Amandeep v. The State

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

ARUNA SURESH, J. March 23, 2009 mm

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 12.03.2009 Judgment delivered on: 23.03.2009 + CRL.A. No.399/2007 AMANDEEP …Appellant Through : Mr. O.P.Wadhwa, Adv. with Mr. Javed Akhtar and Mr. Akashdeep, Advocates versus STATE …Respondent Through : Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CRL.A. No.622/2007 SANJAY @ SANJU …Appellant Through : Mr. Anupam Sharma, Advocate Mr. Javed Akhtar, Advocate versus STATE …Respondent Through : Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? : PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. 1. Criminal law was set into motion when Const. Kanwar Singh PW-13, posted as Duty Constable at DDU Hospital, transmitted information to Police Station Tilak Nagar on the intervening night of 13th and 14th August 2003 that two persons named Randhir Chandela @Lala (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") and Dhanpal (PW-1) have been admitted in an injured condition in the hospital. 2. On the receipt of said information, SI Kashmiri Lal PW-10, accompanied with Const. Dayanand PW-14, reached the hospital. Simultaneously, Inspector R.K. Ojha PW-23, who had also received the said information reached the hospital. On reaching the hospital, they were informed that Randhir Chandela had been brought dead as noted in the MLC Ex.PW- 3/B and Dhanpal was admitted in an injured condition as noted in MLC Ex.PW-3/A. It was noted in the MLC Ex.PW-3/A that Dhanpal was conscious but drowsy and the smell of alcohol was present. Statement of Dhanpal could not be recorded. 3. Const. Dayanand PW-14, remained at the hospital. SI Kashmiri Lal PW-10 and Inspector R.K. Ojha PW-23, proceeded to the spot where the incident took place. It may be noted that on what basis the said two police officers reached the place where the offence was committed is not forthcoming on record, but it appears that they must have learnt about the same from Dhanpal, whose statement was not recorded by them. At the spot they met one Neeraj Chandela PW-6, who is the nephew of the deceased. PW-10 recorded the statement Ex.PW-6/A of Neeraj Chandela, and made an endorsement Ex.PW-10/A thereon and handed over the same to Const. Hari Bhagwan PW-19, for registration of an FIR. Const. Hari Bhagwan took Ex.PW-10/A to the police station and handed over the same to ASI Daya Kishan PW-9, who recorded the FIR No.624/2003 Ex.PW-9/A at 2.20 A.M. on 14.08.03. 4. In the meanwhile at the hospital, Dhanpal had to be given the requisite medical treatment keeping in view he had suffered two stab wounds which were noted by Dr.Renu Nagar PW-3 who had prepared the MLC Ex.PW-3/A. The two injuries are as under:- "1. Clean incised wound approximately 3 x 1.5 cm on the left side of the chest medial to the nipple. The depth of the wound could not be assessed. 2. The clean incised wound approximately 3 x 1.5 cm in the epigastric region. The depth of the wound could not be assessed." 5. On the MLC Ex.PW-3/A Dr.Renu Nagar made an endorsement referring Dhanpal to the Radiologist. Dr.Deepak Kumar, Senior Radiologist, recommended PA view of the chest X-ray of Dhanpal. But, the X-ray technician could not take the X-ray of the PA view of the chest because Dhanpal did not cooperate and as recorded at the place encircled XA in Ex.PW- 3/DA i.e. the referral form filled up by the senior radiologist, after recording that the patient was not cooperating, took the X-ray pertaining to the PA view of the chest. Before the doctors could decide on the course of action to be followed and medical treatment given to Dhanpal he absconded from the hospital at around 1.15 AM on 14.8.2003 i.e. in the middle of the night. Thus, on the MLC Ex.PW-3/A the doctor on duty recorded that no opinion pertaining to the injuries could be recorded because the patient has absconded. 6. In his statement Ex.PW-6/A, Neeraj Chandela sta