MOHD. SALEEM Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHD . Saleem (A -1), Mohd. Shehzad (A -2) and Mohd. Sadav (A -3) were convicted under Sections 452/307/34 IPC by a judgment dated 17.04.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 86/11 arising out of FIR No. 337/11 PS Sarai Rohilla. They were awarded RI for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/ -, each by an order on sentence dated 21.04.2012. The prosecution case as projected in the charge -sheet was that on 23.09.2011 at about 08.15 P.M. in jhuggi No. N - 95/22, behind Tentwali Masjid, Shehzada Bagh, Inder Lok, Delhi, the appellants in furtherance of common intention inflicted injuries to Saanu in an attempt to murder him after committing house -trespass. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording statement of Ijran @ Munna (Ex.PW -2/A). Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses to substantiate the charges. In 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication and examined DW -1 (Abdul Gaffar) in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeal.

(2.) THE incident took place at around 08.15 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 35 (Ex.PW -7/A) was recorded at 08.40 P.M. at police post Inder Lok on getting information regarding the quarrel. Another Daily Diary (DD) No. 36 (Ex.PW -7/B) was recorded at 08.42 P.M. to the same effect. The investigation was assigned to HC Medha Lal who with Const. V.Ramu went to the spot. The victim ­ Saanu was unfit to make statement. Complainant - Ijran @ Munna, in his statement (Ex.PW -2/A), implicated the appellants for inflicting injuries with ,,churi to Saanu in his jhuggi. He gave detailed account of the occurrence and attributed specific role to each of the assailants. Since the First Information Report was lodged in promptitude, there was least possibility of the complainant to concoct a false story in a short interval. MLC (Ex.PW -5/A) records the arrival time of the patient at the hospital at 09.15 P.M. The rukka (Ex.PW - 1/B) was sent at 12.40 A.M. on the night intervening 23/24.09.2011. In his Court statement, PW -2 (Ijran @ Munna), proved the version given to the police at the first available opportunity without deviation and deposed that earlier at about 08.00 or 08.15 P.M. a confrontation had taken place between the victim and A -2. On their intervention, the matter was pacified and he took Saanu to his jhuggi. When Saanu was taking water in the jhuggi, A -2 armed with two ,,churies in his hands came and stabbed Saanu on his arm. A -1 and A -3 also entered the jhuggi; A -1 and A -3 caught hold hands of Saanu and A -1 exhorted him to stab, "Main aa gaya hu, ab maar". On that, A -2 stabbed Saanu on abdomen, as a result he fell down and all the three assailants fled the spot. He took Saanu to the hospital where his statement (Ex.PW -2/A) recorded. In the cross - examination, he admitted that Saanu had consumed liquor before the incident. He volunteered to add that A -2 was also under the influence of liquor. At the time of initial quarrel, he had not called the police. He further stated that A -2 had not sustained any injury in the incident. He denied the suggestion that he along with Nazakat and Saanu had assaulted and injured A -2. Needless to say, despite searching cross -examination, no material discrepancy could be extracted to doubt the version narrated by the witness. His presence at the spot was not challenged. No ulterior motive was assigned to him for falsely implicating the appellants for the injuries sustained by the victim. He denied his relationship of any nature with the victim. There are no sound reasons to disbelieve the testimony of this independent witness who lived in the neighbourhood of the victim. PW -3 (Saanu), the victim, is a crucial witness who corroborated the version of the complainant and implicated all the appellants to have caused injuries to him sharing common intention. He also assigned specific role to each of the accused. Despite lengthy cross -examination, his testimony remained un -shattered. He revealed that prior to the incident, no quarrel had taken place between him and A -2 and there was no enmity. He admitted that he had taken liquor on that day. He denied the suggestion that he along with Nazakat and Ijran @ Munna had attacked Shehzad, as a result of which he sustained injuries. He denied the suggestion that they had dragged A -2 to the jhuggi and caused injuries to him. Again, no specific motive was attributed to the injured witness to implicate the appellants for the ,,grievous injuries on the vital organ sustained by him. The material facts deposed by the witness remained unchallenged in the cross -examination. PW -4 (Smt. Guddo) has deposed somewhat on similar lines. The ocular testimonies of PW -2 (Ijran @ Munna) and PW -3 (Saanu) is entirely in consonance with medical evidence. MLC (Ex.PW -5/A) records that Saanu was brought at Hindu Rao hospital by ASI Jaswant Singh of PCR at 09.15 P.M. PW -5 (Dr.Sumit Mor) medically examined him and proved MLC (Ex. PW -5/A). The injuries were ,,sharp in nature. He observed the following injuries on his body :

(3.) THE victim was stabbed repeatedly with a deadly weapon on vital organ when he was unarmed. The nature of injuries was given as ,,grievous. He had to be operated and remained hospitalized for about 12 days. The appellants were annoyed with the initial confrontation and had chased the victim to his jhuggi. Apparently, the injuries were caused with the avowed object / intention to cause death. Conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be faulted.