VISHNU SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Vishnu Sharma @ Sonu impugns a judgment dated 06.12.2013 in Sessions Case No.117/13 arising out of FIR No.19/2013 registered at Police Station Bharat Nagar by which he was convicted under Section 307/324 IPC. By an order 14.12.2013 he was awarded RI for four years with fine Rs. 2,000.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case as reflected in the chargesheet was that on 18.01.2013 at about 07:30 p.m. at Jhuggi No.N-31/1, Back Side Shakti Apartment, Ashok Vihar, Phase-II, Delhi, the appellant and his associate Nitin (since expired) outraged modesty of 'X' (assumed name) aged 17 years. She reported the incident to her aunt Kamal Yadav who took her to husband's shop where the appellant and Nitin in furtherance of their common intention inflicted injuries to both Kamal and Sandeep. Daily Diary (DD) No.54 B (Ex.PW-5/A) was recorded at Police Station Bharat Nagar at 07:30 p.m. that day on getting information about the occurrence. The investigation was assigned to SI Dilbag Singh.

(3.) After the occurrence at around 07:30 p.m. on 18.01.2013, DD No.54B (Ex.PW-5/A) came into existence promptly without any delay. The victims were taken to Babu Jagjivan Ram Memorial hospital. MLC (Ex.PW6/A) reveals that Sandeep was brought there at 08:30 p.m. with the alleged history of physical assault; Kamal Yadav arrived there at 08:40 p.m. The Investigating Officer after recording Kamal Yadav's statement (Ex.PW-7/A) lodged FIR promptly without any delay by sending rukka (Ex.PW-15/A) at 10:40 p.m. There was, thus, no delay in reporting the incident to the police. In the complaint (Ex.PW-7/A), Kamal Yadav gave detailed account of the occurrence and specifically named the appellant and his associate Nitin to be the perpetrators of the crime. She also disclosed that both Nitin and the appellant under the influence of liquor had outraged 'X's modesty when she was preparing tea in the kitchen. When she took 'X' to her husband's shop, both the accused arrived there and inflicted injuries to her husband. When she intervened to save him, she was also caused injuries on her body. Since the FIR was lodged without any delay, there was least possibility of the injured witness to concoct a false story in such a short period to falsely implicate the appellant by name.