Sumit Gupta vs State Nct Of Delhi
2014 Latest Caselaw 5163 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     Date of Decision: 15th October, 2014

+       CRL.A. 54/2011
        SUMIT GUPTA                                       ..... Appellant
                                Through:   Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. S.K.
                                           Gupta, Advs.

                                Versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                                   ..... Respondent
                      Through:             Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public
                                           Prosecutor for the State along with
                                           SI Rakesh Kumar Police Station
                                           Sangam Vihar.

+       CRL.A. 55/2011
        ANUP KUMAR GUPTA @ DOLLY               ..... Appellant
                       Through: Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. S.K.
                                Gupta, Advs.

                                Versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                                   ..... Respondent
                      Through:             Mr. M.N. Dudeja, Additional Public
                                           Prosecutor for the State along with
                                           SI Rakesh Kumar Police Station
                                           Sangam Vihar.
+       CRL.A. 56/2011
        VIRENDER GUPTA                                    ..... Appellant
                       Through:            Mr. Vinod Sharma and Mr. S.K.
                                           Gupta, Advs.

                                Versus

        STATE NCT OF DELHI                                  ..... Respondent
                      Through:             alongwith SI Rakesh Kumar Police
                                           Station Sangam Vihar.




Crl.A.54/2011,55/2011,56/2011                                  Page 1 of 17
 %
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA

                                JUDGMENT

: SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of three criminal appeals bearing

No.54/2011,55/2011 and 56/2011 as all the appeals have been filed by the

appellants challenging the impugned judgment dated 21.12.2010 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby they were convicted in

Sessions Case No.40/10 arising out of FIR No.885/2005, P.S. Sangam

vihar, vide which they were convicted u/s 307/34 IPC and were sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/-

each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. Complainant Ashok Kumar was running a grocery shop at F-661, JJ

Camp Tigri, Delhi. Virender Gupta was also running a shop at a short

distance and he also used to sell bidi, cigarettes etc. As per the prosecution

case, on 29.09.2005, complainant Ashok Kumar and his son Deepak

Kumar were present at their shop. One customer purchased certain articles

from their shop. After some time Virender Gupta came to his shop at

about 4.45 p.m and started abusing him as to why he gave articles to his

customer and picked up a brick and hit Ashok Kumar on his head. After

ten minutes Virender Gupta along with his son, Sumit Gupta and nephew

Anup came to his shop and Virender Gupta inflicted a knife blow on the

left side of abdomen of his son Deepak. When he tried to intervene, then

he was given fist and leg blows by Anup and Sumit. On his raising alarm,

the nearby residents of the locality started gathering and all three managed

to escape. Deepak was removed to Batra hospital. MLC of Ashok Kumar

and Deepak was prepared. During the course of investigation, the accused

were arrested. Virender Gupta handed over the knife with which injuries

were inflicted. After completing investigation, charge-sheet was submitted

against the accused for offence u/s 307/308/34 IPC.

3. The case being triable by the Court of Sessions, after committal

proceedings it was committed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to

the Court of Sessions. Charge u/s 307/308/34 IPC was framed against the

accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its case examined as many

as 8 witnesses. The accused pleaded their innocence and alleged false

implication in the case.

5. Vide impugned judgment, the appellants were held guilty u/s 307/34

IPC and sentenced as mentioned above. Feeling aggrieved, separate

appeals have been preferred.

6. I have heard Mr. Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants

and Mr. M.N.Dudeja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State

and have perused the record.

7. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that in order to

invoke the provisions of Section 307 IPC it was incumbent upon the

prosecution to prove the requisite knowledge or intention on the part of the

appellants to cause death or injury, which in the instant case is missing.

Moreover, the bone of contention between the parties was regarding sale of

goods to a customer by the complainant, who was in fact the customer of

the accused. This customer was a vital witness but no attempt was made to

search him or to examine him. Furthermore, it was a residential area

where there were many shops also but no independent witness has been

examined. The recovery of knife is also doubtful. Moreover, it was only a

kitchen knife as admitted by the prosecution witnesses. There was only

one stab injury; the incident took place on the spur of moment; there was

no premeditation or motive nor any common intention; the appellants are

shop keepers and are not hardened criminals; they have been facing the

rigours of trial for the last more than 9 years and their antecedents are

clean. The prosecution has not been able to establish its case beyond

reasonable doubt. Alternatively, it was submitted that the conviction could

at best be u/s 324 IPC. Two of the appellants have remained in jail for

about 9 months while one remained in jail for about one year. As such,

they are liable to be released on the period already undergone. Even

otherwise, since they were first time offenders they should be granted

benefit of probation.

8. Reliance was placed by learned counsel for the appellants on

Balwant Singh & Others v. The State, 1998 [1] JCC [Delhi] 222; Avtar

Singh @ Tari v. State, 2003[3] JCC 1319 and Satish Kumar v. State

(NCT of Delhi), 2013[3] JCC 1749.

9. Rebutting the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants, it

was submitted by learned APP for the State that even if no independent

witnesses have been examined, there is the testimony of two injured

persons which stands on a higher pedestal than any other witness. The oral

version given by the injured finds substantial corroboration from the

medical evidence. The intention on the part of the accused is reflected

from the fact that initially, a brick was picked up and hit on the forehead of

the complainant. However, not satisfied, the accused Virender Gupta

accompanied by his son and nephew again came to the shop and gave knife

blow on a vital part of the body of Deepak, as a result of which he

remained in hospital for 5 days and was operated upon. The injuries were

opined to be grievous. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found

with the findings of the learned Trial Court and the appeals are liable to be

dismissed.

10. I have given my considerable thoughts to the respective

submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused

the record.

11. The law is well settled that the evidence of injured witness has

greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their

statements are not to be discarded lightly. In Akhtar and Ors. Vs. State of

Uttaranchal, (2009) 13 SCC 722 their Lordships held that credence to the

testimony of injured eye witness is to be given since his presence at the

scene of crime is seldom doubtful. The report reads as under:-

"18. In Krishan vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459 this Court has taken the view that if the prosecution case is supported by two injured eyewitnesses and if their (injured eyewitnesses) testimony is consistent before the police and the Court and corroborated by the medical evidence, their testimony cannot be discarded. Similarly, in Surender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (2006) 9 SCC 247, this Court has opined that:-

"9. The testimony of an injured witness has its own relevancy and efficacy. The fact that the witness is injured at the time and in the same occurrence, lends support to the testimony that the witness was present during occurrence and he saw the happening with his own eyes."

12. Substantially similar view was taken in Mano Dutt and Anr. Vs.

State of UP, (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 226; Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009)

9 SCC 719.

13. Reverting to the case in hand, it has come in the testimony of the

complainant PW2 Ashok Kumar that on 29.09.2005, he along with his son

Deepak was present at his shop where besides selling grocery items, they

also used to sell biddis and cigarettes. On that day, at about 4.45 p.m, a

customer came to their shop to buy some articles and left after purchasing

the same. Immediately thereafter, accused Virender Gupta came to his

shop and started quarrelling as to why he gave articles to his customer and

abused him. He lifted a brick from his shop and hit him on his head. Then

he went to his own shop. After some time Virender Gupta, accompanied

by his son Sumit and nephew Anup again came to his shop and Virender

Gupta gave a knife blow on the left side of stomach of his son. He raised

alarm and tried to free his son from them. Sumit Gupta and Anup Gupta

both gave him fist and leg blows on his body and all the three ran away.

He accompanied by his neighbour took his son Deepak to Batra hospital

where he as well as his son were medically examined. His son was

admitted in emergency ward while he was discharged on the same day.

Police reached the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW 2/A bearing

his signature at Point A. In the evening at about 5-6 p.m, he accompanied

the police officials and the two accused namely, Anup Gupta and Virender

Gupta were arrested. Accused Virender Gupta gave a knife from his shop

to the police. He identified the knife Ex.P1 to be the same which was

handed over by Virender Gupta to the police. The witness was subjected

to lengthy cross examination. However, nothing material could be elicited

to discredit his testimony. It has come in cross examination that when

initially Virender Gupta had hit him by a brick, he did not lodge any report

to the police as he did not want to take action against him. It was precisely

for the reason that both the complainant and accused were running their

shop in the same area for last number of years and the shop of accused was

at a distance of about 10-12 shops i.e. about 100 mts from the shop of the

complainant. Therefore, since both were running the shops in the same

area, the complainant never wanted to take any action against the accused.

But things turned for the worse as Virender Gupta was not satisfied and

after giving brick blow on the head of the complainant, went away and

thereafter returned after about 10 minutes accompanied by his son and

nephew who was armed with a knife and hit Deepak on the left side of his

stomach. When complainant Ashok Kumar tried to intervene, then he was

assaulted by Sumit Gupta and Anup Gupta who gave fist and leg blows to

him. A suggestion was given to the witness that an FIR has been lodged

by Virender Gupta against Ashok Kumar u/s 323/506 IPC. However this

aspect of the matter was duly considered by the learned Trial Court by

observing that the present FIR was registered on 29.09.2005. However,

FIR No.165/06 was registered on the complaint of Virender Gupta on

28.02.2006. As such it was crystal clear that the present case was

registered much prior in time in the year 2005 while the case against the

complainant was registered pursuant to the statement made by accused

Virender Gupta only in the year 2006.

14. Further, it has come on record that on receipt of DD No.24A Ex.PW

1/B, PW6 SI Harender Singh along with PW5 Head Constable Fateh Singh

reached Batra hospital where he met Ashok Kumar and his son Deepak

admitted in the hospital. After seeking permission from the concerned

doctor, he recorded statement Ex.PW 2/A which culminated in the

registration of FIR Ex. PW1/A. A perusal of the same goes to show that at

the very initial juncture, the complainant had given a meticulous account

of the entire incident and the specific role played by each and every

accused. His testimony finds substantial corroboration from his son PW3

Deepak who is another injured who has also deposed that Virender Gupta

came to the shop in order to make a complaint as to why goods had been

sold to his customer and thereafter he abused his father and took a brick

and hit the same on the head of his father. Thereafter Virender

accompanied by his son Sumit and nephew Anup came and gave a knife

blow on the left side of his stomach. The other accused gave beatings to

his father. He was removed to the hospital by his father where he

remained admitted for six days. He also identified the knife Ex.P1 to be

the same with which he was hit. This witness was also subjected to

lengthy cross examination but was of no avail to the accused persons.

15. The occular testimony of both the witnesses find substantial

corroboration from the medical evidence. PW4 Dr. Farah Hussain was

working as CMO on 29.10.2005 at Batra Hospital and Medical Research

Centre. On that day he examined Deepak Kumar, son of Ashok Kumar

who was brought to the hospital with alleged history of assault with knife

on left side of abdomen around 4.45 p.m at his shop at Laxmi Cigarette

Store at F-661, J.J Colony, Tigri, Delhi. The patient was brought to the

hospital at 5.15 p.m by his father and he informed that the patient was

assaulted by Virender. At that time the patient was conscious oriented. On

local examination, a stab wound of 2 x 1 cm on the left side of abdomen

was found and there was tenderness. The patient was advised admission.

He prepared the MLC Ex. PW4/A. On the same day, he examined Ashok

Kumar who had suffered abrasion on forehead and scalp on left side. On

local examination, abrasion on left side of forehead and scalp region was

found. He intimated police vide police intimation form Ex.PW4/D.

16. PW7 Dr. Vijay Hangloo, Sr. Consultant Surgeon has also deposed

that on examination of patient Deepak Kumar, it was found that there was

wound in the left flank which explore under GA. There was a sero

muscular tear in the left descending colon, which was repaired with silk.

He gave his report Ex. PW7/A.

17. After consulting Dr. Vijay Hangloo, Dr. Farah Hussain opined the

nature of injury on the person of Deepak as grievous as per report

Ex.PW4/B while the injuries on the person of Ashok Kumar were opined

to be simple vide report Ex.PW4/C.

18. Under the circumstances, the ocular version of the incident as

projected by the injured witnesses find substantial corroboration from the

medical evidence. There was no previous enmity between the parties

which may prompt the complainant to falsely implicate the accused in this

case. Rather the entire sequence of events reflects that since both the

parties were having their shop in the nearby vicinity, therefore, initially

when Virender abused and hit the complainant with a brick on his head on

a trivial issue regarding selling of goods to his customer, complainant did

not report the matter to the police. Even thereafter the matter was reported

only by Dr. Farah Hussain to the police when the injured went to Batra

hospital for examination and thereafter police machinery swung into

action. At the initial juncture when the complainant went to the hospital,

he gave the history to the Doctor of assault by knife by Virender.

Thereafter when the police reached the spot and recorded the statement of

complainant, at that time also he gave a vivid account of the entire incident

specifying the role of each and every accused. Under the circumstances

there is absolutely no reason to doubt the testimony of the injured which

finds substantial corroboration from the medical evidence. Moreover,

since the witnesses suffered injuries, as such their presence at the spot

stands established. It is highly improbable that they would implicate the

accused in this case while allowing the real culprits to go scot free.

19. Non-examination of customer or the residents/shopkeepers of the

locality does not cast any dent on the prosecution version inasmuch as it

has come in evidence that the customer was not known to the witnesses

from before. That being so, it was difficult to trace him. As regards the

shopkeepers or the independent witnesses, it is common experience that

public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings. As

observed in Aslam & Ors. Vs. State, 2010 III AD (Delhi) 133, reluctance

of the citizens to join police proceedings is well known and needs to be

recognised. It cannot be ignored that public does not want to get dragged

in police and criminal cases and avoids them because of long drawn trials

and unnecessary harassment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed

in Manish v. State, 2000(8) SC 29 and in Appabhai and Anr. vs. State of

Gujarat, AIR 1998 SC 696 that we cannot be oblivious to the reluctance of

the common man to join such raiding parties organized by the police, lest

they are compelled to attend police station and Court umpteen times at the

cost of considerable inconvenience to them, without any commensurate

benefit. Moreover, in the instant case since both the complainant and the

accused persons were running their shop in the nearby vicinity, it is all the

more reason that no resident or shop keeper would like to be involved and

depose either in favour of or against the complainant or accused persons.

Moreover, as stated above, non-joining of any independent witness is

absolutely no ground to throw away the testimony of the injured who stood

the test of cross examination and their testimony finds substantial

corroboration from the medical evidence. Under the circumstances, the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond reasonable doubt

regarding the complicity of the accused persons in the crime.

20. The only question left for consideration is whether offence u/s 307

IPC is made out or not. The essential ingredient of Section 307 IPC is the

mens rea. Mens rea can be inferred from the kind of weapon used, the

place of injury, motive etc. To bring home a charge u/s 307 IPC, the onus

lies on the prosecution to prove that the accused caused an act with the

intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act,

death was caused, he would be guilty of murder. Satish Kumar(supra)

was a case where the appellant was convicted u/s 307 IPC on account of

giving a knife blow on the injured by a kitchen knife on backside. The

injuries were opined to be simple. Under the circumstances, the conviction

was altered to Section 324 IPC. In Balwant Singh (supra) also, one injury

on a part of neck was given by sharp edged weapon which was opined to

be simple, as such it was observed that intention of the appellant was not to

kill the complainant but only to inflict injury on him, as such offence falls

u/s 324 IPC.

21. In the instant case, though a knife was used but a single blow was

given on the abdomen. Having regard to the nature of injury caused and

the genesis of the occurrence it is difficult to hold that the intention of the

appellant was to attempt to cause death. The occurrence arose out of a

quarrel and the blow was given on the spot. There was no previous ill will

or enmity between the parties. It was not premeditated but as a result of

sudden quarrel. The injuries were opined to be grievous. Section 320

defines grievous hurt. Eight kinds of hurt are designated as grievous as set

out in Section 320 IPC. Clause 8 thereof speak of two things:- (1) Any

hurt which endangers life or (2) Any hurt which endangers life or which

causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days--(a) in severe

bodily pain or (b)unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. An injury can be

said to endanger life if it is in itself such that it may put the life of injured

in danger.

22. Section 322 postulates that whosoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the

hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause

grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, he is said

"voluntarily to cause grievous hurt". Intention to cause hurt or knowledge

that an act is likely to cause hurt is the most decisive factor to decide

whether a person can be held guilty of voluntarily causing hurt.

23. In the instant case, a single blow was given on the left side of

abdomen. According to Dr. Vijay Hangloo, there was a sero muscular tear

in the left descending colon, which was repaired with silk. In the factual

matrix of the case, it cannot be said that the appellant had intention to

cause death of the injured. The appellant certainly had intended to cause

injury which was opined to be grievous in nature. As such, such an act

would clearly be covered by clause eight of Section 320 Penal Code and

therefore amounts to grievous hurt punishable u/s 325 IPC. Accordingly,

the conviction of the appellant Virender Gupta is converted to offence u/s

325 IPC.

24. So far as accused Sumit Gupta and Anup Gupta are concerned, the

mere fact that they accompanied accused Virender Gupta does not ipso

facto prove that they shared common intention with co-accused Virender.

They did not indulge in any overt act qua injured Deepak. The only role

assigned to them is of giving leg and fist blow to Ashok Kumar which

injuries were opined to be simple by the Doctor. As such, so far as these

two appellants are concerned, they are liable to be convicted under Section

323/34 IPC only. Accordingly, conviction of these appellants is converted

to Section 323/34 IPC.

25. The last question relates to quantum of sentence. The offence in

question was committed on 29th September, 2005. As per the nominal roll

of appellant Virender Gupta, he remained in jail as under trial for a period

of 1 year 25 days besides earning remission for 2 months and 5 days. As

per report of probation officer, he has been acquitted in two cases. No

other case is pending against him. He is a businessman having

responsibility of a wife, an unmarried daughter and two unmarried sons.

Neighbours also gave a favourable report. Detention in jail would not

serve the purpose of rehabilitation and reformation as he is not a threat to

society as such, it was recommended that he be granted benefit of

probation u/s 4(1) of Probation of Offender Act. Under the circumstances,

keeping in view the fact that this appellant has already remained in jail for

a period of about 1 year and 3 months, it is deemed appropriate to release

him on probation for a period of two years, to maintain peace and be of

good behaviour, on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-

with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Registrar Appellate

of this Court within seven working days, failing which to serve sentence

for three years. He is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of

Rs.25,000/- to injured Deepak within a period of four weeks, which be

deposited with Registrar General of this Court who is thereafter requested

to pay the same to the victim, Deepak.

26. As regards Sumit Gupta and Anup Gupta, as per nominal roll, Sumit

Gupta remained as under trial for 6 months and 26 days besides earning

remission of 2 months. Anup Gupta remained as undertrial for a period of

11 months and 14 days besides earning remission of two months. As per

the report of the probation officer, the antecedents of the appellants are

clean. The appellant Sumit Gupta was reported to be just 18 years of age

at the time of incident and nothing adverse was gathered against him.

Similarly, the antecedents of Anup Gupta were reported to be clean. It was

further reported that he has a large family of six children and a wife who is

suffering from tuberculosis and widow mother. He has meagre earning of

Rs.4000/- per month. Under the circumstances, their substantive sentence

is modified to the period already undergone while keeping the sentence of

fine as unaltered.

The appeals are accordingly disposed of. Trial Court record be sent

back along with a copy of the judgment.

(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 15, 2014 as