Delhi High Court

Chandan @ Manjit vs State on 12 August, 2013

Author: S. P. Garg

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                               RESERVED ON : 10th JULY, 2013
                               DECIDED ON : 12th AUGUST, 2013
+                         CRL.A. 1384/2011
       CHANDAN @ MANJIT                       ....Appellant
               Through : Mr.Subhash Gosain, Advocate.
                         versus
       STATE                                ....Respondent
               Through : Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.
                         SI Sandeep Kumar, P.S. Kalyanpuri.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.GARG, J.

1. Chandan @ Manjit (the appellant) challenges a judgment

dated 26.08.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case

No. 17/2009 arising out of FIR No. 245/2007 PS Kalyanpuri by which he

was convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

By an order dated 27.08.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five

years with fine ` 10,000/-.

2. Daily Diary (DD) No. 22A (Ex.PW-3/A) was recorded at

14.40 hours at PS Kalyanpuri on getting information that an individual has

been injured near Electricity House, GDE Cremation Ground. The

investigation was assigned to ASI Rajbir Singh who with Const. Yadram

went to the spot. He came to know that the injured had been taken to Lal

Bahadur Shastri Hospital. He went there and collected the MLC of injured

Dara Singh who was unfit to make statement. On reaching the spot,

Mohd.Iqbal met him and after recording his statement, he lodged First

Information Report. During the course of investigation, statement of the

injured Dara Singh was recorded and he disclosed that Chandan who was

working with him at the dairy inflicted injuries with 'Sambal' and

attempted to murder him. The Investigating Officer also recorded the

statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts. Chandan was

arrested and at his instance, the crime weapon was recovered. After

completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court

against him. He was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution

examined ten witnesses to establish his guilt. In 313 statement, the

appellant pleaded false implication. After hearing the counsel for the

parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the

impugned judgment, convicted him for the offence mentioned previously.

Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal.

3. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not

appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into

grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses.

Injured's statement was recorded after a considerable delay of six days

which remained unexplained. PW-7 (Mohd.Iqbal) is a planted witness and

was not present at the spot at the time of incident. It is unclear how he was

aware of the minute details of the incident which were spoken after six

days by the injured. The version given by the injured apparently is in

consultation with the complainant- Mohd.Iqbal. The appellant had no

motive to inflict injuries upon the victim. Recovery of the weapon is

highly doubtful as no independent public witness was associated. PW-7

(Mohd.Iqbal) himself was a culprit who caused injuries to Dara Singh as

he was repeatedly demanding his dues. He prevailed upon the

complainant and the appellant was falsely implicated in the case. Learned

APP urged that the injured categorically proved the role played by the

appellant in causing injuries to him and there are no sound reasons to

disbelieve him. There is no variance between the ocular and medical

evidence.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have

examined the record. Injuries on the victim's body are not under

challenge. The appellant has claimed that he is not the author of the

injuries and these were caused by his employer. However, there is no

evidence on record to substantiate this plea. The victim was taken to Lal

Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Khichripur at 03.00 P.M. with the alleged

history of assault. PW-1 (Const.Bhanu Pratap), duty constable informed

the police station and got the victim medically examined. PW-3 (Dr.Rajni)

examined him and prepared his MLC (Ex.PW-3/A). He was referred to

Sr.Surgery for detailed examination, management and opinion. PW-5

(Dr.Shishir Pritam Guria) was of the opinion that the nature of injuries

suffered by the victim was grievous.

5. Star witness to establish the appellant's complicity is PW-8

(Dara Singh) who was injured in the incident. He testified that in the

morning, he had apprised his employer that Chadan was in the habit of

shirking work. Chandan threatened him to teach lesson for lodging

complaint against him. After taking lunch, when he was taking rest on a

cot underneath a peepal tree, Chandan came there and sat on the cot with

him. When he started drowsiness, he (the accused) took out a 'Sambal'and

hit him on his head. He tried to save himself with his right hand. The

accused again gave 'Sambal' blow on his right hand and head and fled the

spot. He started bleeding and became unconscious. He regained senses on

19.04.2007 and his statement was recorded by the police. In the cross-

examination, he denied the suggestion that he had committed rape upon

Chandan's sister. The incident took place at about 02.00 P.M. No public

person was present when he was assaulted by the accused. He was taken

to hospital by one Ballu Bhai who informed Mohd. Iqbal about the

assault. He was hit with iron rod on his head, nose, eyes and hands. The

accused had given five blows on his body. Two were on his head and

three were on his head and nose. He denied that there was money dispute

with Anwar and Mohd. Iqbal or that he was assaulted by them.

6. Overall testimony of this witness reveals that no material

discrepancies have emerged in his cross-examination to disbelieve his

version. PW-8 (Dara Singh) sustained grievous injuries on his body and

was unfit to make statement. He became unconscious at the spot after he

suffered multiple injuries on his vital organs. The accused was known to

him as both were from the same village. The victim had got employment

for him. The victim was not expected to spare the real culprit and to

falsely implicate the accused with whom he had no prior animosity. The

immediate provocation for the accused to inflict injuries upon the victim

was that he had lodged complaint with his employer for avoiding work

and it was resented by him. PW-8 (Dara Singh) gave graphic details as to

how and under what circumstances, the accused caused injuries to him.

PW-7 (Mohd. Iqbal) has corroborated his version that in the morning

when he went to the dairy of his brother on 15.04.2007, Dara Singh had

complained to him about Chandan for not doing his work properly. He

had told Dara Singh that they would employ someone else and would

remove Chandan from the job. Chandan was scolded by him. At about

02.30 / 03.00 P.M., he received a phone call about injuries sustained by

Dara Singh. He fairly admitted that he was not informed that time as to

who had caused injuries to Dara Singh. No ulterior motive was assigned

in the cross-examination to this witness to favour Dara Singh.

7. There is no conflict between the ocular and medical

evidence. The prosecution has established the motive of the accused to

cause injuries. After the arrest, the weapon of offence, iron rod (Ex.P1)

was recovered vide seizure memo Ex.PW-2/E. In his 313 statement, the

accused did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating evidence

appearing against him. He did not examine any witness in defence to

show that he was not the author of the injuries and these were caused by

Anwar and Iqbal. He also did not examine any witness including her sister

to prove if the victim had ever sexually assaulted her. Non-examination of

independent public witness is not fatal in the case as the victim

categorically stated that none else was present at that time. Minor

inconsistencies, contradictions highlighted by counsel do not go to the

root of the case to throw the prosecution version in its entirety. Merely

because the individual who took the victim to the hospital was not

associated in the investigation, cogent and reliable testimony of the

injured cannot be discredited.

8. The testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance

and efficacy. The fact that the witness had sustained injuries at the time

and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was

present during the occurrence. The testimony of the injured witness is

accorded a special status in law. This is a consequence of the fact that the

injury to the witness is an in-built guarantee of his presence at the scene of

crime and because the witness will not want to let the actual assailant to

go unpunished merely to falsely involve a third party for the commission

of the offence. In the case of 'State of Uttar Pradesh vs.Naresh and Ors.',

(2011) 4 SCC 324, the Supreme Court held:

"The evidence of an injured witness must be given due weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence cannot be doubted. His statement is generally considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence and this lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely for the commission of the offence. Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are

grounds for the rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."

9. In the case of 'Abdul Sayed Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh',

(2010) 10 SCC 259, the Supreme Court held :

"The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness".

10. The appellant apparently had attempted to murder Dara

Singh. He had repeatedly hit him on his vital organs with a heavy iron

object i.e. 'Sambal'. The injuries on his body were opined grievous in

nature. The appellant fled the spot after inflicting injuries. Conviction

under Section 307 IPC cannot be faulted as the appellant was aware that

the injuries inflicted by him could cause his death. As per MLC (Ex.PW-

3/A), PW-8 sustained following injuries :

(1) Incised wound over middle of Rt. Side forehead with depressed bone felt from wound 8 cm X 1 cm X bone deep. (2) Incised wound over Rt. Frontal region 6 cm X 1 cm X bone deep with active bleeding.