Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 1573
High Court of Delhi
S.P. GARG, J.
Prabhu Dayal Sharma & Others
Versus
The State of Nct of Delhi & Others
Crl.A. Nos. 680, 689, 857, 676, 675 & 1036 of 2012
Decided on: 30-05-2014
For the Appellants:Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate With Sudarshan Rajan, Mohd. Saleem, Mohd. Tabrej, Md. Qamar Ali, Ashok Kr. Arya, Advocates.
For the Respondents: M.N. Dudeja, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on the testimony of an injured witness and the requirement for proving a plea of 'alibi' with absolute certainty.
Headnote:
Injury - Criminal Law - Sections 325/34 IPC - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case, the evidence presented, and the court's findings in a case involving injuries caused to the victim. The court relied on the testimony of the injured witness, the medical evidence, and legal principles related to the weight of evidence from an injured witness to reach its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple appeals challenging the legality and correctness of a judgment convicting the appellants under Sections 325/34 IPC for causing injuries to the victim. The prosecution's case was based on the occurrence at a specific location, the injuries sustained by the victim, and the statements of witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the injured witness's testimony was reliable and accorded a special status in law. It also found that the evidence presented by the prosecution satisfactorily established the presence of the accused at the scene of the occurrence.
Issues: The key issues included determining the perpetrators of the injuries, evaluating the plea of 'alibi' raised by some of the accused, and assessing the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal principles that emphasized the reliability of an injured witness's testimony and the weight to be attached to such evidence. It also considered the requirement for proving a plea of 'alibi' with absolute certainty.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants under Sections 325/34 IPC and modified the sentence for one of the appellants, directing their release on probation and ordering the payment of compensation to the victim. The remaining appeals were dismissed, and the trial court records were to be sent back forthwith.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. In Criminal Appeals No. 680/2012, 689/2012, 676/2012 and 675/2012, Prabhu Dayal Sharma (A-1), Jasveer (A-2), Mahabir (A-3) and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju (A-4) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 23.05.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 8/11 arising out of FIR No. 70/06 PS Paharganj, by which they were convicted under Sections 325/34 IPC. By an order dated 24.05.2012, they were sentenced to undergo RI for one and half year with fine Rs. 15,000/-, each.
2. Jasbir Singh (A-2) has filed Crl.A.No.857/2012 under Section 372 Cr.P.C. to impugn a judgment dated 23.05.2012 in Sessions Case No. 9/11 arising out of FIR No. 69/06 PS Paharganj, by which Ramesh Kirar (respondent No.2) was acquitted of the charge. Complainant – Ramesh Kirar has preferred Crl.A.No.1036/2012 under Section 372 Cr.P.C. to challenge A-1 to A-4’s acquittal under Sections 308/34 IPC and for enhancement of sentence awarded to them in FIR No.70/06 PS Paharganj.
Since all these appeals were intrinsically connected, with the consent of the parties, these were heard together to be disposed of by a common judgment.
3. Shorn of details, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet in FIR No. 70/06 PS Paharganj was that on 17.02.2006 at about 08.00 a.m. at shop No.5, near Uday Singh Ashram Chowk, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, A-1 to A-4 sharing common intention caused injures to Ramesh Kirar with iron rods and dandas in an attempt to commit culpable homicide. The police machinery swung into action after receiving information about the incident and Daily Diary (DD) No.8A (Ex.PW-8/A) came to be recorded at 08.32 a.m. at PS Paharganj to the effect that an individual had sustained injuries on head in a quarrel at Uday Singh Ashram, Aram Bagh. The investigation was entrusted to ASI Dharambir Singh who with Const.Manoj Kumar went to the spot. They came to know that the victim had already been shifted to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital. ASI Dharambir Singh collected MLC of Ramesh Kirar. Since he was unfit to make statement, the Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report, after making endorsement (Ex.PW-8/B) on DD No.8A (Ex.PW-8/A). During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The investigation was taken over by SI S.P.Singh. On 22.02.2006, statement of the victim Ramesh Kirar was recorded. A-1 to A-4 were arrested. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against them for committing offence under Sections 308/34 IPC; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to establish their guilt. In 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication and denied their involvement in the crime; A-3 and A-4 raised plea of ‘alibi’. DW-1 to DW-6 were examined in defence. The trial resulted in conviction of A-1 to A-4 under Sections 325/34 IPC as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeals.
4. In case FIR No.69/06 PS Paharganj, the prosecution case as disclosed in the charge-sheet was that on 17.02.2006 at about 08.00 A.M. at shop No.5, near Uday Singh Ashram Chowk, Aram Bagh, Paharganj, Ramesh Kirar voluntarily caused simple hurt with sharp object to Jasveer (A-2). When PW-8 (ASI Dharambir Singh) went to Dr.Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, after assignment of investigation pursuant to DD No.8A (Ex.PW-8/A), he found Jasveer (A-2) admitted there for treatment. He collected his MLC and lodged First Information Report after recording his statement (Ex.PW-2/A) by sending rukka (Ex.PW-6/A). After the investigation was over, a charge-sheet against Ramesh Kirar was furnished; he was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined six witnesses. In 313 statement, Ramesh Kirar claimed himself to be innocent and examined DW-1 (HC Arvind) and DW-2 (Dr.Ajay Gandotra) in defence. The trial resulted in his acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the victim has chall
