Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 1950
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
RAM NIVAS & ORS. - Appellants
Vs.
THE STATE - Respondent
CRL.A. 140, 132, 143/2005
Decided On : 12-05-2016
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Offences against Person
Act Referred
Headnote
IPC - Offences against Person - Section 308/34 IPC, Section 354 IPC - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the prosecution's case under Section 308/34 IPC and Section 354 IPC, focusing on the intention and knowledge of the accused, the nature of injuries, and the circumstances of the quarrel. The court found that the accused were guilty of causing hurt under Section 323/34 IPC instead of Section 308/34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for committing offences under Section 308/34 IPC and Section 354 IPC for voluntarily inflicting injuries to multiple individuals during a quarrel. The prosecution's case was based on the injuries sustained by the victims and their statements, while the appellants denied their involvement and pleaded false implication.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were the aggressors and authors of the crime, causing injuries to the complainant and her family members. The court concluded that the appellants were guilty of causing hurt under Section 323/34 IPC instead of Section 308/34 IPC. The court also upheld A-1's conviction under Section 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of the complainant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the intention of the accused during the quarrel.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the sudden nature of the quarrel, the absence of pre-planning, and the lack of deadly weapons to conclude that the injuries were not inflicted with the intention to cause bodily injuries capable of causing death. The court altered the conviction from Section 308/34 IPC to Section 323/34 IPC based on the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the quarrel.
Final Decision: The appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years with fines, but considering their clean antecedents, offer to pay compensation, and the period already undergone, the court took the period already undergone as their substantive sentence. The appellants were ordered to deposit compensation to the victims, and the appeals were disposed of accordingly.
For the Appellant :Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP.
S.P. GARG, J.
1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 08.02.2005 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.18/04 arising out of FIR No.50/2002 registered at Police Station Inderpuri whereby the appellant Ram Nivas (A-1), Chattar Singh (since expired), Atrey @ Atar Singh (A-2) and Parmod (A-3) were convicted for committing offences punishable under Section 308/34 IPC, they have filed the instant appeals. A-1 was further convicted by the said judgment for committing offence under Section 354 IPC. The appellants were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years with fine Rs. 10,000/-each under Section 308/34 IPC. A-1 was further sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine Rs. 5,000/-under Section 354 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case as stated in the charge-sheet was that on 20.03.2002 at around 8.00 a.m. in front of House No.WZ-356, Village Dasghara, the appellants in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily inflicted injuries to Jai Singh, Satto and Babita with ‘lathies’ in an attempt to commit the offence of culpable homicide. They also inflicted injuries to Ajay and Kanta. The incident was reported to the police promptly. DD No.8A came into existence at 8.06 a.m. on 20.03.2002 on getting information about a quarrel at House No.WZ-356. DD No.9A was recorded at 8.15 a.m. whereby the complainant informed the police that she was present near Dasghara near Balmiki Mandir and had sustained injuries on her head. Another DD No.11A at about 8.25 a.m. also came to be recorded at Police Station Inderpuri. The Investigating Officer after recording victim’s statement (Ex.PW-1/A) lodged First Information Report. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. The accused persons were arrested; certain recoveries were effected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 statement, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. They examined DW-1(Ram Kumar) in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeals have been filed. It is relevant to note that Chattar Singh-appellant No.2 in Crl.A.No.132/2005 expired during the pendency of appeal and the proceedings against him were dropped as ‘abated’.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellants’ counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. It overlooked the fact that despite availability of independent public witnesses, none was associated at any stage of the investigation. The injuries suffered by the victims were ‘simple’ in nature. Glaring infirmities emerging in the statement of the prosecution witnesses have been ignored without any cogent reasons by the Trial Court. The blood stained clothes which the injured were wearing at the time of occurrence were not produced during investigation and the ‘lathi’ allegedly recovered did not have any bloodstains. Ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not attracted. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that all the injured witnesses have corroborated each other and there are no sound reasons to disbelieve their version.
4. The occurrence in which Kanta (PW-1), PW-2 (Sapna), PW-3 (Jai Singh), PW-4(Ajay), PW-8 (Babita) and PW-9 (Satto) sustained injuries on their bodies are not under challenge. Specific suggestions have been put by the accused persons to the witnesses in the cross-examination that the quarrel had taken place due to PW-2 (Sapna), complainant’s daughter who did not bear good moral character. When the accused persons objected to her conduct and behavior, the quarrel occurred. It is further suggested that the injuries were suffered by these individuals at the hands of their own relatives. P
