RAJU @ RAJPAL Vs. THE STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raju @ Rajpal (A-1), Sanjay (A-2) and Arun Kumar (A-3) were convicted under Sections 452/308/34 IPC by a judgment dated 15.01.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 70/2008 arising out of FIR No. 478/2006 PS Anand Vihar on the allegations that on 13.09.2006 at about 01.00 P.M. at house No.381, Karkardooma, they in furtherance of common intention along with co-associate Arjun (facing trial before Juvenile Court) inflicted injuries to Somwati in an attempt to commit culpable homicide after committing house trespass. The police machinery swung into action when information about the quarrel was conveyed and Daily Diary (DD) No. 13A (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence at 13.37 hours at PS Anand Vihar. The Investigating Officer lodged First Information Report after recording complainant Santo's statement (Ex.PW-1/A) by sending rukka (Ex.PW-10/A) at 06.30 P.M. The statements of the witnesses including the victim Somwati and Poonam were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to prove their guilt. In 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. They examined DW-1 (Anand) and DW-2 (Har Kishan) in defence. The trial resulted in their conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeal.

(2.) Information about incident that occurred around 01.00 P.M. was conveyed to the police without any delay resulting in recording of Daily Diary (DD) No. 13A (Ex.PW-5/A) at 13.37 hours. The investigation was entrusted to HC Rakesh Kumar who went to the hospital. Since the victim was unfit to make statement, the First Information Report was lodged in promptitude after recording complainant Santo's statement.

(3.) In Court statement as PW-1 (Santo) proved the version given to the police in its entirety without any variations and implicated the appellants and Arjun for causing injuries. She attributed specific role to Arjun whereby he assaulted Somwati on her head with a 'saria' whereas the appellants who had dandas in their hands gave beatings to her. When Poonam, her granddaughter, intervened to save Somwati, A-2 hit her with a danda on her head. Someone made a telephone call at 100. The PCR arrived and took Poonam and Somwati to Hedgewar Hospital. Somwati was referred to GTB Hospital and her statement (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded. PW-2 (Somwati), the victim, also implicated the appellants and Arjun for inflicting injuries to her and Poonam with iron rod and dandas. She also assigned definite and exact role to each of the accused in causing injuries to her. She disclosed that she remained admitted in Jain Hospital for about six days. PW-4 (Poonam) corroborated the statement of her mother Somwati on major aspects and testified about the presence of the appellants and Arjun with weapons in their hands causing injuries to her and her mother. She, however, introduced a contradictory statement alleging that injuries were also inflicted to PW-1 (Santo). Apparently, she exaggerated the version. From the testimonies of PW-1 (Santo), PW-2 (Somwati) and PW-4 (Poonam) stands establish that the appellants were author of the injuries inflicted to the victim. The motive assigned for implicating injuries was a quarrel which took place with Sundar (A-1's brother) and Sachin a few days prior to the occurrence. Despite indepth cross-examination, no material inconsistencies emerged in their statements. They were not assigned any extraneous consideration to falsely implicate the appellants and to spare the real offenders. Their statements are in consonance with medical evidence. PW-8 (Dr.Ram Million) medically examined Somwati by MLC (Ex.PW-8/A) and was of the opinion that injuries suffered by her were 'simple' in nature. PW-9 (Dr.Sachin) who medically examined Somwati at the first instance, found clear Lacerated Wound of 5 cm x 0.3 cm on right parietal region of skull. The injuries were not self-inflicted or accidental. In 313 statements, the accused persons did not give plausible explanation to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. DW-1 (Anand) gave an unbelievable version that the injuries suffered by Somwati were due to the beatings given by her husband Hukam Singh as she wanted to marry her daughter out of caste against his wishes. No such defence was put to the witnesses in the cross-examination.