Pokhar Singh & Anr v. State of NCT of Delhi

V.K. JAIN, J DECEMBER 22, 2009 RS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Order: DECEMBER 22, 2009 + # Pokhar Singh & Anr. ..... Appellants ! Through: Ms. Charu Verma, Advocate Amicus Curiae versus $ STATE ..... Respondent ^ Through: Mr. Amit Sharma, APP. * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN 1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes : V.K. JAIN, J. (ORAL) 1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22nd July, 2006 and Order on Sentence dated 24th July, 2006 whereby the appellants were convicted under section 308 and 325 of the IPC read with section 34 thereof and were sentenced to undergo RI for four years each under section 308 of IPC and were further sentenced to undergo RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each and in default to undergo RI for one month each under section 325 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Rekha owed some money to her sister Seeta and that on 2nd November, 2003 at about 10.30 P.M. when her sister Seeta demanded that money back, Shri Khem Singh, husband of the complainant, promised to return the money by 10th November, 2003. However, her brother-in-law Laxman and Pokhar Singh, nephew of her brother-in-law started abusing and beating her husband Khem Singh, insisting upon immediate repayment of the money that had been taken by Rekha from her sister. When the complainant tried to intervene Pokhar Singh held her husband whereas Laxman picked up a 'saria' which was lying nearby and gave a blow on the head of her husband Khem Singh. This is also the case of the prosecution that Pokhar Singh also picked up another 'saria' lying on the spot and gave a blow using that 'saria' on the right hand of the complainant. 3. The complainant Rekha came in the witness box as PW 1 and stated that husband of her sister Seeta demanded back the amount of Rs.1500/- which she had borrowed from her, she promised to return that amount by the 10th of the month. Laxman and Pokhar Singh who were present, who are the brother and nephew respectively of her brother-in-law, thereupon gave beating to her husband with a 'saria'. According to the complainant, she was hit on her hand, whereas her husband was hit on his head. 4. PW 6 Khem Singh is the husband of the complainant. He has corroborated the deposition of his wife and has stated that on the day of the incident, Pokhar Singh caught hold of his hand and dragged him outside the jhuggi. Both the accused attacked him and gave beatings to him with saria. He was hit on his head. When he raised alarm his wife Rekha also came out. He thereafter became unconscious. 5. In their statements under section 313 of Cr.PC the appellants denied the allegations against them. The appellant Laxman stated that there was a dispute between his brother and his brother-in-law and that is why he had been falsely implicated in this case on account of that dispute. The appellant Pokhar Singh claimed that he had no quarrel and he had been falsely implicated. 6. As regards the injury caused to Khem Singh, the case of the prosecution as set out in the FIR is that the appellant Pokhar Singh had held him and while the appellant Laxman took up a 'saria' which was lying nearby and gave blow on his head, however, when the complainant came in the witness box she did not say that the appellant Pokhar Singh had held her husband and a 'saria' blow was given to him by Laxman. As per her deposition in the court, both the appellants gave beating to her husband with a 'saria'. This is contrary to the version given in the FIR. A perusal of the MLC of Khem Singh would show that he had sustained only one wound over his left partial region. Since only injury was given to Khem Singh, it could have been caused either by Pokhar Singh or by Laxman and not by both of them. But, one doesn't tell the Court, as to who had given saria blow to her and who had given it to her