RAM NATH DEEPAK Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order on point of charge dated 02.07.2010 passed by the learned ASJ in SC No. 39/2010 arising out of FIR No. 540/2005 lodged by Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta against the Petitioners on 29.11.2005 with Police Station: Moti Nagar, Delhi.

(2.) The main grievance of the Petitioners is that by the impugned order on the point of charge, the Petitioners have been wrongly charged under Section 308 read with Section 34 of the IPC and that at best, it would be a case where the Petitioners could have been charged under Section 324 of the IPC. A perusal of the Rukka, i.e., the first information given by the complainant shows that the complainant was working as a car mechanic at Shakurpur and residing at a Jhuggi at Moti Nagar with the members of his family. On the date of the incident, i.e., on 25.11.2005 at 10:30 PM, when the complainant was returning home, he found many people standing in front of the shop of Petitioner No. 2, Raj Kishore, blocking the road. Some of them, i.e., Petitioner No. 1, Ram Nath Deepak, Petitioner No. 4, Rajender, Petitioner No. 5, Guddu and Petitioner No. 7, Prem were known to the complainant. It is alleged that when he asked them to make some space for the passage of the public, Petitioner No. 2, Raj Kishore hit the complainant on his head with a cricket wicket while Petitioner No. 5, Guddu hit a rod on the right hand of the complainant, thus injuring him. The complainant called the police on 100 No. and a PCR Van took him to the DDU Hospital, where he was examined and a MLC was conducted. The nature of the injuries suffered by him were found to be grievous. Statement of the complainant was also recorded by the police. On the basis of the statement of the complainant and the MLC, offences under Sections 325/34 IPC was found to have been committed and the case was submitted for registration of FIR.

(3.) In a subsequent statement of the complainant recorded on 29.11.2005, under Section 161 of the Cr PC, in addition to what he had stated in the Rukka, he named Petitioner No. 1, Ram Nath Deepak, Petitioner No. 4, Rajender, Petitioner No. 7, Prem and specifically stated that Petitioner No. 1, Ram Nath Deepak hit him with a Danda while Petitioners No. 4, Rajender and Petitioner No. 7, Prem had kicked him and hit him with their fists. He further stated that he had accidentally got the name of accused, Rajender written as Ravinder, on account of being in acute pain at that time. In the second supplementary statement of the complainant recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. PC on 25.12.2005, the complainant described the incident in detail and named all the Petitioners as accused. He named Petitioner No. 3, Raj Kumar, Petitioner No. 6, Raju and Petitioner No. 8, Chandrawati for the first time and stated that Petitioner No. 6, Raju had beaten him with a Danda along with others, while Petitioner No. 8, Chandrawati had pulled at his hair. On the aforesaid complaint, the FIR was lodged and after the investigation was completed, police filed a charge-sheet on 10.01.2007 under Sections 147/149/308/34 IPC against the Petitioners.