Praveen Kumar S/O Shri Jagpal, ... vs State Of Delhi
2002 Latest Caselaw 1153 Del

JUDGMENT

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

1. Praveen Kumar, hereinafter described as the appellant, has filed the present appeal directed against the judgment and the order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi dated 9th March, 2001 and 14th March, 2001 respectively. The learned trial court held the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307/325 of the Indian Penal Code. Thereupon he was sentenced to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months for causing injuries on the person of Maya Devi. He was further sentenced for seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for inflicting injuries on the person of Dharamdev for the above said offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine he was to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. He was sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with respect to the offence punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code for inflicting injuries on the person of Harvinder Singh. In default he was to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The facts of the prosecution case are that law had been put to motion on 8th January, 1996 when at 11.25 AM an information was received at police station Samaipur Badli that a quarrel was going on at house No. 75, Gali No. 8, Dr. Sudhir Wali Gali, Samai Pur Badli and that knives were being used. A daily diary No. 47B was recorded. ASI Man Chand was directed to proceed to the spot for further action. Accompanied by constable Mahavir Singh he went to the said site. When he reached there the injured had already been removed to the hospital by the police control room van. Blood was lying in the street.

3. ASI Man Chand left constable Mahavir Singh on the spot to guard the spot and went to Hindu Rao Hospital. He obtained the medical legal reports of Harvinder Singh, Maya Devi and Dharamdev. Maya Devi's statement was recorded which became the subject mater of the first information report. She had stated that her son Harvinder Singh was cleaning the drain. She had gone inside to fetch a bucket of water. She saw on coming out that Jag Pal, Punit and Praveen were giving beating to Harvinder Singh with lathis, Harvinder Singh had fallen down on the ground. Jag Pal Praveen and Punit ran towards her. Jag Pal had a lathi. Puneet too was armed with a lathi while Praveen had a knife. Jag Pal gave a lathi blow on her head. Praveen gave a knife blow on the right side of her stomach while Puneet also gave a lathi blow on her stomach. She fell down. Thereafter they gave blows with knives and lathis on the person of Dharamdev. In the meantime, Bimla also came there with an iron pipe. Jagpal, Bimla, Punit and Praveen entered their house and gave beating to their daughter-ion-law.

4. On the said statement ASI Man Chand made endorsement and first information report was recorded with respect to the offences punishable under Section 307/452/506/34 Indian Penal Code. Appellant was arrested on 8th January, 1996. He made a disclosure statement and stated that he had thrown away the knife in the bushes near Swaroop Nagar. The weapon of offence could not be recovered. After obtaining opinion with respect to the nature of injuries on these broad facts, report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure was filed.

5. The learned trial court had framed charge against the appellant and others with respect to the offence punishable under Section 307/34. The appellant and others pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

6. In support of its case prosecution had examined 12 witnesses in all which included the testimony of the alleged eye witnesses. Praveen when examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure pleaded his innocence and stated that while he was standing outside his house. Kanta Devi was throwing filth in the drain. He protested. She abused him. Two or three persons of the street intervened and he was asked to go inside. Thereupon Kanwar Singh, Maya Devi, Kanta, Harvinder, Dharamdev and Bhopal started abusing him outside his house. He remained inside. All the said persons came upstairs. They caught hold of the appellant and started beating him. Harvinder gave a lathi blow on his head. Thereupon he fell down. His mother Bimla Devi intervened and tried to rescue him. Kanwar Singh, Maya Devi caught hold of his mother and Kanta and Harvinder started giving kicks and fist blows to her. Bimla fell down. Thereupon all of them started breaking window panes and light fittings. The police had come and that he was also medically examined.

7. In defense the appellant examined Rajesh Thukral, DW-1, Ahlmed in the court of Mrs. Seema Maini. He proved the certified copy of the complained filed by the appellant and others and that the complainants side had been summoned as accused. O.P. Thakur, DW-2 and examined Praveen Kumar and proved the injuries on his person, namely one inch lacerated wound over left pariental region, four inch size CLW over right eyebrow. The injuries were opined to be simple and could be caused by a fall. DW-3, Janam Raj a resident of the same village had supported the version of the appellant which hardly requires a reproduction. Ram Pat, DW-4 also made a similar statement.

8. The learned trial court on appraisal of the evidence acquitted the other two accused but held that the appellant had caused grievous hurt on the person of Harvinder Singh and attempted to murder Dharamdev and Maya Devi and was held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code. With these findings and the fact that prosecution witnesses were believed so far as the appellant and concerned, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment followed by the order of sentence. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal has been filed.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant urged that there was no ground to believe and act on the testimonies of the said prosecution witnesses who according to him were totally interested and unreliable.

10. Maya Devi, PW-4 is one of the injured. She stated that on the said date at 1.00 PM she was helping her son to clean the drain when besides others who have been acquitted Praveen stabbed her with a knife in the abdomen. She had become unconconscious. She stated that she remained in the hospital for 20 to 22 days. She did not know if her statement had been recorded or not. During cross-examination she stated that a sweeper had been appointed to clean the drain but the appellant and others did not allow the sweeper to clean. A complaint had been made. The witness stated that she had poured water in front of the gate of her house. When she fell down she became unconscious. She denied that all the filthy material and waste of the house is thrown by her in the drain and this is the cause of the dispute. She denied that Harvinder had given lathi blow on the head of Praveen.

11. Dharamdev, PW-2 is the other injured person. He too stated that Praveen had caused injuries on his chest with the knife. He too was subjected to cross-examination and admitted and stated that he regained consciousness in the hospital. He had no idea as to who had taken him to the hospital. Harvinder Singh, PW-6 is the third injured person and made a statement in court that after the initial quarrel Praveen had taken out a knife from his pocket and stabbed him in his abdomen. He was admitted to the hospital besides three witnesses who were injured Harbaksh Singh appeared as PW-8. Mrs. Kanta also made a similar statement as PW-9. She too supported the prosecution version as testified by the witnesses referred to above.

12. While it is true that all the injured persons themselves have appeared as witnesses but it has to be remembered that a person who is himself injured ordinarily would be a good witness to depose about the incident. They would like the guilty persons to be brought to the book rather than innocent person being implicated. Their testimonies cannot be ignored merely because there was a dispute between the parties pertaining to the drain. The testimonies of these witnesses further get support from the medical evidence on the record which establishes that in fact injuries were caused had right acted and believed the testimonies of these witnesses.

13. The other argument of the learned counsel which was pressed vehemently was that in the facts of the present case the doctors who had examined, treated and given opinions with respect to the injuries on the so called persons have not been examined and therefore it cannot be termed that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had been established. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the decision of this court in Narinder Kumar v. The State .

14. Dr. Ravi Gupta had appeared as PW-1 and stated that Dr. Ruma Jain left the hospital (Hindu Rao Hospital). She had examined Harvinder Singh and proved the injuries recorded by Dr. Ruma Jain. He admitted that he himself had not examined the patient. Similarly Dr. Arun Yadav, PW-2 opined that Dr. Murari Lal had been working with him in the department and he had left for Saudi Arabia. He proved the MLC PW1/A to be in the hand of Dr. Murari Lal. Dr. O.P. Thakur, PW-3 is the only person who stated that he had examined Maya Devi on 8.1.1996. He stated that incised wound one and a half inch size in right hypoohondrium, omentum was protruding out of the wound. Dr. A.K. Chaturvedi, PW-12 stated that Dr. Umesh Tyagi had opined the injuries on the person of Dharamdev to be dangerous and Dr. Umesh is not in service of Hindo Rao Hospital. Even injury on the person of Maya Devi had been opined by Dr. Umesh to be dangerous. He had brought the case sheet of Dharamdev and Maya Devi.

15. While it is correct that when expert opinion is given by the individual it is he who must appear as a witness and prove the same. But in the present case in hand argument of the learned counsel for the appellant looses much of its significance for the reason that it can be established on basis of the oral evidence on the record that the appellant was wielding the knife and attacking on the vital parts of the witnesses referred to above. Intention to commit murder can be inferred from the nature of the injuries. The nature of the attack and the parts of the body on which injuries are purported to be caused. Once such facts are established inference can be drawn and in that event to urge that the nature of the injury has not been opined by a particular doctor who had examined the patient would be improper. In the present case in hand injuries had been caused on the vital parts of the body of the injured with the knife. This clearly show the real intent at the relevant time and in that view of the mater the findings of the learned trial court that offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code had been established wit respect to the injuries on the person of Maya Devi and Dharamdev.

16. It was in that event contended that there were injuries also is on the person of the appellant and the prosecution had not cared to explain the same. Reliance was placed on the testimony of Dr. O.P. Thakur, DW-2. The argument in its legal prospective that it is the duty of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused is not in controversy but the said principle will not come into being when there are superficial injuries on the person of the accused. Herein the appellant had only a lacerated wound on the left parietal region and a CLW over right eyebrow. Dr. O.P. Thakur opined injuries could be caused by a fall. Keeping in view the nature of the injuries therefore it was not necessary for the prosecution to explain such minor injuries.

17. The last submission in this regard was about the sentence that has been awarded. The appellant was stated to be young in age, a married person with two children. When he was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure he had given his age to be 26 years. Taking stock of these facts in the peculiar facts a lenient view can be taken. Interest of justice shall be fully met if sentence is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment with no interference with respect to the fine imposed. Accordingly, for these reasons the appeal on its merit fails but is allow with respect to the quantum of sentence. He is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for six months. Similar sentence is imposed with respect to causing injuries on the person of Dharamdev. For the offence punishable under Section 325 Indian Penal Code he is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default of payment of fine he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.