Ram Naresh vs State Of Delhi
2004 Latest Caselaw 1356 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Chaturvedi, J.

1. Instant criminal appeal is directed against conviction and sentence under Section 308/341 IPC by judgment and order dated 13.12.2003 and 17.12.2003 respectively of a learned Sessions Judge.

2. The prosecution case is that on 19th of November, 2001 Ashok Kumar-complaint, for getting electricity to his JHUGGI direct from electric supply line connected a wire thereto and in the process caused disruption of electric supply to the JHUGGI of appellant. Annoyed on this account, after a short while, when the complainant was sitting at his vegetable shop, the appellant accompanied by his three associates came there. He was armed with an iron pipe. Two of his associates were carrying a LATHI and DANDA. The fourth one was, however, without any arm. On reaching the complainant's vegetable shop, the appellant called him outside his shop and after hurling abuses assaulted him with iron pipe, To save himself, the complainant started running away. He was, however, caught hold of by the associate of the appellant who was without any arm and, thereafter, the other two associates carrying LATHI and DANDA also assaulted him therewith. On his crying for help, the appellant with his associates ran away from there.

3. The complainant was taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital by one Sohan Ram, a neighbour, and got admitted there.

4. On an information, in regard to complainant's admission in the hospital in an injured condition being received at PS S.P. Badli, Delhi, from the duty constable posted at the said hospital, a DD entry in that regard was made by the duty officer and a copy thereof was handed over to ASI Hari Ram, who accompanied by Const. Nag Raj, proceeded to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital. He collected the MLC of the complainant from there and recorded the statement of the complainant. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, an FIR under Section 308/341 IPC was registered at PS S.P. Badli.

5. The appellant was later arrested. At his instance, the iron pipe, which was used as weapon of offence, was recovered and taken into possession by the police. The three associates, who had joined the appellant in assaulting the complainant, could not be identified and arrested. Thus, it was the appellant alone who faced trial on the charges under Sections 308/341 IPC, and was, eventually, convicted and sentenced to RI for four years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default six months' RI under Section 308 IPC and fifteen days SI and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default three days' SI under Section 341 IPC.

6. I heave heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned APP.

7. The complainant is the sole witness of the incident examined by the prosecution. The impugned conviction of the appellant is based on his solitary statement.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that though in terms of prosecution version the incident had taken place on 19th of November, 2001, the complainant denied that he was assaulted on that date. He rather affirmed that the incident had taken place on 20th of November, 2001. In view of the aforesaid discrepancy, in regard to the date of incident, contended the learned counsel for the appellant, uncorroborated statement of the complainant could not suffice to sustain the impugned conviction and sentence. It was further contended that according to the complainant himself about 100/150 persons had collected at the spot when the incident had taken place but no witness was examined by the prosecution to support the statement of the complainant.

9. Noticeably, complainant was taken to Babu Jagjiwan Ram Hospital in an injured condition by Sohan Ram, PW-5, and got admitted there at 10.55 p.m. on 19th of November, 2001. This is so evident from the MLC, PW-3/A. On examination, the doctor concerned had noticed the following injuries on the person of the complainant.

''1. Swelling and tenderness over wrist joint of left forearm.

2. L.W. over parietal region size 3.5 x 1.0 cm.

3. L.W. on right forehead 2.5 x 1 cm.

4. L.W. just above right Anteria sup iliac spine region size 0.5 c.m.''

10. The statement of complainant, forming basis of the FIR, was recorded by ASI Hari Ram at the hospital on 20.11.2001 and the same was sent by him to the police station with his endorsement, at 1.30 a.m., for registration of FIR. There is, thus, sufficient evidence to show that the incident had, in fact, taken place on 19th of November, 2001 only and not on 20th of November, 2001 as testified by the complainant. Simply because the complainant mistakenly stated 20th of November, 2001 as the date of incident in stead of 19th of November, 2001, his entire statement would not stand discredited.

11. No other discrepancy could be pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant in the statement of the complainant, which could render his testimony unacceptable without corroboration. No doubt, in spite of presence of a good number of people at the time of incident, no witness of incident, apart from the complainant, has been examined by the prosecution, the sole testimony of an injured, unless otherwise discredited, is good enough to base the finding of conviction.

12. On perusal of evidence on record, the appellant has rightly been held guilty of the charges and sentenced therefore.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant, pleading for reduction in sentence submitted that the appellant is the only bread winner in the family consisting of his handicapped wife, a deaf and dumb son, an eighteen year old daughter of marriageable age and a widowed mother. This submission was, of course, made before the learned trial court also in the course of hearing on sentence but the learned trial court proceeded to inflict a sentence of four years' RI, apart from fine, under Section 308 IPC against maximum sentence of seven years.

14. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and also the family responsibility which the appellant is to shoulder, a substantive sentence of three years RI under Section 308 IPC would appear good enough to serve the ends of justice. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the extent that four years' RI under Section 308 IPC shall stand reduced to three years' RI. The remaining sentence shall remain unchanged.

15. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.