Delhi High Court
Kulwant Singh And Others vs The State on 27 March, 2012
Author: Mukta Gupta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Crl. Rev. P. 688/2009
% Reserved on: 12th January, 2012
Decided on: 27th March, 2012
KULWANT SINGH AND OTHERS ..... Petitioners
Through: Petitioner No. 1 in person.
versus
THE STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Mukesh Gupta, APP for the
State with SI Rajendra, PS Krishna
Nagar.
Coram:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
1. By the present petition, the Petitioners seek setting aside of the
judgment dated 29th August, 2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge dismissing the appeal of the Petitioners filed against the Judgment and
order on sentence dated 4th July, 2009 and 6th July, 2009 respectively passed
by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate convicting the Petitioners for
offences under Sections 323/325/34 IPC and directing them to pay a fine of
Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of three months.
2. Petitioner No. 1, who argued on behalf of all the Petitioners, stated
that the doctor, who conducted the MLC, has not been examined. Thus, the
medical evidence cannot be read against them. In fact, on 22nd August, 1996
the Complainant had beaten the Petitioners and their MLCs got done at
Swamy Dayanand Hospital(in short 'SDN Hospital') are already placed on
record. The Complainant Mohit Gaur was not taken to the SDN hospital and
police got fabricated MLC of Mohit Gaur prepared, on the basis of which,
the Petitioners have been convicted. Instead of Dr. Rajender Gupta, one Dr.
Rajiv Gupta was examined as PW10, who was not on duty on the relevant
date, that is, 22nd August, 1996 as per the RTI reply received by the
Petitioners. Thus on the basis of fabricated documents, the Petitioners have
been convicted and the impugned judgments be thus set aside.
3. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that PW3 Mohit
Gaur is an injured witness, who has been examined in the Court and has
proved his complaint on the basis of which this FIR was registered. PW4
Vijay Pal Singh, TSR driver and an eye witness, neighbour of the
Complainant has also corroborated the version of PW3. No suggestion of
fabricated documents being prepared has been put to the witnesses and thus
the same cannot be considered at this stage. The statement of PW3, the
injured Complainant, is further corroborated by the MLC and the X-ray,
which shows a fracture in the nasal bone. Hence there is no infirmity in the
impugned judgments and the petition be dismissed.
4. I have heard Petitioner No. 1, learned APP for the State and perused
the record.
5. Briefly the case of the prosecution is that FIR No. 452/1996 under
Sections 323/325/34 IPC was registered against the Petitioners on the
complaint of PW3 Mohit Gaur. The Complainant alleged that on 22nd
August, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m. a rickshaw loaded with flour bag was
parked in front of his house. When the Complainant asked the Petitioners to
remove the rickshaw, they started abusing him, took him inside the house
and started beating him. At that time, his neighbour PW4 Vijay Pal Singh, a
TSR driver tried to settle the matter but he was also given beatings by the
Petitioners. The police arrived at the scene and got the injured medically
examined. Initially a kalandara under Section 107/151Cr.P.C. was prepared
against both the parties. Pursuant to the opinion of doctor being received
that the injuries to the Complainant/PW3 Mohit Gaur were grievous in
nature, the abovementioned FIR was registered.
6. The Complainant Mohit Gaur has been examined as PW3, who has
reiterated his allegations made in the complaint on the basis of which FIR
was registered. Though that witness has been cross-examined however,
nothing material has been elicited from this witness. This witness has denied
that he was not taken to SDN hospital. He stated that he was taken to the
SDN hospital and remained there till he was produced before the Court. He
denied that PW4 Vijay Pal Singh was his own driver. PW4 Vijay Pal Singh
has corroborated the version of PW3 Mohit Gaur. Though this witness in his
cross-examination stated that he had not seen Mohit Gaur receive injuries
however, he categorically stated that he had witnessed the accused persons
giving beatings to him. The Investigating Officer SI Laxman Singh has been
examined as PW5, however, no suggestion has been given to this witness
that the MLCs filed by him were fabricated. PW7 Dr. R.K. Rawat, has
appeared in the witness box and has exhibited the MLCs of Vijay Pal Singh
and Mohit Gaur as Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B which bear his signature at point
'A'. Though the suggestion of preparing false MLC was given to this
witness however, this witness denied the said suggestion. PW10 Dr. Rajiv
Gupta, Radiologist, SDN Hospital has appeared who stated that he examined
the X-ray plate of Mohit Gaur dated 26th August, 1996 and prepared the
original report which shows fracture of nasal bone and thus he gave the
opinion as grievous at point 'B'. Despite cross-examination, nothing has
been elicited in from these witnesses.
7. In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the explanation given by
the Petitioners is that forged MLCs in connivance of police officers and
doctor have been prepared, on the basis of which the Petitioners have been
implicated. It is further stated that the Petitioners were lifted from their shop
and were pressurized by the Complainant and his father to withdraw as a
witness against S.C. Joshi, who was the DDA engineer. However, no such
suggestion of being lifted from the shop or being pressurized to withdraw as
a witness has been made during the cross-examination of the witnesses.
8. I have gone through the entire record since Petitioner No. 1 insisted to
argue on behalf of all the Petitioners and did not accept taking amicus curiae.
On a perusal of the record I find no infirmity in the impugned judgments and
order on sentence, convicting and sentencing the petitioners herein.
9. Petition is dismissed.
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
MARCH 27, 2012
'vn'
