Prem Chand @ Raju vs The State (Govt. Of N.C.T. Of ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 4674 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                RESERVED ON : 1st OCTOBER, 2013
                                 DECIDED ON : 8th OCTOBER, 2013

+                        CRL.A. 290/2001

       PREM CHAND @ RAJU                       ....Appellant
               Through : Ms.Purnima Maheshwari, Advocate with
                         Mr.Manoj Kumar, Advocate along with
                         appellant in person.

                                versus

       THE STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI)     ....Respondent
                Through : Mr.Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Prem Chand @ Raju (the appellant) impugns a judgment

dated 11.04.2001in Sessions Case No. 168/1997 arising out of FIR No.

386/1995 PS Ambedkar Nagar by which he was convicted under Section

326 IPC. By an order dated 20.04.2001, he was sentenced to undergo SI

for three years with fine ` 2,000/-. Allegations against the appellant were

that on 22.06.1995 at around 01.40 P.M. near Shop No. C-35, C-block

Market, Dakshinpuri, Delhi, he and his associate Darshan Kumar (since

acquitted) in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to

Manmohan with knife on chest. The police machinery came into motion

after getting information vide Daily Diary (DD) No.8A (mark 'A')

recorded at 02.25 P.M. about stabbing incident at Dakshinpuri. The

investigation was assigned to SI Anil Kumar who with Const. Mukesh

went to the spot and found Manmohan lying in injured condition. The

Investigating Officer recorded Manmohan's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) and

lodged First Information Report. Prem Chand and Darshan Kumar were

arrested on 10.07.1995. Pursuant to Prem Chand's disclosure statement,

knife used in the crime was recovered. Statements of the witnesses

conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against Prem Chand @ Raju

and Darshan Kumar for committing offence under Sections 307/34 IPC.

The prosecution examined ten witnesses. In their 313 Cr.P.C. statements,

the accused persons pleaded false implication. Phool Singh appeared in

their defence. After appreciating the evidence and considering the rival

contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment,

acquitted Darshan Kumar of the charges; Prem Chand @ Raju was

convicted under Section 326 IPC. The State did not challenge the verdict.

2. 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 testimony of the complainant - Manmohan

against whom a cross-case under Section 325 IPC for causing injuries to

the Prem Chand and Darshan Kumar prior in time on the said day was

registered vide FIR No. 358/95 PS Kalkaji. Complainant was also booked

under Sections 107/150 Cr.P.C. There was no material before the Trial

Court to ascertain nature of injuries as 'grievous' in nature in the absence

of examination of concerned doctors. Knife and blood stained clothes

were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Recovery of knife

from the shop of the appellant's father is highly doubtful and the said

premises were not in his exclusive possession. Appellant's father had

instituted proceedings to get the premises vacated from the complainant (a

tenant in the house) and that was the motive to falsely implicate him.

Counsel adopted alternative argument to release Prem Chand on probation

of good behaviour as he was of seventeen years of age on the day of

occurrence. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that there are no sound

reasons to disbelieve the testimony of victim - Manmohan who received

'grievous' injuries on vital organs.

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

examined the record. The occurrence took place at about 01.40 P.M. and

Daily Diary (DD) No. 8A (mark 'A') was recorded at 02.25 P.M. at PS

Ambedkar Nagar. The injured was taken to AIIMS and the arrival time

recorded in the MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) is 02.41 P.M. After recording victim's

statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the Investigating Officer lodged First Information

Report by making endorsement on the rukka (Ex.PW-10/B) at 03.40 P.M.

Apparently, there was no delay in lodging the First Information Report. In

the statement (Ex.PW-1/A), the victim gave graphic detail of the incident

as to how and under what circumstances, he was stabbed with knife by

Prem Chand @ Raju and Darshan Kumar and attributed specific role to

each of them. Since the FIR was recorded promptly, there was least

possibility of fabricating a false story in such a short interval. While

appearing as PW-1, the victim proved the version given to the police at

the first instance without major variation and implicated both for inflicting

injuries to him by a knife. Specific role was assigned to Prem Chand

whereby he gave knife blows on the chest, head and right knee. Despite

lengthy cross-examination, no material discrepancies could be elicited to

impeach his testimony. PW-2 (Suresh Chand) corroborated his version to

the extent that Prem Chand was one of the assailants who had come on a

scooter and with whom Manmohan had grappled and sustained knife

injuries. Medical evidence is in consonance with ocular testimony. PW-7

(Dr.Padmanabhan) proved the MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) as he was conversant

with the handwriting and signatures of examining doctor Gopesh Modi

and deposed that as per the MLC (Ex.PW-7/A) the nature of injuries was

'grievous' caused by sharp object. There were stab wounds on left chest,

head, forehead and knee. PW-8 (Dr.Seema) proved the handwriting and

signatures of Dr.S.Yadav (Ex.PW-8/A). Since competent doctors who

were familiar with the handwriting and signatures of the doctors who

medically examined the patient had opined the nature of injuries as

'grievous' by sharp object, it cannot be inferred that there was no material

before the Trial Court to ascertain the nature of injuries. The injuries were

not self-inflicted or accidental in nature. The complainant who sustained

'grievous' injuries on his vital organ is not expected to let the real

assailant go scot free and rope in the innocent one. The accused persons

could not establish that they were victims at the hands of the complainant

or had sustained 'grievous' injuries on their bodies. The proceedings in

FIR No. 358/95 PS Kalkaji are not on record and its outcome is unclear.

The appellant did not examine any doctor in defence to show that he

sustained injuries prior to the said occurrence or was admitted in the

hospital. It is true that PW-3 (Kare Singh) has not opted to support the

prosecution and has exonerated the appellant and his associate but that

does not dilute the complainant's veracity and his testimony cannot be

discredited on that score. The discrepancies and defects highlighted by the

appellant's counsel are inconsequential. Injured's testimony which is

accorded a special status in law coupled with medical evidence is

sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. 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."

4. 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".

5. The findings of the Trial Court are based upon fair appraisal

of the evidence whereby the co-accused Darshan Kumar was given benefit

of doubt and was acquitted. The appellant was held guilty under Section

326 IPC only. The findings require no interference. The appellant was

sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years with fine `

2,000/-. Nominal roll dated 13.11.2010 reveals that he remained in

custody for ten days and not involved in any other criminal case. His

overall jail conduct was satisfactory. It further reveals that Prem Chand

was aged eighteen years. At the time of addressing arguments on point of

sentence, age of the appellant was claimed less than eighteen years.

However, no application was ever moved to claim juvenility. Trial Court

record reveals that the appellant was a student of B.Com Part-III and was

to take examination vide Roll No. 37891 at the Examination Centre Sahid

Bhagat Singh College in April, 1999. The complainant was the tenant in

the house and appellant's father had instituted eviction proceedings. The

complainant was involved in the proceedings under Section 107/150

Cr.P.C. Appellant's father had lodged earlier complaints against him

about his conduct and behaviour. The appellant has undergone the agony

of the trial/ appeal for about 18 years. He is now married and has small

family to take care of. He is doing a private job. No useful purpose will be

served to send him to imprisonment. To protect the victim's interest, the

appellant can be directed to pay reasonable compensation. Learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor has no objection to this course of action. Resultantly,

the appellant is sentenced to undergo the period already spent by him in

this case. Other terms and conditions of the Sentence order are left

undisturbed. In addition, he shall pay ` 50,000/- as compensation to the

victim and shall deposit it within fifteen days before the Trial Court. The

Trial Court shall issue notice to the victim - Manmohan to receive the

compensation.

6. The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. Trial

Court record be sent back forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE OCTOBER 08, 2013/tr