1 In the Court of [ENTITY] ASJ/Special Judge : NDPS : Rohini Courts : Delhi In the matter of : [CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] FIR no. 157/12 PS Shalimar Bagh U/s 186/308/353 r/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. Kanhaiya Singh R/o Jhuggi No. N/49, Near Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderpur, Delhi. Date of receipt : 30.07.2014 Date of arguments : 16.12.2015 Date of announcement : 16.12.2015 JUDGMENT
1 The above named accused was sent for trial for offences U/[SECTION] of [ACT]. Besides the accused, his juvenile brother is also an accused in the offence, who faced enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board. As per the case of prosecution, there were two more offenders, but they could not be apprehended. 1.1 Brief facts of the case are that on 11.06.2012, on receipt of DD no.
[CASE NUMBER] Page 1 of 19 (r) 5B, ASI [ENTITY] along with Ct. [ENTITY] reached the crime spot i.e. jhuggies of Ayurvedic Hospital, Main Road, where one Emergency Response Vehicle (ERV) was also found. Incharge of the ERV, ASI [ENTITY] then shifted injured [ENTITY] to the hospital. At the spot, [ENTITY] and present accused [ENTITY] were also present. The Juvenile (D) who is none other than brother of present accused was also present. Ct. [ENTITY] was left at the spot along with [ENTITY] and the accused. ASI [ENTITY] thereafter reached Fortis Hospital, Shalimar Bagh. There [ENTITY] who was under treatment was found fit for statement and his statement was recorded.
[ENTITY] stated that he while posted as a constable in police station Shalimar Bagh and deputed in Beat no. 4 of police station Shalimar Bagh, was on patrolling duty in plain clothes under the instructions of SHO in the night intervening 10th & 11th June 2012, on motorcycle. When at about 12 in the midnight, he reached the spot, he noticed that four boys were giving beatings to one person who was lying on the ground. [ENTITY] stopped his motorcycle and asked those four boys as to why they were giving beatings to the fifth person. Upon it, those four boys questioned [ENTITY] as to who he was to stop them. Thereafter, [ENTITY] introduced himself and told them that he was patrolling the area and that he was the Beat Officer of that area. As soon as [ENTITY] gave his introduction, one of those four boys pulled out the key of motorcycle of [ENTITY] from the ignition hole. The second one gave a helmet blow on the head of [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] Page 2 of 19 (r) from the helmet of [ENTITY] himself. Thereafter, all four of them started beating [ENTITY]. Third person out of those four persons picked up a stone and hit it on the head of [ENTITY]. [ENTITY] fell down on the ground after experiencing giddiness. Thereafter, all the four offenders stated that [ENTITY] be lifted and be thrown in the nearby nala. All four of them started pulling [ENTITY] towards the nala. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY] arrived there and challenged the four offenders. Thereafter, two offenders fled from the spot and present accused and his juvenile brother were caught at the spot. Allegedly, accused and his brother told the name of other two offenders as [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], but those two offenders could not be identified and apprehended. The person who was given beatings by the accused and his associates at the time when [ENTITY] arrived at the spot was also present at the spot. His name is [ENTITY]. On the complaint of [ENTITY], the present FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken. [ENTITY]ment of [ENTITY] was also recorded during the course of investigation. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed.
2 Accordingly, charge U/[SECTION] of [ACT] was framed against the present accused [ENTITY], to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 In support of its case, prosecution examined total 12 witnesses, out of whom injured [ENTITY] is examined as PW6, [ENTITY] the eye witness to the incident and who was earlier being given beatings is examined as PW7, [ENTITY] who reached the [CASE NUMBER] Page 3 of 19 (r) spot and rescued [ENTITY] is examined as PW4. Investigating officer ASI [ENTITY] is examined as PW10. Other witnesses are more or less formal in nature. 3.1 PW1 [ENTITY] was the duty officer as well as MHCM in the police station concerned. He proved registration of FIR Ex.PW1/A; and endorsement on rukka Ex.PW1/B. He also deposed that on that very day, ASI [ENTITY] deposited two sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of [ENTITY] in the malkhana vide entry in Register no. 19, Ex.PW1/C. 3.2 PW2 Ct. [ENTITY] was the DD writer who proved DD no. 5B Ex.PW2/A lodged at 12.15 AM regarding receipt of information in the police station about the incident and ASI [ENTITY] was deputed to attend the call. This witness also proved DD no. 21B as Ex.PW2/B regarding entry as to departure of [ENTITY] and other police officials at 8.30 PM on 10.06.2012. This entry Ex.PW2/B reflects that Inspector [ENTITY], SI [ENTITY], [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and Ct. [ENTITY] went for some arrangement duty at Badli Stand, Ring Road from the police station.
3.3 PW3 Dr. [ENTITY] examined [ENTITY] in Fortis Hospital vide MLC Ex.PW3/A. He deposed that nature of injuries sustained by [ENTITY] were simple. Ex.PW3/A would reveal that [ENTITY] sustained one contused lacerated wound over left side forehead about 0.5 cm X 2 cm in size; second contused lacerated wound over left side frontal region of 0.5 cm X 3 cm in size; and third contused lacerated wound over inferior aspect of left eyebrow [CASE NUMBER] Page 4 of 19 (r) about 0.5 cm X 1 cm in size. No other injury was noticed. 3.4 PW5 Ct. [ENTITY] accompanied the investigating officer ASI [ENTITY] to the crime spot from the police station. He deposed that he went to the hospital from the crime spot with the ASI and then [ENTITY] was shifted to hospital in ERV, on which ASI [ENTITY] was Incharge. Then he was left at the spot and ASI [ENTITY] went to the hospital. Thereafter, the case property was taken into possession and at the spot the accused was arrested along with his juvenile brother. The helmet recovered from the spot is proved as Ex.P1.
3.5 PW8 SI [ENTITY] was the further investigating officer who obtained the DD Roster from the concerned police station and also recorded statements of certain witnesses. The duty roster is proved as Ex.PW8/A. 3.6 PW9 Inspector [ENTITY] was the additional SHO in the police station on that day. He deposed that [ENTITY] was on duty with him at Traffic Signal, Badli, Outer Ring Road from 8.00 to 8.30 PM and at 8.00 PM, [ENTITY] was relieved from the said place for performing patrolling duty in the area in civil dress. 3.7 PW11 Inspector [ENTITY] was the concerned SHO who gave requisite complaint U/[SECTION] [ACT] Ex.PW11/A, since amongst the offences invoked, [SECTION] [ACT] was also invoked. 3.8 PW12 ASI [ENTITY] was the Incharge of ERV who deposed that he was patrolling the area of police station Shalimar Bagh at about 12.15 AM when he received information regarding quarrel with the police constable near Ayurvedic Hospital, Hyderpur and then he [CASE NUMBER] Page 5 of 19 (r) reached the spot along with staff. At the spot, he found [ENTITY] in the injured condition. [ENTITY] was also there at the spot and he took [ENTITY] to Fortis Hospital and thereafter he gave information to the police station. Subsequently, ASI [ENTITY] came to the hospital, collected MLC of [ENTITY] and, recorded statement of [ENTITY], upon which rukka was prepared and it was handed over to ASI [ENTITY] for registration of FIR. He then took the rukka to police station Shalimar Bagh, got the FIR registered and returned to the hospital with copy of FIR and original rukka. The witness also deposed that [ENTITY] gave his blood stained shirt and vest to the investigating officer, which was taken into possession vide a memo after sealing the same with the seal of investigating officer.
3.9 [ENTITY] the public person who witnessed the incident of this case and who was initially being assaulted before arrival of [ENTITY], as PW7 deposed that he was attending call of nature at the spot at about 11.30 PM on the night intervening 10th & 11th June, 2012. At that time, accused [ENTITY] along with his wife Smt. [ENTITY] and his younger brother juvenile came and objected to the act of [ENTITY]. Thereafter, [ENTITY] started quarreling with him and both brothers [ENTITY] and juvenile gave beatings to this witness. In the meanwhile, one policeman came on a motorcycle in civil clothes and when the policeman enquired from accused, [ENTITY] and his family as to why this witness was being assaulted, 3-4 more friends of accused [ENTITY] reached there and then [ENTITY] and his associates gave beatings to [ENTITY]. The witness deposed [CASE NUMBER] that accused [ENTITY] and his associates gave beatings to [ENTITY] with stones and they also dragged [ENTITY] to near nala but in the meanwhile another policeman reached there and apprehended accused [ENTITY] and his brother juvenile. Other boys escaped. Subsequently, accused and his juvenile brother were arrested by the investigating officer and this witness identified his signature on the arrest memo of accused.
3.10 PW6 [ENTITY] deposed that when he was on night patrolling in plain clothes under the directions of SHO and reached the crime spot, he saw that 4-5 persons were giving beatings to one boy. When he asked the assailants as to why they were giving beatings, after stopping his motorcycle, those assailants questioned as to who he was to ask anything. Thereafter, this witness gave introduction to the assailants by specifically telling them that he was Beat Officer of that area. On hearing it, accused [ENTITY] pulled out the key from the ignition key hole of his motorcycle. His younger brother juvenile gave beatings to this witness with the helmet of the witness. Their third associate picked up a stone and hit it on the head of this witness due to which witness fell down and became semiconscious. The witness claimed that the juvenile in conflict with law removed his helmet (helmet of witness) and started giving him beatings with the helmet. When the witness became semiconscious, he could hear that the assailants were saying that the witness should be taken to nala and be thrown there. Thereafter, the assailants started dragging the witness towards nala. In the meanwhile, [ENTITY] came and challenged the accused and his associates. With the [CASE NUMBER] help of [ENTITY], two boys i.e. accused and his younger brother were apprehended, but other assailants escaped. The witness deposed that accused and his juvenile brother disclosed names of other two offenders as [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. The witness also deposed that the name of the boy who was being beaten by accused and his associate was [ENTITY]. ASI [ENTITY] in ERV reached the spot and he shifted [ENTITY] to Fortis Hospital. In the hospital, his shirt and vest were sealed by the doctor concerned as they were blood stained and buttons of his shirt were broken. After sometime, ASI [ENTITY] came to the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW6/A. The clothes were taken into possession by the investigating officer vide memo Ex.PW6/B. Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital and he went to the spot with ASI [ENTITY]. At the spot, siteplan was prepared and accused and his brother were arrested. The witness identified his clothes in the court as Ex.P2 and he also identified the accused in the court. 3.11 PW4 [ENTITY] deposed that at the time of incident, he was going towards police station Shalimar Bagh from his house to join duty, as his duty was to commence at 12 in the midnight. But at about 12.10 AM, when he reached near the spot, he saw 3-4 boys were beating [ENTITY] and they were dragging [ENTITY] towards nala. He rushed towards them and then with the help of [ENTITY], apprehended the accused and his brother. Other boys escaped. Meanwhile, someone called the PCR. Upon it, ASI [ENTITY] in PCR Van came to the spot and took injured [ENTITY] to the hospital. ASI [ENTITY] also came to the spot. Thereafter, the [CASE NUMBER] Page 8 of 19 (r) accused and his brother were arrested and case property i.e. broken helmet was taken into possession from the spot. The helmet was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW4/A after sealing it with the seal of investigating officer. Helmet is identified by the witness in the court as Ex.P1.
3.12 The investigating officer SI [ENTITY] also supported the case of prosecution and as PW10 deposed that when he reached the spot with Ct. [ENTITY] pursuant to receipt of DD no. 5B, he found [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and ASI [ENTITY]. Since [ENTITY] was injured, he was sent to Fortis Hospital with ASI [ENTITY]. The accused and his brother were in custody of [ENTITY]. Then this witness after leaving Ct. [ENTITY] and Ct. [ENTITY] at the spot, reached the hospital. In the hospital, statement of Ct.[ENTITY] was recorded. [ENTITY] also produced his clothes which were taken into possession after sealing them vide a seizure memo. After taking the complaint of [ENTITY], case was got registered through ASI [ENTITY], then siteplan Ex.PW10/B was prepared and the helmet was taken into possession from the spot vide a separate memo. The accused and his brother were then arrested.
4 On completion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused U/[SECTION] [ACT] in which accused generally denied and claimed that he has been falsely implicated. In his statement, the accused admitted his presence at the spot by claiming that he with his younger brother (juvenile) and his wife [ENTITY] and children were waiting for tempo in order to go to [CASE NUMBER] Page 9 of 19 (r) Shahbad Dairy when 4-5 persons came there and started eve teasing his wife. Those persons also inappropriately touched his wife. When the accused and his brother objected, [ENTITY] PW7 and his friends gave beatings to them. Accused claimed that he or his brother did not beat [ENTITY] at all. The accused denied rest of the evidence against him. Though initially the accused opted to led evidence in defence but, subsequently vide a statement given on 07.09.2015 without examining any witness the accused closed his defence evidence.
5 I have heard Ld. Prosecutor for the [ENTITY] and Ld. Counsel for the accused.
6 Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that there are contradictions in the testimonies of the spot witness as to how many number of boys were assailants; what exactly transpired at the spot; when was [ENTITY] taken to hospital; whether his blood stained clothes were taken by the doctor or he himself handed over to the investigating officer etc. It is also argued that assuming the version of prosecution to be taken as true, still [SECTION] of [ACT] is not made out.
7 Though the accused in his statement claimed that when the accused along with his wife, children and brother were present at the spot witness [ENTITY] came there with his other associates and started eve teasing his wife and inappropriately touched his wife but cross examination of [ENTITY] would reveal that there is absolutely no suggestion given that the witness [ENTITY] was present at the spot with anyone else or that [ENTITY] or his friends eve teased wife of the [CASE NUMBER] Page 10 of 19 (r) accused or that [ENTITY] or his friends touched wife of accused. 7.1 Contrary to the defence taken by the accused in his statement, the suggestion given to [ENTITY] is that [ENTITY] was not even present at the spot or that he was not given beatings. Though [ENTITY] in his cross examination admitted that at the time of incident, wife of accused was also present, but there is no suggestion qua eve teasing etc. In the cross examination of [ENTITY], there is no suggestion given at all that the accused or others did not assault the policeman who had come at the spot. It was also not even suggested that no policeman came to the spot or that accused was not apprehended at the spot. 7.2 From the filmsy cross examination of this witness [ENTITY] by the accused, it would be apparent that the accused did not challenge the testimony of this witness on material aspects of the matter. The fact whether quarrel with [ENTITY] occurred on account of the witness trying to attend call of nature, as claimed by the witness, or on some other account loses significance once it gets established that some scuffle did occur before arrival of [ENTITY] at the spot. 8 Similarly, in the cross examination of the complainant/injured witness [ENTITY], nothing material came out in favour of the accused. In the cross examination of [ENTITY], there is no suggestion given at all that the accused and his associates were not beating [ENTITY] or that [ENTITY] did not come to the spot or that they did not give beatings to [ENTITY]. There is also no suggestion given that [ENTITY] did not reach the spot. Instead what is asked to [ENTITY] was as to for how long the beatings were given to him, after how much time [ENTITY] [CASE NUMBER] Page 11 of 19 (r) reached etc. In absence of even a suggestion given to [ENTITY] that he did not reach the spot or was not beaten, the testimony of [ENTITY] that he reached the spot and he was assaulted by the accused and his associates remains unrebutted by the accused.
9 Similarly, in the cross examination of PW4 [ENTITY], there is no suggestion at all given by the accused that [ENTITY] was not present at the spot or he was not assaulted by the accused or even that [ENTITY] did not reach the spot. In a few liner cross examination of [ENTITY], what is asked is as to what were the timings of duty of [ENTITY]; how many public persons were there; when did the ERV and investigating officer etc. reached. Thus, again in the testimony of [ENTITY], factum of [ENTITY] being beaten remains unrebutted.
10 [ENTITY], [ENTITY] as well as [ENTITY], unanimously deposed that [ENTITY] was assaulted by the accused and his friends. In the testimony of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY], it has also come that Ct. [ENTITY] was also beaten by the accused and his associates. In such circumstances of the matter, the contradictions as to whether there were three boys in total or four boys in total along with the accused; how many public persons were present; when was [ENTITY] taken to hospital; whether he handed over his blood stained clothes to the doctor or to the investigating officer, etc., all pales into insignificance. Once the very factum of giving beatings to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] was not challenged by the accused, rest of the things become immaterial.
[CASE NUMBER] Page 12 of 19 (r) 11 It may be reminded here that [ENTITY] was injured in this incident. His MLC reflecting three injuries has been proved. In law, an injured witness has a different status. The very fact that he suffered injuries in the incident assures his presence. 12 In the case of Mano Dutt v. [ENTITY] of U.P., (2012) 4 SCC 79 at page 90 it is held as follows;
"31. We may merely refer to Abdul Sayeed v. [ENTITY] of M.P. [(2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] where this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 271-72, paras 28-30) "28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. 'Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness.' [Vide Ramlagan Singh v. [ENTITY] of Bihar [(1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973 SCC (Cri) 563] , Malkhan Singh v. [ENTITY] of U.P. [(1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919] , Machhi Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab [(1983) 3 SCC 470 : 1983 SCC (Cri) 681] , Appabhaiv. [ENTITY] of Gujarat [1988 Supp SCC 241 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 559] , Bonkya v. [ENTITY] of Maharashtra[(1995) 6 SCC 447 :
1995 SCC (Cri) 1113] , Bhag Singh [Bhag Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab, (1997) 7 SCC 712 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1163] , Mohar v. [ENTITY] of U.P. [(2002) 7 SCC 606 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 121] (SCC p. 606b-
c), Dinesh Kumar v. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan [(2008) 8 SCC 270 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 472] , Vishnu v. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan [(2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Annareddy Sambasiva Reddy v. [ENTITY] of A.P. [(2009) 12 SCC 546 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 630] and Balraje v.[ENTITY] of Maharashtra [(2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] .]
29. While deciding this issue, a similar view was taken in [PRECEDENT] Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] where this Court reiterated the special evidentiary status accorded to the testimony of an injured accused and relying on its earlier judgments held as under: (SCC pp. 726-27, paras 28-29) 28. [ENTITY] (PW 4) was an injured witness. He had been examined by the doctor. His testimony could not be brushed aside lightly. He had given full details of the incident as he was present at the time when the assailants reached the tube well.
In Shivalingappa Kallayanappa v. [ENTITY] of Karnataka [1994 Supp (3) SCC 235 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 1694] this Court has held that the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in case it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident.
29. In [ENTITY] of U.P. v. Kishan Chand [(2004) 7 SCC 629 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 2013] a similar view has been reiterated observing that the testimony of a stamped witness has its own relevance and efficacy. The fact that the witness sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence, lends support to his testimony that he was present during the occurrence. In case the injured witness is subjected to lengthy cross-examination and nothing can be elicited to discard his testimony, it should be relied upon (vide Krishan v. [ENTITY] of Haryana [(2006) 12 SCC 459 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 214] ). Thus, we are of the considered opinion that evidence of [ENTITY] (PW 4) has rightly been relied upon by the courts below.
30. The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law. This is as a consequence of the fact that the injury to the witness is an inbuilt guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and because the witness will not want to let his actual assailant go unpunished merely to falsely implicate a third party for the commission of the offence. Thus, the deposition of the injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies therein."
[CASE NUMBER] Page 14 of 19 (r) To the similar effect is the judgment of this Court in [PRECEDENT] ."
13 Even otherwise, it has been proved from the duty roster and other senior officers of the police station that [ENTITY] was on duty at that time. Thus, there is no reason for this court to brush aside testimony of [ENTITY] who is an injured witness. 14 But the question is whether prosecution succeeds in proving its case against the accused U/[SECTION] of [ACT]. [SECTION] of [ACT] makes punishable an act which is capable of causing death by a person who knows that had he caused death by his act, he would have been guilty of committing culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. That fact takes us to not only the nature of injuries sustained by [ENTITY] but also as to what instruments were used in causing injuries. As per MLC Ex.PW3/A, the injuries sustained by [ENTITY] were simple in nature. He sustained three contused lacerated wounds, one on the forehead, one on the frontal region and, last on the inferior aspect of eyebrow. The helmet which the witness [ENTITY] was wearing was used only once to hit him. Besides that, one stone was also picked and thrown by one of the associates of accused [ENTITY]. Helmet injury was given by his juvenile brother. [ENTITY] neither gave helmet injury nor he threw stone on [ENTITY]. No other instrument was admittedly used. 15 But the question is whether the evidence led by the prosecution suggests that the accused did the abovementioned act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the [CASE NUMBER] Page 15 of 19 (r) act, death would have resulted, accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
In this regard, reference can be made to following cases:
1) [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] : 2010[1] JCC 700 2) [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] : 2010 [1] JCC 796 3) [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] : 2013(7) LRC 219 (Del)
In the case of [ENTITY] (Supra), it was held that where the injuries caused are superficial in nature and there is no pre-planning or pre- meditation on the part of accused and the entire incident took place during the course of altercation and when one wooden lemon squasher was only used, there was no intention to cause culpable homicide. It was held that in order to prove an offence U/[SECTION] of [ACT], it must be proved that injury was caused by the accused with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if it had caused death, the act of accused would have amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
In the case of [ENTITY] (Supra), it was held that the intention or knowledge on the part of accused is to be deduced from the circumstances in which injuries are caused as also the nature of injuries and the portion of body selected for inflicting injuries. It was held that when assault was not pre-meditated and even though the injury was on head and was simple in nature, merely because the injury was on head it cannot be said that the injury was caused with intention to commit culpable homicide.
[CASE NUMBER] Page 16 of 19 (r) In the case of [ENTITY] (Supra), it was held that offence punishable U/[SECTION] [ACT] postulate doing of an act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act, death would have resulted, accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the facts of that case, it was held that during verbal spat, in a sudden burst of anger the accused inflicted a saria blow on the head of victim, but not very forcibly. It was held that the intention of accused at best was to beat the victim and the conviction of accused was converted to one U/[SECTION] [ACT] from U/[SECTION] [ACT]. In that case, there was two inches long lacerated wound found on the scalp of the injured caused by blunt object which was simple in nature and no stitches were required to be put.
16 In the present case, in the entire evidence no material has come on record to suggest that the accused shared common intention to do the acts with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by the act, death would have resulted, accused would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder of [ENTITY]. Had they so intended, nothing could have stopped them in causing grievous injuries upon the person of [ENTITY]. A forceful blow of stone on the head of a person can indeed cause death. But the nature of injuries found present on the bodies of three injured persons would reveal that the injuries caused were not with sufficient force to cause grievous injuries. The evidence in the present matter at the most suggests that the accused wanted to give beatings to [ENTITY] and when [ENTITY] intervened, he was also assaulted.
[CASE NUMBER] Page 17 of 19 (r) 17 Thus, necessary ingredients of [SECTION] [ACT] are not fulfilled in the present matter. However, the accused indeed caused injuries.
In such circumstances, prosecution fails to establish that accused [ENTITY] either intended to commit culpable homicide of [ENTITY] or he shared common intention with his brother who hit helmet blow or the associate who threw stone. The very nature of injuries and the instruments used in the matter does not fulfill the necessary ingredients of [SECTION] of [ACT]. [ENTITY] was not even known to the accused by the time the incident occurred. There was no previous grudge between the two sides. Therefore, the accused or his associates had no pre-determined and pre consulted planning in doing the present act. It occurred all of a sudden at the spot, initially with [ENTITY], for some reason which is not very clear, and then with the policemen concerned. Accordingly, I hold that [SECTION] of [ACT] is not made out against the accused.
18 However, [SECTION] of [ACT] indeed stands attracted. Beatings were given not only to [ENTITY] but also to [ENTITY] which has remained unrebutted.
19 Also [ENTITY] deposed that he had introduced himself to the accused persons at the time when he questioned the accused and his associates as to why they were giving beatings to [ENTITY]. As a policeman, he was duty bound to prevent such kind of beatings. Despite coming to know that [ENTITY] was a policeman and was Beat Officer of the area who was performing his duty, the accused and his associates gave beatings to him and obstructed [CASE NUMBER] Page 18 of 19 (r) him from fulfilling his duties.
20 The accused [ENTITY] therefore, is found guilty and is convicted for having committed offence punishable under [SECTION] & [SECTION]/[SECTION] [ACT].
Announced in the open court on 16th day of December, 2015. [ENTITY] ASJ/Spl. Judge : NDPS (N-W) Rohini Courts/Delhi [CASE NUMBER] Page 19 of 19 (r)