JAMALU AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th December, 2007 whereby the appellants have been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment vide order dated 22nd December, 2007 for five years. Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) has been given to the accused.

(2.) PROSECUTION story as unfolded is that on 19th May, 2004 complainant Constable Nand Kishore was returning home from his duty at about 10:15 pm on his scooter bearing registration No. DL5 -S -J -3399 and when he reached Shastri Park Red Light he noticed a truck, bearing No. HR -38 -J -3936, coming from the opposite direction in high speed. The truck was being driven by accused Jamalu. Complainant stopped his scooter. Truck was also stopped by the accused near the scooter. Complainant asked Jamalu as to why he had suddenly stopped the truck at which Jamalu got down from the truck. Accused Vakeel, who was present in the truck, also got down. Thereafter, a scuffle took place between accused Jamalu and Vakeel on one side and complainant on the other. In the meanwhile, accused Jamalu gave an iron rod blow on the head of the complainant resulting injuries to him. Accused Vakeel gave fist blows to the complainant. Head Constable Shankar Lal, who was present on duty in a nearby Police Picket, arrived there and removed the complainant to G.T.B. Hospital.

(3.) CHARGE under Sections 308/34 IPC was framed against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. Complainant was examined as PW7. HC Shankar Lal, who had reached the spot while incident was going on and had removed the complainant to G.T.B. Hospital, had been examined as PW3. PW9 ASI Ram Bahadur Singh is the Investigating Officer. PW5 Dr. Parmeshwar Ram had proved the MLC of the complainant as Ex. PW5/A. All the other witnesses are formal in nature being police officials. After prosecution closed its evidence, statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein entire incriminating evidence, which had come on record, was put to them. The case of the accused was that of simple denial. Both the accused claimed that they had been falsely implicated in this case. It was stated that many vehicles were stopped by the Police officials resulting in traffic jam. Drivers of the said vehicles protested against the brutality of the Police. They did not inflict any injury on the person of the complainant. One Amjad was examined as DW1 in their defence. He deposed that he was present at the spot on 19th May, 2004 at about 10:05 pm. There was a traffic jam at the Shastri Park Red Light. He noticed that some people were quarrelling. Accused were also present there but they did not quarrel with anybody.