Delhi High Court
Mohd.Mohammad vs State on 16 May, 2016
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~14 to 30B
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: May 16, 2016
+ CRL.A. 366/2009
HARIDWAR PARSAD SINGH @ H.P. SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 388/2009
RAMA SHANKER SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 392/2009
GULAM NABI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Crl.A.No.366/2009 & conn.appeals Page 1 of 10
+ CRL.A. 393/2009
UMESH KUMAR GUPTA ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 398/2009
UTTAM KISHOR ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 399/2009
MAHENDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Crl.A.No.366/2009 & conn.appeals Page 2 of 10
+ CRL.A. 400/2009
SHYAM AGHYA RAI ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 401/2009
MOHD.ABDULLAH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 402/2009
MOHD.HASSRUDDIN ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 403/2009
MOHD.MOHAMMAD ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
Crl.A.No.366/2009 & conn.appeals Page 3 of 10
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 404/2009
RAJINDER SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 405/2009
KAMAL KISHORE SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 406/2009
MOHD. KALIM ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
Crl.A.No.366/2009 & conn.appeals Page 4 of 10
+ CRL.A. 407/2009
MOHD.JAMIL ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 408/2009
SHIV NANDAN SINGH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 437/2009
UTPAL VISHWAS ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 439/2009
ALI MOHD. ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
Crl.A.No.366/2009 & conn.appeals Page 5 of 10
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 390/2009
NATH SINGH @ SURESH ..... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
+ CRL.A. 391/2009
VIJAY KUMAR SINGH . .... Appellant
Represented by: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Varun Goswami, APP
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Union rivalry of employees of the Food Corporation of India led to
a civil dispute in which one H.P.Singh was restrained by an injunction
issued by a learned Single Judge of this Court from holding himself out as
the General Secretary of the Union as also from addressing any gathering
within the precincts of the premises of the Corporation.
2. It was 1st January of the year 2000, and the joyous occasion of
celebrating new year turned into a battle ground. Admittedly, iron rods,
bricks, stones and wooden sticks were liberally used by the H.P.Singh's
faction and the rival J.S.Jaina faction. The place was FCI ground in Narela.
Concededly a fight took place. Injuries were sustained by members of the
two factions on either side.
3. Conceding as aforesaid, because it emerges from the evidence,
learned counsel for the appellants concedes that a fight took place between
members of two groups, and thus, the only issue which arises for
consideration is : Whether it was pre-meditated, with the rival factions,
anticipating trouble and arriving at the venue after forming an unlawful
assembly and rioting using wooden sticks, iron rods, stones and bricks, or
the fight suddenly erupted and it became : free for all. For if it is the latter,
the appellants would be liable to be convicted, not as a group, but for the
individual acts committed by each, because concededly the legal position is
that if a fight suddenly erupts and it is a free for all, there is neither a
common intention nor a common object and thus it is each one to himself
and his God above.
4. The learned Trial Judge has opined it to be a case of rioting with the
H.P.Singh faction, to which the appellants belonged, forming an unlawful
assembly and having gathered with wooden sticks, iron rods, stones and
bricks and thereafter liberally using the same when challenged by the other
group. I hasten to note that since a cross complaint was pending against the
J.S.Jaina group, the learned Trial Judge has rightly and consciously omitted
to discuss the participatory role of the other group. Keeping in view the
nature of injuries caused , the conviction is for an offence punishable under
Section 323/325/149 IPC, but the appellants have been released on
probation of good conduct for a period of two years vide order dated April
25, 2009 and I note that the appellants have maintained good conduct
during the period of two years and thus the conduct bonds and surety bonds
are discharged.
5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the appellants I have
perused the testimony of the witnesses as also the reasoning given by the
learned Trial Judge, but before discussing the same, I note that 20 persons
were put up for trial, of which one Ramji Yadav died during trial and thus
qua him the proceedings abated. During the pendency of the appeals, as
informed today, Haridwar Parsad Singh, the appellant of Crl.A.No.366/2009
and Shiv Nandan Singh, the appellant of Crl.A.No.408/2009 have also
expired and thus the said appeals filed by the two are declared and disposed
of as having abated.
6. As regards the remaining 17 appellants, the testimony of Ram Raj
PW-2, Desh Raj PW-3, Ram Prasad PW-4, Suraj Pal PW-5, Parmod Kumar
Linka PW-8, Duryodhan Sahu PW-9, Ashok Kumar PW-10, Ram Saran
PW-11, Babu Ram Nayak PW-17, Gyanender PW-20, Hari Das, PW-21,
Ram Ashre PW-23 and Narender Kumar PW-24 have been perused by me
along with their cross-examination, and with the usual variations which are
natural when 13 persons depose to the same incident, I find consistency in
their statements, sufficient to concur with the view taken by the learned
Trial Judge that the H.P.Singh faction had gathered at Narela with the
appellants arming themselves with lathies, iron rods, stones and bricks i.e.
formed an unlawful assembly having common object to commit an offence
i.e. fight with J.S.Jaina faction, and in furtherance thereof used force.
7. MLC Ex.PW-6/A, PW-6/B, PW-7/A, and PW-7/B duly proved by
Dr.G.K.Aggarwal PW-6 and Dr.Sanjay Dass PW-7 established that Suraj
Pal, Ram Raj, Parmod Kumar and Raghuraj, of whom, Suraj Pal and
Parmod Kumar, as noted above, appeared as PW-5 and PW-8, suffered
simple and grievous injuries during rioting. Medical treatment paper
Ex.PW-12/A proved by Dr.P.L.Arora, PW-12 established that one injured :
Ram Lal brought to him by Insp.V.P.Yadav had also suffered a simple
injury. X-ray reports Ex.PW-14/A, Ex.14/B, Ex.PW-14/C and Ex.PW-
14/C pertaining to Suraj Pal and Ram Raj, proved by Dr.Suparna PW-14,
evidence grievous hurt caused to Suraj Pal and Ram Raj.
8. The testimony of SI K.P.Singh PW-16, who was present with police
personnel at the Narela ground of FCI, because he had prior information of
possibility of situation turning ugly, also establishes an unlawful assembly
formed by the H.P.Singh faction, which includes the appellants and their
deceased comrade Ramji Yadav.
9. Concurring with the view taken by the learned Trial Judge and
rejecting the argument that different eye witnesses named different accused
and therefore none of them could be believed, on the reasoning that when
large number of persons indulge in rioting it is not possible for a witness to
recollect the names of all, I dismiss all appeals except Crl.A. No.366/2009
and Crl.A.No.408/2009, which as noted above are abated on account of the
death of Haridwar Prasad Singh and Shiv Nandan Singh, the appellants of
the two appeals respectively.
10. As regards the sentence, none has been imposed and all accused have
been let of on probation. I note that as per Section 12 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 neither appellant would suffer any disqualification
attached to their conviction and even otherwise said issue is irrelevant
because learned counsel for the appellants states that the posts held by the
appellants had no promotional avenues and thus none of them suffered or
possibly could suffer a civil consequence concerning their career
progression under FCI due to being held guilty of rioting.
11. Crl.A.No.366/2009 and Crl.A.No.408/2009 are disposed of as having
abated.
12. Crl.A.388/2009, Crl.A.392/2009, Crl.A.393/2009, Crl.A.398/2009,
Crl.A.399/2009, Crl.A..400/2009, Crl.A.401/2009, Crl.A.402/2009,
Crl.A.403/2009, Crl.A.404/2009, Crl.A.405/2009, Crl.A.406/2009,
Crl.A.407/2009, Crl.A.437/2009, Crl.A.439/2009, Crl.A.390/2009 and
Crl.A.391/2009 are dismissed.
13. TCR be returned.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
MAY 16, 2016
skb
