.2007 her mother

came to her house to meet her and her husband. At

about 1.30 PM four boys namely Ravi @ Dale, Sonu,

Shankar & Manoj whom she know prior to the incident

entered in her house and started abusing them. Accused

Ravi @ Dale was saying to her mother while uttering

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 6

 abuses to them that "Teri Beti Wa Damad Ne Mujhe

Lahori Gate Thane Mein Jhutey Case Mein Bandh

Karaya Hai Aaj Tumhe Iska Majha Chakhate Hain". She

stated that accused Manoj caught hold her mother and

accsued Ravi @ Dale attached her with some weapon at

her abdomen and hand and caused injuries to her and

when she along her husband tried to save her mother

then accused Sonu started beating her and accused

Shankar started beating her husband. They all cried to

save them and on hearing this her neighbourers

Bamboo came there and public persons were also

gathered there and on seeing this all the accused

persons ran away from there.

12. Initially PW-3 Babita was not cross examined but

subsequently she was cross examined by all the

accused persons but in her cross examination she stood

to what she stated in her examination in chief except the

fact that she stated the above said neighbourers

gathered outside her house in gali. When the accused

persons fled away from the spot they came down in the

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 7

 gali outside their gali by raising alarm. The testimony of

PW-2 Smt. Laxmi & PW-3 Smt. Babita are in

consonance with each other.

13. The prosecution has also examined Smt. Bamboo

as PW-1. She stated in her examination in chief that no

scuffle took place in her presence. She was declared

hostile by the prosecution and even during cross

examination conducted by Ld. Assistant PP, she has not

supported the case of the prosecution.

14. The prosecution has also placed on record the

medical record of PW-3 Smt. Babita which is Ex. PW7/A

which were prepared in the handwriting of Dr. Shagun.

The prosecution has also examined Ashok Kumar who

produced the medical record of PW-2 Smt. Laxmi which

is Ex. PW10/A.

15. A perusal of the medical record Ex. PW7/A shows

that there is no sign of external injury over the body of

PW-3 Smt. Babita but in the medical record of the

complainant Smt. Laxmi, there is specifically mentioned

that there are multiple abrasion over abdomen wall and

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 8

 forearm and opined that the injuries sustained by the

complainant Smt. Laxmi are simple and caused by blunt

object.

16. The contention of Ld. counsel for appellants is that

the public witness Smt. Bamboo turned hostile and other

witnesses are the interested witnesses. The contention

of Ld. counsel of the appellants is not tenable merely

because public witness who was joined by the

prosecution has turned hostile and has not supported

the case of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution

cannot be thrown away. PW-2 Smt. Laxmi & PW-3 Smt.

Babita who were the main witnesses and sustained

injuries have supported the case of the prosecution. The

version of PW-2 Smt. Laxmi has also been supported by

her medical record that she sustained injuries by some

blunt object. The Ld. Trial Court has rightly held that the

prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable

doubts that all the accused persons have caused simple

injuries upon the complainant Smt. Laxmi which is

punishable under section 323/34 IPC.

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 9

 17. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am

of the considered view that the Ld. Trial Court has rightly

convicted all the accused persons for the commission of

crime punishable under section 323/34 IPC vide

judgment dated 09.09.2015 and I see no legal infirmity in

the same. Consequently, the appeal filed by the

appellants against the judgment dated 09.09.2015 is

dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back immediately

along with the copy of this order. Appeal file be

consigned to record room after due compliance.

(ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN

COURT TODAY I.E ON 20.02.16)

(PITAMBER DUTT)
SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)(CBI):02
DELHI

CA No.21/15 Sonu & Ors. Vs State 10