HARISH ARORA @ SUNNY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Harish Arora @ Sunny (A-1), Suresh Kumar @ Daboo (A-2) and Vijay Kumar @ Kale (A-3) impugn a judgment dated 26.09.2001 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.84/2001 arising out of FIR No.610/1993 registered at Police Station Janak Puri by which they were held guilty for committing offence under Section 325/34 IPC. By an order dated 28.09.2001, A-1 was sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine Rs. 2,000/- and A-2 and A-3 were awarded RI for two years with fine Rs. 3,000/- each.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 28.10.1993 at 02.00 P.M. opposite Jagdamba Lottery Centre, Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar they in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Ramesh Chand and caused his death. PW-5 (HC Jai Singh) of PCR went to the spot on receiving information of quarrel and found Ramesh Chand lying unconscious in front of Jagdamba Lottery Centre. Ramesh Chand was taken to DDU hospital and was pronounced dead on arrival. The police machinery was set in motion when DD No.16 (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded at 03.06 P.M. at Police Post Uttam Nagar. The Investigation was assigned to SI Satya Prakash (PW-13). Post-mortem examination of the body was conducted. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Section 304 IPC. They were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses. In 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. They did not, however, produce any evidence in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment convicted A-1 to A-3 under Section 325/34 IPC. It is significant to note that State did not challenge appellants acquittal under Section 304 IPC.

(3.) Appellants' counsel emphasized that the appellants were not author of the injuries to the victim. The Trial Court ignored vital discrepancies and contradictions emerging in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses without valid reasons. In the post-mortem examination report, visible injuries on body of the deceased were not noticed. He adopted alternative argument that at the most, the appellants could have been held guilty under Section 323/34 IPC only. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor urged that the injuries inflicted to the deceased proved fatal and conviction under Section 325 IPC needs no interference. A quarrel between the parties ensued at 02.00 P.M. and PCR rushed to the spot at about 02.15 P.M. Soon thereafter, the victim was taken to DDU hospital and was declared 'brought dead'. MLC (Ex.PW-3/A) records arrival time at the hospital as 02.55 P.M. DD No.16 (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded at 03.06 P.M. at Police Post East Uttam Nagar. The Investigating Officer after recording Suresh Chand's statement (Ex.PW-2/A) lodged First Information Report by sending rukka (Ex.PW-13/A) at 04.15 P.M. Apparently, there was no delay in lodging the FIR. FIR in a criminal case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. In the statement (Ex.PW-2/A) Suresh Kumar gave graphic account as to how and under what circumstances, Ramesh Chand was assaulted with fists and kicks. He narrated specific role played by each accused in the occurrence and also assigned motive for that. Since the FIR was lodged promptly, there was least possibility of false story being fabricated in such a short interval.