Delhi High Court
Vinod vs The State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 11 August, 2017
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 492/2017
VINOD .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Kuldeep Rana, Advocate.
versus
THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI ....Respondents
Through: Ms.Anita Abraham, APP for Mr. Amit
Ahlawat, APP for the State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
ORDER
% 11.08.2017
1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 439 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the
petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 332/2016 under
Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station Sagarpur, Delhi.
The petitioner is stated to be in judicial custody since 14.07.2016.
Status report is on record.
2. The present case is registered on the complaint of one Ms. Nisha,
who informed that, on 02.06.2016 she was thrown from the roof of
third floor of the house by her husband/petitioner and other in-
laws/co-accused, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries.
Soon after the incident, the complainant was taken to DDU Hospital
for first-aid and after examination the doctor found injuries on her
spine, left elbow and on left ankle. On 04.06.2016 the complainant
was again admitted to the hospital due to persisting injuries and she
had to remain in hospital for about 47 days.
3. On 21.06.2016, late MLC No.5085/16 was prepared, recording the
statement deposed by the complainant that, she was assaulted and
pushed from the roof of the third floor of the house by her husband/
petitioner and her in-laws. As the result of the said MLC was found
grievous, FIR dated 10.07.2016 was registered under Section
308/34 IPC, petitioner was arrested and after completion of the
investigation charge sheet was filed under Section 307 IPC before
the court of Additional Sessions Judge (hereinafter referred to as
'ASJ'). In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the
complainant reiterated the facts resulting into the alleged offence.
4. The present petitioner filed an application for seeking bail, which
was dismissed vide order dated 21.02.2017 by the ASJ. Hence the
instant bail application.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the case and is in judicial custody since
14.07.2016; that as a matter of fact the complainant fell from the
roof of third floor of the house and was admitted in the hospital by
the petitioner himself; that as per the MLC the complainant had first
stated that she suffered injuries by falling from the stairs of the
house but subsequently the complainant has changed her statements
at the instance of her family members; that no cogent explanation
has come forth from the complainant for the delay in lodging the
complaint; that the investigation is complete and further
incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose in the
interest of justice; that the charge sheet in the case has already been
filed and there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution
witness; that the other co-accused have already been granted
anticipatory bail therefore the petitioner be granted bail in the
present case.
6. Refuting the contentions of the petitioner, Ms. Anita Abraham,
learned APP appearing for the State contested the bail application
and submitted that the petitioner has been charged with a serious
and grave offence that is punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to ten years and that he has played an active role in the
commission of the offence, wherein the complainant received
grievous injuries and hence, the present bail application cannot be
allowed.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material available on record.
8. At the outset, it is observed from a perusal of the MLC dated
21.06.2017, that the injuries sustained by the complainant were
"grievous" in nature. She remained admitted in the hospital for
about 47 days. Even at the time of examination in the Court, the
statements of the complainant were recorded in the ambulance as
she could not walk due to serious injuries in the spine. Reports have
revealed injuries in her left ankle, left elbow and spinal cord.
9. Further, a nexus between the injuries sustained by the complainant,
as revealed by the medical evidence on record, and the facts leading
to the commission of the alleged offence, can be drawn from the
statements deposed by the complainant before the doctor preparing
the MLC. She further reiterated the same facts in the statement
recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Moreover,
the complainant was also subjected to a lengthy cross-examination
and nothing could be elicited therefrom to discard her testimony.
10. In light of the aforesaid, the ground raised by the petitioner, that
inconsistent statements have been given by the complainant, stands
rebutted, as it has been held in a catena of judgements that minor
contradictions, improvements and inconsistencies in the statements
cannot be a ground for throwing out the case in its entirety. This
view is further supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Abdul Sayed v State of Maharashtra reported in (2010)
ALLMR (Cri) 3691 (SC) wherein the question of weight to be
attached to the evidence of a witness who was himself/herself
injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively
discussed. It was held as under:
"That law on the point can be summarised to the
effect that 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 inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of
the crime and because the witness will not want to let
his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely
implicate a third party for the commission of the
offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness
should be relied upon unless there are strong
grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of
major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
11. After careful scrutiny of the facts and circumstances of the case, the
contents of the FIR in question and other material placed on record
and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner and
other factors including severity of the punishment prescribed in
law, I find no sufficient ground to grant bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present application filed by the petitioner is
dismissed.
12. Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything
observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the
merits of the case during trial.
13. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
AUGUST 11, 2017
//gr
