Delhi High Court
[email protected] Rawan @ Pappu And Ors vs State on 16 April, 2019
$~22
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 16th April, 2019
+ CRL.A. 589/2002
[email protected] RAWAN @ PAPPU AND ORS. ..... Appellants
Through: Mr. Ritesh Bahri, Mr. Vipin
Bansal and Mr. Vinesh Kumar, Advocates
for A-1 & 4
versus
STATE ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raghuvinder Varma, APP
with SI Amit Tyagi, PS DBG Road
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The appellants have been residents of a house located in Gali
no.14-B, Shidi Pura, Delhi. On 24.02.1997 at about 8.00 p.m., an
incident occurred in the area of Subzi Market, Manak Pura whereat
Deepak (PW-1) suffered injuries. On the statement (Ex. PW-1/A) of
the said Deepak, first information report (FIR) vide no.87/1997 (Ex.
PW9/A) was registered by the local police station, it involving
offences punishable under Section 307 / 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 (IPC).
2. Deepak had been earlier taken to Jeewan Mala Hospital, where
his medical examination was conducted (vide Ex. PW-2/A) by Dr.
Sudhir Kalhan. On the basis of statement of Deepak (PW-1), as
statedly supported by the version of Meena (PW-3), Lakhpat Rai (PW-
4), Vijay Kumar (PW-6), Jai Dayal (PW-7) and Sanjay Kumar (PW-
15) and the medical record, the investigating agency submitted report
(charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (Cr. PC) seeking trial of the appellants. They were eventually
brought before the court of Sessions and tried (in Sessions Case
No.206/1997) on the charge for offences punishable under Sections
307 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC, the gravamen of each of the
said heads of charge concerning injuries suffered by Deepak (PW-1).
The trial court held the appellants guilty and convicted them, as
charged, awarding rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of
Rs.1,000/- each on both counts.
3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal was
filed in August 2002, the prime contention of the appellants being that
they were innocent and falsely implicated, even the injured (PW-1)
having not supported the prosecution case, having conceded under
cross-examination as to there being no complicity on their part in
inflicting the injuries suffered by him, none of the other witnesses
having corroborated the prosecution version.
4. Having heard the arguments on both sides, this court finds merit
in the above contentions.
5. The victim Deepak (PW-1) had given a statement mentioning
the role attributed to certain persons indicating their description by
certain aliases. The evidence of the said witnesses, and that of the
other witnesses, including the investigating officer, SI Uddal Singh
(PW-16) confirms that there is no clarity as to whether the appellants
have been using such aliases or not. Be that as it may, under cross-
examination, the victim (PW-1) admitted that he had not made any
statement against the appellants, he not being clear as to how he
suffered injuries the cause concededly being a fall. The MLC was
proved by Dr. Naresh Kumar (PW-2) who, under cross-examination,
confirmed that the injuries in question could be sustained on account
of fall. All the other above mentioned witnesses namely Meena (PW-
3), Lakhpat Rai (PW-4), Vijay Kumar (PW-6), Jai Dayal (PW-7) and
Sanjay Kumar (PW-15) turned hostile. They were cross-examined by
the prosecution but nothing substantive or corroborative to the
prosecution case could be brought out through their testimonies.
6. The trial court has gone by some part of the examination-in-
chief of PW-1 to return finding of guilty. In the given facts and
circumstances, where the said witness himself had disowned his
version given to the police, there being no other evidence
corroborating the prosecution case, it was not a fair approach to adopt.
7. In the result, the appeal must be allowed. The appellants are
acquitted. The judgment and order on sentence are set aside. The bail
bonds are discharged.
8. The appeal is disposed of in above terms.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
APRIL 16, 2019
yg
