GULSHAN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GULSHAN Sharma (A -1), Harish Sharma (A -2) and Kamni Sharma (A -3) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 03.03.2003 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 41/00 arising out of FIR No. 543/00 PS Rajouri Garden whereby they were convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC. By an order on sentence dated 05.03.2003, they were awarded RI for five years with fine Rs. 5,000/ -, each. The prosecution case as projected in the charge -sheet is as follows :

(2.) ON 01.06.2000, Rajeev Taneja had gone at the residence of the accused persons to demand payment which A -1 had failed to pay being member of the committee. A -3 alone was present in the house. PW - 11 (Rajeev Taneja) left the message with her and came back. A -1 and A -2 were resentful of Rajeev Taneja's visit to their house in their absence and at about 06.00 P.M., they went to his house and threatened his mother. At about 09.00 P.M. when both PW -11 (Rajeev Taneja) and his mother PW -2 (Sushma Taneja) were crossing in front of the house of the accused persons, A -1 to A -3 caught hold of Rajeev Taneja and gave beatings to him. At the instigation of A -3, A -1 took out a knife and inflicted injuries to him (Rajeev Taneja). On his raising alarm, Vinod Kumar Taneja, his brother arrived at the scene. The accused persons fled the spot. The police machinery was set in motion when Daily Diary (DD) No. 27 (Ex.PW -1/A) was recorded at 09.35 P.M. on getting information of a stabbing incident. The investigation was entrusted to SI Vinay Malik who with Const.Surinder went to the spot. Vinod took his injured brother to DDU Hospital and admitted him. Daily Diary (DD) No. 28 (Ex.PW -1/B) was recorded about his admission in the hospital. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording Sushma Taneja's statement (Ex.PW -2/A). During the course of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and crime weapon i.e. knife was recovered. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet was filed against them under Sections 307/201/34 IPC. The accused persons were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eighteen witnesses to establish their guilt. In 313 statements, the accused persons pleaded false implication and denied their complicity in the crime. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held all of them guilty for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, the appellants are in appeal. It is significant to note that the accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 201 IPC and the State did not prefer any appeal challenging the said acquittal.

(3.) THE occurrence took place at about 09.00 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No. 27 (Ex.PW -1/A) was recorded at Police Post Raghubir Nagar at 09.35 P.M. on getting information of stabbing at B -196, Raghubir Nagar. Vinod Kumar Taneja took injured Rajeev Taneja to DDU Hospital soon after the occurrence. At 09.50 P.M. Daily Diary (DD) No.28 (Ex.PW -1/B) was recorded when duty Const.Kanwar Singh conveyed the information. The Investigating Officer, after recording statement of the victim's mother, sent rukka (Ex.PW -18/A) at 11.45 P.M. for registration of the First Information Report. Apparently, there was no delay in lodging the report with the police. In her statement (Ex.PW -2/A), Sushma Taneja at the first available opportunity implicated the accused persons for the injuries inflicted to her son Rajeev Taneja. She gave vivid detail of the occurrence and attributed specific role to each of the accused in causing injuries and also assigned motive for that. Since the FIR was lodged without undue delay, there was least possibility of the complainant to concoct a false story in a short interval. While appearing as PW -2, she proved the version given to the police at the first instance without any variation and specifically deposed that at about 09.00 P.M. when she and her son were returning from AB ­ Block market and were crossing the road in front of the house of the accused persons, they (the accused persons) came out and caught hold of Rajeev Taneja and started beating him with fists and leg blows. A -3 pulled his hair and instigated A -1 to take revenge as he had tried to outrage her modesty. Thereafter, A -1 took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed her son on his back shoulder and thigh. In the cross -examination, she reiterated that A -1 took out a knife from the backside of the pant. No public person was present at the spot at the time of occurrence. She fairly admitted that there was no animosity towards the accused persons. The material facts proved by the complainant remained unchallenged in the cross -examination. The accused persons were unable to extract any material discrepancy or inconsistency in her version to disbelieve her. Her presence at the spot was not challenged in the cross -examination. The accused persons did not deny their presence at the spot. The role attributed to them was also not questioned. Statement of the complainant has been corroborated in its entirety without any variation by PW -11 (Rajeev Taneja) who deposed that when they were crossing in front of the house, the accused persons standing outside their house started beating and abusing them with fist and blows. A -2 and A -3 pushed him down and A -1 pulled out a knife and stabbed him on left leg and chest. In the cross -examination, no material questions were put to challenge his testimony.