IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] : SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (NORTH-EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. : 63(I)/15 FIR No. : 628/2015 U/Sec. : 394/397/34 [ACT] PS : Seelampur Case ID : 45098/2015 [ENTITY] Versus 1. [ENTITY] (in JC) S/o Sh. Sajju Sah R/o A-140, Buland Masjid, Shastri Park, Delhi 2. [ENTITY] (Absconding) S/o Sh. Nawab R/o F-240, Janta Colony, Delhi Date of Institution : 10.12.2015 Date of reserving order : 12.07.2016 Date of Judgment : 18.07.2016 JUDGMENT
Introduction:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2015 at 10.30 p.m., [ENTITY] (Hereinafter referred to as '[ENTITY]') and his associate [ENTITY] (Absconding) robbed a sum of Rs.
6,000/- from [ENTITY] and caused grievous hurt to [ENTITY] in the form of a sharp incised wound measuring 13 x 0.5 cm on his left cheek at the time of committing robbery punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] and 397 of the [ACT] (In short '[ACT]').
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 1 of 17 The charge-sheet:
2. On 26.08.2015 at about 22.32.18 hrs., PW-5 W/Ct.
[ENTITY], Channel Operator, Police Control Room, Police Head Quarter, New Delhi received a PCR call at Channel No. 138 from mobile No. 8826644608 that 'purana DCP office, Seelmapur ke pas caller ke bhai ko kisi ne blade mar diya hain, injured hain'. She recorded the said information in PCR Form-I Ex.PW5/A and passed the information on NET and CAT.
3. On 26.08.2015 at about 10.35 p.m., PW-13 Ct. [ENTITY], DD writer, PS Seelampur received the said information and recorded in roznamcha register vide DD No. 92 in Reg. B Ex.PW13/A. He informed PW-15 SI [ENTITY] through telephone for taking appropriate action.
4. On receipt of a copy of DD No. 92B Ex.PW13/B, PW-15 SI [ENTITY] with PW-9 [ENTITY] reached at the place of incident at Bus Stand, Double Storey, Welcome. He met PW-1 [ENTITY] who handed over the accused [ENTITY] to him and narrated the incident and informed that the injured was already taken to GTB Hospital. He recorded statement of PW-1 [ENTITY] Ex.PW1/A, which is translated as under:
"[ENTITY]ment of [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o H. No. 126, Double Storey, Welcome, Delhi. Age 17 years.
[ENTITY]d that I am residing at the afore-
said address with my maternal aunt (mausi) [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY]. I am a resident of Village Manwa, PS Wazir Ganj, District Badaun. I am working as a labour with my cousin brother in a paint shop in Gandhi Nagar. I return to my house with my cousin brother [ENTITY] in evening. Today, I received my salary.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 2 of 17 Today, I alongwith my cousin brother [ENTITY] came to Seelampur Bus Stand from Gandhi Nagar. From there, I and [ENTITY] boarded a bus for Welcome Bus Stand. We alighted from the said bus at Welcome stand. Two persons also alighted from the said bus after us. One of them slapped me and taken out about Rs. 6,000/- from my pocket. When my brother objected, one of the said boys inflicted a sharp edged object or blade on cheek of my cousin brother. The said boy who had taken out amount ran away. The second one who inflicted blade was caught by the public. Public severely beaten him. I called [ENTITY], brother of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] made a call at 100. [ENTITY] with his neighbour [ENTITY] taken [ENTITY] to GTB Hospital. The name of the apprehended person revealed as [ENTITY]. You came to the spot and recorded my statement. I can identify associate of the accused if shown to me. Legal action be taken against them."
5. On 26.08.2015 at about 11.15 p.m., PW-14 Dr. [ENTITY] examined PW-2 [ENTITY] brought by PW-6 [ENTITY] in Casualty of GTB Hospital with alleged history of physical assault on 26.08.2015 at 10.30 p.m. near Welcome Bus Stand. He observed a sharp incised wound measuring approx. 13 x .5 cm on left cheek of PW-2 [ENTITY]. He provided primary treatment and referred him to surgery. He prepared [CASE NUMBER] Ex.PW14/A regarding medical examination of PW-2 [ENTITY]. He observed that PW-2 [ENTITY] was conscious and oriented and declared him fit for making statement.
6. PW-15 SI [ENTITY] instructed PW-9 [ENTITY] to take the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, PW-3 [ENTITY] and PW-9 [ENTITY] had taken the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital for medical examination.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 3 of 17
7. PW-15 SI [ENTITY] reached GTB Hospital. He collected MLC of PW-2 [ENTITY] who was not in a position to make statement due to pain. He made endorsement Ex.PW15/A for registration of case under [SECTION] [ACT].
8. On 26.08.2015 at 11.20 p.m., PW-10 Dr. [ENTITY], Casualty Medical Officer (CMO) examined the accused [ENTITY] in the Casualty of Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital who was brought by PW-9 [ENTITY] with alleged history of public beating at about half hour ago, as stated by the patient himself.
9. PW-10 Dr. [ENTITY] observed history of loss of consciousness and oral bleed. On local examination, she observed reddish abrasion on left side of forehead and lacerated wound measuring 1.5 x .5 cm on right side of forehead. She prepared MLC No. 935 Ex.PW10/A. According to her, the nature of the weapon used for causing the said injuries could be blunt. After medical examination, PW-3 [ENTITY] taken the accused [ENTITY] to police station Seelampur.
10. On 27.08.2015 at 12.30 a.m., PW-15 SI [ENTITY] reached police station Seelampur and handed over tehrir to PW-8 [ENTITY], Duty Officer who got recorded FIR No. 628/15 under [SECTION] [ACT] through computer operator. He made endorsement Ex.PW8/A on the tehrir regarding registration of FIR Ex.PW8/B. He assigned further investigation of the case to PW-15 SI [ENTITY] and handed over the original tehrir and a copy of FIR to him.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 4 of 17
11. PW-15 SI [ENTITY] taken the accused [ENTITY] to the place of incident. He called PW-1 [ENTITY] to the place of incident from his house. He inspected and prepared site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW1/B. He, after interrogation, arrested the accused [ENTITY] vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex.PW1/D. He recorded his disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B.
12. In his disclosure statement Ex.PW15/B, the accused [ENTITY] disclosed that [ENTITY], resident of Welcome was his associate. PW-15 SI [ENTITY] made efforts for apprehension of the said [ENTITY] but he could not be apprehended. In due course, process under [SECTION] of the [ACT] was issued against [ENTITY].
13. On completion of investigation, PW-15 SI SI [ENTITY] charge-sheeted the accused [ENTITY] under [SECTION] [ACT].
Committal proceedings:
14. On compliance of [SECTION] of the [ACT], the case was committed to the Court of Session. The charge:
15. On appraisal of material on record, the accused [ENTITY] was charged for offences punishable under [SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT], and [SECTION] [ACT] to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 5 of 17 Prosecution evidence:
16. During trial, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses.
17. PW-1 [ENTITY] is the complainant. He proved fardbayan Ex.PW1/A and site plan of the place of incident Ex.PW1/B. He proved arrest memo Ex.PW1/C and personal search memo Ex.PW1/D.
18. PW-2 [ENTITY] is the injured. He was accompanying the complainant at the time of incident.
19. PW-3 [ENTITY] is In-charge of Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV). He had taken the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital for his medical examination.
20. PW-4 SI [ENTITY] is In-charge, PCR Van, baker 7. When he reached at the place of incident, the injured and the accused [ENTITY] was already taken to hospital.
21. PW-5 W/Ct. [ENTITY] is Channel Operator. She received PCR call on 26.08.2015 at 22.32.18 hrs. at Channel No. 138. She proved PCR Form-I Ex.PW5/A. She passed the information on NET.
22. PW-6 [ENTITY] is neighbour of the injured [ENTITY]. He alongwith PW-7 [ENTITY], brother of the injured [ENTITY] reached at the place of incident. He had taken the injured [ENTITY] to GTB Hospital.
23. PW-7 [ENTITY] is the brother of the injured [ENTITY]. He made call at 100 from his mobile phone No. 8826644608.
24. PW-8 [ENTITY] is the Duty Officer. He proved FIR Ex.PW8/B. He made endorsement Ex.PW8/A on rukka.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 6 of 17
25. PW-9 [ENTITY] accompanied PW-15 IO SI [ENTITY] to the place of incident. He had taken the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital.
26. PW-10 Dr. [ENTITY], Casualty Medical Officer (CMO), Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital examined the accused [ENTITY]. She proved MLC Ex.PW10/A in respect of the accused [ENTITY].
27. PW-11 [ENTITY] is the Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. He proved Call Detail Record (CDR) pertaining to mobile No. 8826644608 for the period from 24.08.2015 to 28.08.2015 Ex.PW11/A, Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW11/C, copy voter I-card of [ENTITY] Dev Ex.PW11/D and Cell ID / Tower Location Chart Ex.PW11/E. PW-12 SI [ENTITY], Technical Supervisor, CPCR, PHQ, New Delhi proved Certificate under [SECTION] of the [ACT] Ex.PW11/B.
28. PW-13 Ct. [ENTITY], DD writer recorded PCR call received on 26.08.2015 at 10.35 p.m. from PW-5 W/Ct. [ENTITY] in roznamcha register vide DD No. 92B Ex.PW13/A. He proved copy of DD No. 92B Ex.PW13/B.
29. PW-14 Dr. [ENTITY], Junior Resident, GTB Hospital examined the injured [ENTITY] vide MLC Ex.PW14/A. He deposed that the incised wound on the cheek of the injured [ENTITY] may heal with the passage of time but the scar mark may stay permanently on his face.
30. PW-15 SI [ENTITY] investigated the case. He proved rukka Ex.PW15/A. FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 7 of 17 Examination of the accused:
31. Incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused [ENTITY] were explained to him as required under [SECTION] of the [ACT] He denied each and every circumstance. He denied that he alongwith his associate alighted from the cluster bus. He denied that his associate slapped PW-1 [ENTITY] and robbed Rs. 6,000/- from left pocket of his trousers. He denied that he was carrying any blade. He denied that he inflicted blade on left cheek of PW-2 [ENTITY]. He denied that he was beaten by the public persons. He denied that he was lying at the place of incident in injured condition. He stated that he had not stated anything to Dr. [ENTITY].
32. His defence is that he had a quarrel at Seelampur Bus Stand with some boys. He sustained injury on his forehead in the said quarrel. He was going to his house in a rickshaw by placing his hand on his head. He alighted from rickshaw on finding a crowd and standing at the place of incident. IO SI [ENTITY] said that he was one one of the robbers and apprehended him. He stated that PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] identified him at the instance of IO SI [ENTITY]. He pleaded innocence and claimed false implication by IO SI [ENTITY]. Prosecution arguments:
33. Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] submitted that PW-1 [ENTITY] / the complainant and PW-2 [ENTITY] / injured deposed about the incident. He submitted that the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended on the spot.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 8 of 17
34. Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] further submitted that the accused [ENTITY] was beaten by the public. He submitted that MLC of the accused [ENTITY] Ex.PW10/A proved the existence of fresh injuries on his person. He submitted that MLC of the injured [ENTITY] Ex.PW13/A proved that he sustained an incised wound measuring 13 x 0.5 cm on his left cheek with a sharp edged object and it is permanent in nature. He submitted that PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] identified the accused [ENTITY] as one of the robbers and the person who inflicted blade on left cheek of PW-2 [ENTITY] at the time of commission of robbery. He submitted that the nature of the injury sustained by PW-2 [ENTITY] is permanent in nature and therefore, it is a grievous hurt. He submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges in question. Defence arguments:
35. Sh. [ENTITY], Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the prosecution has not examined any independent public witness. He submitted that PW-1 [ENTITY], PW-2 [ENTITY] and PW-6 [ENTITY] are the interested witnesses and they deposed at the instance of IO SI [ENTITY]. He submitted that weapon of offence was not recovered. He submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] on vital aspects. He submitted that PW-2 [ENTITY] became unconscious after sustaining injury on his face and therefore, there was no occasion for him to see the face of the accused. He prayed for acquittal from the charges in question.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 9 of 17 Evaluation of the prosecution evidence:
36. PW-1 [ENTITY] is the complainant. He is the material witness of the prosecution. He deposed as under:
"I was residing at the above address with my maternal aunt (mausi) Smt. [ENTITY]. I was working in a garment shop in Gandhi Nagar alongwith my cousin [ENTITY]. On 26.08.2015, I received my salary of Rs. 6,000/- from my employer. I alongwith my cousin [ENTITY] reached Seelampur Bus Stand. We boarded a bus at Seelampur Bus Stand to reach Welcome. The accused persons forcibly deboarded us from the bus before Welcome Bus Stand at about 10.30 p.m. One of them slapped on my left side of my face and taken out Rs. 6,000/- from left pocket of my wearing pant. When my cousin [ENTITY] protested, accused [ENTITY] present in the Court today inflicted a sharp edged object or blade on left cheek of [ENTITY]. The boy who taken my money escaped from the spot. Public persons who were present there apprehended the accused [ENTITY] at the spot and gave beatings to him."
37. PW-1 [ENTITY] is the victim of the robbery. He was not inimical to the accused [ENTITY]. He had no reason to depose against the accused [ENTITY]. He has given categorical account of the incident in his deposition. The defence could not elicit anything from his cross-examination. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that the accused [ENTITY] caused injury to his brother [ENTITY]. He denied the suggestion that the accused [ENTITY] did not inflict any injury to his brother [ENTITY]. He identified the accused [ENTITY] as the person who inflicted a sharp edged object or blade on left cheek of his cousin brother [ENTITY]. He deposed that the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended by the public persons on the spot. He deposed that the public persons given beatings to the accused [ENTITY].
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 10 of 17
38. PW-2 [ENTITY] is the injured. He is not shown inimical to the accused [ENTITY]. He sustained injury in the form of a sharp incised wound measuring 13 x 0.5 cm on his left cheek. He would not screen the real offender and falsely implicate an innocent person. Being injured, his presence at the place of incident is proved. In his evidence, he deposed as under:
"It was 26.08.2015. On that day, my cousin brother [ENTITY] was carrying an amount of Rs. 6,000/- with him which he received as a salary. At about 9.30 p.m., we boarded a cluster bus at Seelampur Bus Stand to reach Welcome Bus Stand. At about 9.45 p.m.-10.00 p.m., we alighted from the bus at Welcome Bus Stand. Two boys also alighted from the said bus. One of the said boys slapped my cousin brother [ENTITY] and taken out a sum of Rs. 6,000/- from his pocket. I pleaded to them not to take our salary. The boy who had taken out the amount from my pocket ran away. The second boy inflicted a blade on left side of my cheek (The witness has shown left side of cheek to the Court having a cut mark beginning from upper side of his left ear to below his left lip). The witness has pointed out towards the accused [ENTITY] as the person who inflicted blade on left side of his cheek. The accused [ENTITY] was caught by 1-2 public persons at the place of incident."
39. The defence did not subject PW-2 [ENTITY] to cross- examination.
40. In 'Jodhan vs. [ENTITY] of M.P.', Crl. Appeal No. 1683 of 2010 decided on 08.04.2015, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
"22. From the aforesaid summarization of the legal principles, it is beyond doubt that the testimony of the injured witness has its own significance and it has to be placed reliance upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and inconsistencies.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 11 of 17 As has been stated, the injured witness has been conferred special status in law and the injury sustained by him as an inbuilt-guarantee of his presence at the place of occurrence. Thus perceived, we really do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the evidence of the injured witnesses have been appositely discarded being treated as untrustworthy by the learned trial Judge."
41. PW-2 [ENTITY], in his evidence, corroborated PW-1 [ENTITY] on material aspects. He corroborated PW-1 [ENTITY] that on 26.08.2015, PW-1 [ENTITY] was carrying his salary amount of Rs. 6,000/-. He corroborated him on the aspect that at about 9.45 p.m.-10.00 p.m., they alighted from the cluster bus at Welcome Bus Stand.
42. PW-2 [ENTITY] corroborated PW-1 [ENTITY] on the aspect that the accused [ENTITY] alongwith his associate alighted from the cluster bus after them. He corroborated him on the aspect that the associate of the accused [ENTITY] slapped PW-1 [ENTITY] and taken out Rs. 6,000/- from his pocket. He corroborated him on the aspect that PW-2 [ENTITY] objected and thereafter, the accused [ENTITY] inflicted a blade on the left cheek of PW-2 [ENTITY]. He corroborated him on the aspect that the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended on the spot.
43. PW-7 [ENTITY] reached at the place of incident at about 10.35 p.m. He corroborated PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] on the aspect that PW-2 [ENTITY] had a blade injury on his left cheek and that public was beating the accused [ENTITY]. He made call at 100 through his mobile phone No. 8826644608.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 12 of 17
44. PW-6 [ENTITY] is the neighbour of PW-2 [ENTITY]. He alongwith PW-7 [ENTITY] reached at the place of incident at about 10.30 p.m. He stated that when he reached near Welcome Bus Stand, Double Storey, he found [ENTITY] in injured condition. He stated that PW-2 [ENTITY] had a blade injury on left side of his cheek and he was bleeding profusely, as stated by PW-7 [ENTITY]. He stated that the accused [ENTITY] was being beaten by the public and he was lying there in injured condition. He alongwith PW-7 [ENTITY] taken PW-2 [ENTITY] to GTB Hospital. He identified the accused [ENTITY] before the Court.
45. PW-14 Dr. [ENTITY], Junior Resident, GTB Hospital examined PW-2 [ENTITY] on 26.08.2015 at 11.15 p.m. He proved MLC Ex.PW14/A. According to PW-14 Dr. [ENTITY] and MLC Ex.PW14/A, PW-2 [ENTITY] had a sharp incised wound approximately 13 x 0.5 cm on his left cheek.
46. PW-3 [ENTITY], In-charge, Emergency Rescue Vehicle (ERV) reached at the place of incident at about 10.40 p.m. He stated that the public persons were beating the accused [ENTITY] and he saved him from the public. He alongwith PW-9 [ENTITY] taken the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital for his medical examination.
47. PW-9 [ENTITY] alongwith PW-15 SI [ENTITY] reached at the place of incident. He stated that the accused [ENTITY] was produced by PW-1 [ENTITY] before PW-15 SI [ENTITY]. He had taken the accused [ENTITY] to Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 13 of 17
48. PW-10 Dr. [ENTITY], CMO, Jag Parvesh Chandra Hospital examined the accused [ENTITY] on 26.08.2015 at 11.20 p.m. She proved MLC Ex.PW10/A. According to PW-10 Dr. [ENTITY] and MLC Ex.PW10/A, the accused [ENTITY] had reddish abrasion on left side of his forehead and lacerated wound measuring 1.5 x 0.5 cm on right side of his forehead. She stated that the accused [ENTITY] stated that he was beaten by the public at Welcome about half hour ago.
49. Therefore, it is proved that the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended on the spot and he was beaten by the public.
50. The accused [ENTITY] taken the defence that he had a quarrel at Seelampur Bus Stand with some boys and he sustained an injury on his forehead and he was going to his house in a rickshaw and he stopped at the place of incident on finding a crowd and PW-15 SI [ENTITY] implicated him in this case. His defence was that PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] identified him at the instance of PW-15 SI [ENTITY] as he stated to them as he was one of the robbers.
51. The accused [ENTITY] did not suggest this defence to PW-1 [ENTITY], PW-2 [ENTITY], PW-3 [ENTITY], PW-9 [ENTITY] and PW-15 SI [ENTITY]. This defence was taken at the time of examination of the accused [ENTITY] under [SECTION] of the [ACT] It is an after thought.
52. There is no rule of law that non-recovery of weapon of offence is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, defence contention in this regard is rejected.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 14 of 17
53. PW-7 [ENTITY] made a call at 100 from his mobile No. 8826644608. Call Detail Record (CDR) in respect of mobile No. 8826644608 for the period from 24.08.2015 to 28.08.2015 Ex.PW11/A show that five calls were made from Airtel phone No. 8826644608 to 100 on 26.08.2015 at 22.28.51 hrs., 22.30.40 hrs., 22.34.39 hrs., 22.35.59 hrs. and 22.37.49 hrs. Customer Application Form (CAF) Ex.PW11/C proved that the said mobile phone was subscribed to PW-7 [ENTITY].
54. PW-11 [ENTITY], Nodal Officer proved certificate under [SECTION] of the [ACT] Ex.PW11/B. Cell ID / Tower Location Chart Ex.PW11/E would prove that the said five calls were made by PW-7 [ENTITY] from his mobile No. 8826644608 within the range of Tower No. 28773 installed at R-10 and 11, Near MCD School, Welcome, Seelampur-III, Delhi.
55. Electronic evidence proved the presence of PW-7 [ENTITY] at the place of incident at about 10.28 p.m. It further proved that the incident of robbery had taken place at the place of incident as deposed by PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY].
56. Last but not the least, fardbayan Ex.PW1/A and FIR Ex.PW8/A corroborated PW-1 [ENTITY] and PW-2 [ENTITY] regarding the incident of robbery and apprehension of the accused [ENTITY] on the spot by the public persons.
57. The judgment in 'Nanak Chand vs. The [ENTITY] of Delhi', 1991 JCC (1) related to non-examination of public witness in a case under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 15 of 17
58. The judgment in 'Anup Singh vs. The [ENTITY]', 1994 JCC 559 related to legality of Test Identification Parade (TIP) in respect of the accused who was shown to the complainant before his Test Identification Parade (TIP). The case law relied by Ld. Defence counsel is not applicable to this case. In the present case, the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended at the spot. PW-1 [ENTITY] is the victim of the robbery and complainant of this case. PW-2 [ENTITY] is the injured. It cannot be contended that there is no public witness to the offences in question. Reg. applicability of [SECTION] [ACT]:
59. PW-2 [ENTITY] sustained a incised wound measuring 13 x 0.5 cm on his left cheek. During his examination, the Court observed that PW-2 [ENTITY] had a cut mark beginning from upper side of his left ear to below his left lip. PW-14 Dr. [ENTITY] stated that the incised wound on the cheek of the injured [ENTITY] may heal with the passage of time but the scar mark may stay permanently on his face.
60. [SECTION] [ACT] is applicable in the case where the offender caused grievous hurt to any person at the time of committing robbery. According to [SECTION] [ACT], permanent disfiguration of face is a grievous hurt.
61. The accused [ENTITY] caused grievous hurt to PW-2 [ENTITY] at the time of committing robbery which is punishable under [SECTION] [ACT].
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 16 of 17 Finding:
62. From the evidence as discussed above, the prosecution has been able to prove that:
(a) That on 26.08.2015 at about 10.30 p.m., the accused [ENTITY] with his associate robbed Rs. 6,000/-
from PW-1 [ENTITY];
(b) That PW-2 [ENTITY] objected to the said incident and the accused [ENTITY] caused grievous hurt in the form of a sharp incised wound measuring 13 x 0.5 cm on left cheek of PW-2 [ENTITY];
(c) That the accused [ENTITY] was apprehended on the spot by the public;
(d) That the accused [ENTITY] was beaten by the public;
(e) That the accused [ENTITY] has given false explanation regarding injuries on his person.
Conclusion:
63. The accused [ENTITY] is convicted for committing offences under [SECTION] [ACT] and [SECTION] [ACT]. The accused [ENTITY] is also convicted for committing offence under [SECTION] [ACT].
Announced in the open court [ENTITY] on this 18th day of July, 2016. Special Judge NDPS (North-East) ASJ:KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 628/2015 [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] Page No. 17 of 17