[ad_1]
Delhi District Court
State vs Lochan Singh on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DEEKSHA SETHI, JMFC-08, SOUTH WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA COURTS, DELHI CNR No. : DLSW02-050067-2019 ID No. : 16494/2019 FIR No. : 48/2012 U/s : 326/34 IPC P.S. : Uttam Nagar State v/s Lochan Singh etc. a) Name & address of the : Surjit Singh complainant s/o sh Nagander Singh r/o Hno. RE-31, Gali No. 4, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. b) Name & address of : 1) Lochan Singh accused s/o Ram Dass Singh r/o Hno. 39, Bhagwati Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. 2). Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Choudhary s/o late Sh Satbir Singh r/o Hno. WZ-78, Phase-3, Om Vihar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. (Absconder) 3). Vinit Kumar s/o Jai Kishan r/o Hno. 286, Village Hastsal, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. (Absconder) c) Date of Commission of : 29.01.2012 offence d) Offence complained of : 326/34 IPC (Accused Lochan Singh) e) Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. State v/s Lochan Singh Page 1 of 26 Cr Case No. 16494/2019 f) Final Order : Convicted. (Accused Lochan Singh) g) Date of Institution : 20.11.2012 h) Judgment Pronounced on : 09.06.2025 JUDGMENT
Brief facts
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of a 12-year-old matter
which is pending in the Court since the year 2012.
2. The prosecution version in brief is that on 29.01.2012 at
about 8:00 PM, accused Lochan Singh, Rakesh Kumar @
Monu Chaudhary and Vinit Kumar, in furtherance of their
common intention caused grievous hurt to complainant
Sujit Singh on his face with a blade and kicks and fist
blows at house no. 286, Hastal Village, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi. The complainant made a complaint in this regard
and an FIR bearing no. 48/2012 was registered at PS
Uttam Nagar for offence punishable u/s 324/34 IPC and
the investigation of the case was handed over to SI Manish
Tyagi.
Proceedings before the Court
3. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet u/s 326/34
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC‘)
was filed against the accused persons Lochan Singh,
Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary and Vinit Kumar.
After taking cognizance of the offence, the accused
persons were summoned to face trial. Presence of accused
persons Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary and Vinit
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 2 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
Kumar could not be secured and both of them were
declared absconder vide order dated 20.01.2014.
4. On appearance of accused Lochan Singh, a copy of
chargesheet along with documents was supplied to the
accused in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (hereinafter ‘CrPC‘). On finding prima facie
case against the accused, a charge under section 326/34
IPC was framed against him, to which he had pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial.
5. During the trial, prosecution has examined the following
witnesses:
(i) PW-1 Surjit Singh has deposed that on 29.02.2012,
he was working as collection person with Vikas
Glass at B-5, Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar. On that
day at around 7/7:30 PM, he called Lochan Singh
for the purpose of payment due to him. He told him
to come at Village Hastal, Uttam Nagar at the house
of his friend Vineet Kumar (absconding) and collect
the payment. He reached at the house of accused
Vineet Kumar where accused Lochan and Vineet
Kumar were present along with accused Rakesh
Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary (absconding) and two
other persons. All of them had food and liquor. An
argument ensued between him (PW-1) and accused
Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary (absconding).
Thereafter, he tried to leave the house, but all three
accused along with two other persons caught hold of
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 3 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
him. He rescued himself from their clutches.
Accused Vineet Kumar hit him on his head with a
wooden rod and blood started oozing out from his
head. Thereafter, he escaped from the house, but
accused Vineet chased him and scratched his face
with a knife. Thereafter, he went to Ashirwad
Nursing Home, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, where he
got the treatment. The doctor who treated him had
called the police. He narrated the incident to the
police officials, who recorded his statement (Ex.
PW-1/A) at the hospital. On the next day, at about
10:00 AM, he left the Nursing Home and went to his
home. Witness identified accused Lochan Singh in
court.
(ii) This witness (PW-1) was cross-examined by Ld.
APP for the State after seeking permission from the
court as the witness was not disclosing complete
facts. In the cross-examination, the witness stated
that the complete address of the place of incident is
house no. 286, Hastal Village, Uttam Nagar. He
further stated that he had told the name of only three
persons to the police as the police officer had only
asked the name of those persons who had attacked
him. He also stated that when accused Vineet
(absconding) attacked him, accused Lochan Singh
and accused Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary
(absconding) had caught hold of him. He stated that
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 4 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
after the attack with the blade, he fell on the ground
and accused Lochan Singh and Rakesh Kumar
attached him with kicks and fist blows. He also
stated that IO had asked him to show the place of
incident, but he refused as he was not well due to the
injuries sustained by him and he informed the
address of the place of incident to the IO.
(iii) This witness (PW-1) was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for the accused. In his cross-examination,
the witness stated that he had to collect Rs. 10,000/-
on behalf of company namely Vikas Glass from
accused Lochan Singh. He had left the job at Vikas
Glass company in the year 2016. He did not
remember the mobile number used by him or by
accused Lochan at the time of incident. His duty
timings were from 10:00 AM till any time at night.
At the time of incident, he was receiving salary of
Rs. 15,000/-. He did not used to receive the salary in
his bank account or get any receiving for his salary.
On the date of incident, the dispute with accused
Rakesh was over food. He had consumed liquor at
the time of incident. The police reached at about
8:00 PM and his statement was recorded at the
hospital. The witness stated that he did not know the
address of the place where incident took place. Two
police officials had come at the spot. He was
discharged from the hospital at about 11:00 AM on
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 5 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
the next day. Police did not make any investigation
at the spot from 29.01.2012 to 30.01.2012 till 11:00
AM. Accused Lochan was not taken with him (PW-
1) for medical examination.
(iv) PW-2 Ct. Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that on
29.01.2012, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as a
constable. On that day, on receiving DD No. 41A,
he along with SI Manish went to house no. 286,
Hastal Village, Uttam Nagar. There they came to
know that injured had already gone to Ashirwad
Nursing Home. Thereafter, they reached Ashirwad
Nursing Home where the concerned doctor told
them that Sujit Kumar was not fit for statement.
Thereafter, IO recorded the statement of father of
complainant, Sh. Nagender Singh and they came
back to police station. On the next day, i.e., on
30.01.2012, they again went to Ashirwad Nursing
Home where doctor declared the complainant to be
fit for statement. Thereafter, IO recorded the
statement of complainant Sujit Singh (Ex. PW-1/A).
IO prepared the rukka and handed it over to him for
registration of FIR. Thereafter, he came back to
police station and got the FIR registered. He went
back to Ashirwad Nursing Home along with copy of
original rukka and one printed FIR. Thereafter, IO
asked the complainant to accompany him to the
place of incident, however, he refused as he was not
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 6 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
well. IO recorded the statement of father of accused
u/s 161 CrPC. IO came to the place of incident as
complainant had informed him the exact address of
the place of incident and name of all the accused
persons. When they reached at the spot, accused
Lochan Singh along with two accused persons
Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary (absconding)
and Vineet Kumar (absconding) were present. They
admitted that the incident in question had taken
place and their involvement in the same. IO
prepared the site plan and all accused were brought
to police station. All accused were arrested vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A to Ex. PW-2/C and
personally searched vide memos Ex. PW-2/D to Ex.
PW-2/F. All the accused were released on bail.
Witness identified accused Lochan Singh in court.
(v) This witness (PW-2) was cross-examined by Ld.
Defence counsel. In his cross-examination, the
witness stated that he proceeded from police station
at about 8:00 PM. DD No. 41A was regarding a
quarrel and name of accused or injured was not
mentioned in the said DD entry. The DD entry was
not placed on record, however, extract copy of DD
No. 42A was on record. He was not present at police
station when the DD No. 41A was received. They
reached at the spot at about 10:45 PM. He did not
know who was the owner of house no. 286, Hastal
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 7 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
Village, Uttam Nagar. They did not enter the house
no. 286, Hastal Village, Uttam Nagar. He did not
know how many built up storeys were there in the
house. Ten to fifteen persons had gathered at the
spot and they had informed that injured has been
taken to Ashirwad Nursing Home. IO did not record
the name and address of the person who informed
that injured has been taken to hospital. They
remained at the spot for about 10-15 minutes. No
documents were prepared by the IO during this
period. They reached at Ashirwad Nursing Home at
about 11:15 PM. The distance between spot and
Ashirwad Nursing Home is about 1 km. They
remained at Ashirwad Nursing Home for about 20
minutes and thereafter they returned to police
station. On 30.01.2012, they visited Ashirwad
Nursing Home at about 11:15 AM, but he cannot tell
the DD No. vide which they had visited the hospital.
No eye witness was found in Ashirwad Nursing
Home that day. He remained at Ashirwad Nursing
Home for about 45 minutes. He went to police
station from Ashirwad Nursing Home along with
copy of rukka and again came to Ashirwad Nursing
Home after registration of FIR within 30 minutes.
Thereafter, they went to the spot at about 1:30 PM.
FIR was not registered on 29.01.2012. Complainant
had not accompanied them to the spot on
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 8 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
30.01.2012. He did not remember on whose instance
site plan was prepared by IO. Signature of father of
complainant on the site plan were taken by IO in his
presence. He did not remember whether IO had
obtained his signature on the site plan or not. They
remained at the spot on 30.01.2012 for about 1 hour.
He did not remember whether IO had entered the
house no. 286, Hastal Village, Uttam Nagar. He did
not remember whether IO had asked any document
regarding ownership of the house or not. IO had not
recorded statement of any public person or neighbor
in his presence.
(vi) PW-3 W/HC Munni Devi has deposed that on
30.01.2012, she was posted as duty officer at PS
Uttam Nagar and her duty timings were from 8:00
AM to 4:00 PM. On that day at about 12:20 PM, Ct.
Sanjeev Kumar brought a tehrir sent by SI Manish
Kumar, on the basis of which she registered FIR no.
48/2012. Copy of FIR was exhibited as Ex. PW-3/A.
After registration of FIR, she handed over copy of
FIR to Ct. Sanjeev Kumar and made an endorsement
(Ex. PW-3/B) on the tehrir. This witness was not
cross-examined by Ld. Defence counsel despite
having been given an opportunity to do so.
(vii) PW-4 ASI Ashok Kumar has deposed that in the
year 2012, he was posted as constable at PS Uttam
Nagar. On 30.01.2012, he joined the investigation of
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 9 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
the present case with SI Manish. During
investigation, they reached at the house of accused
persons and arrested accused Lochan Singh vide
arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A. SI Manish arrested the
other two accused persons namely Rakesh Kumar
and Vineet Kumar on 30.01.2012 vide arrest memos
Ex. PW-2/B and Ex. PW-2/C. SI Manish conducted
personal search of all accused vide memo Ex. PW-
2/D, Ex. PW-2/E and Ex. PW-2/F. Witness identified
accused Lochan Singh in court. IO recorded his
statement u/s 161 CrPC. This witness was cross-
examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused where he
was given some suggestions that he never took part
in the investigation or that all documents were
prepared by SI Manish in the police station or that
he had wrongly identified accused Lochan Singh in
court or that he was deposing falsely. The witness
had denied all the suggestions put to him.
(viii) PW-5 Dr. Vinod Gupta, consultant, Ashirwad
Nursing Home has deposed that on 29.01.2012, he
was working at Ashirwad Nursing Home. He had
prepared MLC bearing no. 170 in the present case
on 29.01.2012. The MLC was exhibited as Ex. PW-
5/A. This witness was cross-examined by Ld.
Counsel for accused. In his cross-examination, the
witness stated that MLC contained injury on
forehead of the complainant and there was no
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 10 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
evidence of any internal injury in MLC. This
witness was given some suggestions that he had not
prepared the MLC and the MLC on record is false
and fabricated. The witness had denied all the
suggestions put to him.
(ix) PW-6 Inspector Manish has deposed that on
29.01.2012, he was posted at PS Uttam Nagar as
Sub Inspector. On that day, he received a PCR Call
vide DD no. 42A (Ex. X-1). On receipt of same, he
alongwith Ct. Sanjeev reached the spot i.e. Village
Hastsal, Uttam Nagar. During inquiry, he found that
injured was already taken to Ashirwad Nursing
Home, Vikas Nagar and no eye witness was found at
the spot. After that, he alongwith Ct. Sanjeev went
to Ashirwad Nursing Home where injured namely
Surjeet was found under treatment vide MLC no.
170/12. He collected MLC and at that time, patient
was declared unfit for statement. In the meanwhile,
the aforesaid DD was kept pending. On 30.01.2012,
he again visited the said hospital and recorded the
statement of complainant (Ex. PW1/A). He prepared
tehrir (Ex. PW3/B). Ct. Sanjeev took the rukka to
police station and returned to him after registration
of FIR. The complainant was not in a condition to
visit the place of incident. Thereafter, he went to the
spot and prepared site plan (Ex. PW6/A) as
described by complainant to him. Thereafter, he
arrested all the accused persons at the house of
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 11 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
accused Vineet, who was also present at the spot. He
arrested them vide arrest memos Ex. PW2/A, Ex.
PW2/B and Ex. PW2/C respectively. He personally
searched all the accused vide personal search
memos Ex. PW2/D, Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW2/F
respectively. Thereafter, all the accused were
released on personal bond. Thereafter, he recorded
the statement of relevant witnesses U/s 161 CrPC.
He also searched for the blade i.e. weapon of
offence but it could not be traced. Witness correctly
identified the accused in the court. Accused Vineet is
proclaimed offender and accused Rakesh is already
expired. The said witness was thoroughly cross
examined by ld counsel for accused. During his
cross examination, the witness stated that at the time
of investigation proceedings, public persons were
present and they were asked to join the investigation
proceedings, however, all of them left after citing
their personal reasons and notice could not be served
upon them due to paucity of time. The witness
further stated that there was nothing on record to
show his duty timings on the date of incident or
when he left for police station for investigation of
the present matter.
6. The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the
statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded wherein
all the incriminating evidence appearing against the
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 12 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
accused was put to him but he denied the same and
submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated. The
accused opted not to lead any defence evidence.
7. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence
counsel at length, perused the record, gone through the
relevant provisions of law and given my thoughts to the
matter.
8. It is argued by Ld. APP for the State that on the basis of
statement of the prosecution witnesses and the documents
appearing on record the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt that accused Lochan Singh had
attacked the complainant with a sharp object and caused
grievous hurt to him and, therefore, the accused is guilty of
an offence punishable u/s 326 IPC.
9. Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the
State has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Ld. Counsel has argued that there is no eye-witness to the
incident. He has further submitted that there are
inconsistencies in the statement of prosecution witnesses,
which raise a doubt on the prosecution version. It is,
therefore, prayed that the accused be acquitted for the
offence charged.
Findings of the Court
10. It is a well settled principle of criminal law, that the burden
of proof is on the prosecution and it has to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 13 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
of the accused has to be rebutted by the prosecution by
adducing cogent evidence that points towards the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
11.Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the
investigating officer ought to have recorded the statement
of independent witnesses to support the prosecution
version, as IO Insp. Manish Tyagi (PW-6) has stated in his
cross-examination that public persons were present at the
time of investigation proceedings.
12. This court has given its thoughts to the above contention of
Ld. Counsel and is of the opinion that even if public
persons were present and their statement have not been
recorded by the IO, it is not fatal to the prosecution case
and does not throw doubt on the prosecution version for
the reason that public persons are generally wary of
becoming witnesses and behave in such a manner as if the
crime is between the two persons and they should not
involve themselves. In this regard, I am supported by the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled Appabhai &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, wherein it
was held as under:
“The prosecution case cannot be thrown
out or doubted on that ground alone.
Experience reminds us that civilized
people are generally insensitive when a
crime is committed even in their
presence. They withdraw both from the
victim and the vigilante. They keep
themselves away from the Court unless it
is inevitable. They think that crime like
civil dispute is between two individualsState v/s Lochan Singh Page 14 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
or parties and they should not involve
themselves. This kind of apathy of the
general public is indeed unfortunate, but
it is there everywhere whether -in village
life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore
this handicap with which the
investigating agency has to discharge its
duties.”
13.In view of the above law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, mere non-joining of an independent witness where
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is found to be
cogent, convincing, creditworthy and reliable, does not
demolish the prosecution version. The contention of Ld.
Counsel for the accused that non joining of public persons
is fatal to the prosecution version, therefore, cannot be
accepted.
14. Ld. Counsel for the accused has next argued that sole
testimony of PW-1 cannot be relied upon for convicting
the accused. It is further argued that there is inconsistency
in the prosecution version to the effect that PW-2 Ct.
Sanjeev Kumar has stated that accused was arrested at the
spot, but arrest memo Ex. PW-2/A mentions the place of
arrest of accused at his home. It is, therefore, submitted
that the above-mentioned inconsistency raises a doubt on
the prosecution version.
15.Let this court now examine the question whether the sole
testimony of PW-1 Surjit Singh, i.e., the victim can be
relied upon for convicting the accused or not. It is well
settled law that the Court can act upon the testimony of a
single witness provided he or she is wholly reliable.
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 15 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
However, the Court has to be very cautious while
evaluating the testimony of a sole witness. Reliance in this
regard is placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
Namdeo vs State Of Maharashtra,2007 (14) SCC 150.
The relevant part of paragraph of the said judgment runs as
under:
“In Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras,
1957 SCR 981: AIR 1957 SC 614, referring
to Mahomed Sugal, this Court stated;
On a consideration of the relevant
authorities and the provisions of the Indian
Evidence Act, the following propositions
may be safely stated as firmly established:
(1) As a general rule, a court can and may
act on the testimony of a single witness
though uncorroborated. One credible
witness outweighs the testimony of a
number of other witnesses of indifferent
character.”
16. In this context, let this court next examine the testimony of
victim PW-1 Surjit Singh which runs as follows:
“On SA
On 29.01.2012, I was working as
Collection person with Vikas Glass at B-5,
Sanjay Enclave, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
On that day, at around 7/7:30 PM, he called
Lochan Singh (witness correctly identified
the accused in the court) for purpose of
payment due to him. He told me to come at
Village Hastsal, Uttam Nagar at his friend
house i.e. accused Vineet Kumar
(absconding) and collect the payment. I
reached at the house of accused Vineet
Kumar where accused Lochan and Vineet
Kumar were present along with accused
Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary
(absconding) and two other persons. There
we had chicken and liquor. An argumentState v/s Lochan Singh Page 16 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
ensued between me and Rakesh Kumar @
Monu Chaudhary. Thereafter I tried to
leave the house but all the three accused
along with other two caught hold of me. I
rescued myself from their grip. Thereafter,
accused Vineet Kumar hit on my head with
a wooden rod and I started bleeding from
my head. Thereafter I escaped from the
house but accused Vineet chased me and
scratched on my face with a knife.
Thereafter, I went to Ashirwad Nursing
Home, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar where I
got the treatment and remained in the
hospital as I was injected by the doctor and
I slept there only. The doctor who gave me
the treatment called the police. Police
officials came to the hospital and recorded
my statement (Ex. PW1/A). I narrated them
the entire incident. On the next day at 10
AM, I left the Nursing Home from my home.
I do not know anything else about the
present case.
At this stage APP seeks permission
to cross examine the witness u/s 154 of
Indian Evidence Act.
Heard. Allowed.
Xxxxxxx by Ld. APP for the State.
It is correct that the complete
address of alleged place incidence which is
also the residence of accused Vineet Kumar
is house no. 286, Hastsal Village, Uttam
Nagar. It is correct that I told the police
officials only the name of all the three
accused as police officials asked me to tell
the name of only those persons who
attacked me. It is also correct that when
accused Vineet Kumar attached me with the
blade, accused Lochan Singh and accused
Rakesh Kumar @ Monu Chaudhary caught
hold of me. It is correct that after the attack
with the blade, I fell on the ground and
accused Lochan Singh and accused Rakesh
Kumar attacked me with punches and also
kicked me. It is correct that IO asked me toState v/s Lochan Singh Page 17 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
show him the alleged place of incident but I
refused as I was not well due to the injuries
and could not accompany him to the alleged
place of incidence.
Xxxx by Sh. Pinku Singh, counsel for
accused.
I had to collect Rs. 10,000/- on
behalf of company namely Vikas Glass from
accused Lochan Singh. I had left the job at
Vikas Glass in 2016. I do not remember my
mobile number being used by me tt the time
of incident. I cannot tell the mobile number
of accused Lochan. My duty timings started
from 10 AM in the morning and could
extend upto any time till the night. I was
getting a salary of Rs 15000/- at the time of
incident. The name of other owner of Vikas
Glass was Vikas Jain and address of the
company was in Matiala, Uttam Nagar. I
did not get salary in my bank account. I did
not give any receiving for my salary. It is
wrong to suggest that I never used to work
in Vikas Glass. It is wrong to suggest that
no money was pending against accused
Lochan Singh. It is wrong to suggest that I
never went to collect money from Lochan
Singh or that I have fabricated the whole
story of calling Lochan Singh. It is wrong to
suggest that no company used to exist in the
name of Vikas Glass at the time of incident.
I used to know accused Rakesh and Vineet
prior to the incident. It is wrong to suggest
that I used to sit and eat with Rakesh and
Vineet prior to the incident. It is correct that
Ihad some dispute with Rakesh over food. It
is wrong to suggest that I never had a
mobile or that I never called to accused
Lochan. It is correct that I had partaken of
liquor at the time of incident. I have not
made call to the police. The police came at
around 8 PM. It is correct that I do not
know the address of the place where
incident took place. My statement was taken
in the hospital. It is wrong to suggest that I
had never gone to the spot on the date of
incident. I had not made any call to my
family at the time of incident. Only twoState v/s Lochan Singh Page 18 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
police officials came at the spot. I was
discharged from the hospital at about 11
AM on the next day. It is correct that police
did not make any investigation at the spot
from 29.01.2012 to 30.01.2012 till 11 AM. It
is wrong to suggest that the accused
persons were not caught hold of in my
presence at the spot. It is correct that
accused Lochan was not taken with me
together for medical examination. It is
wrong to suggest that the accused was not
present on 29.01.2012 at the spot and that is
why he was not taken with me for getting
the medical examination done. We were
drinking liquor in plastic glass and food
was in plate. It is correct that police did not
seize the aforesaid plate or glasses. I was
residing in a rented house at the time of
incident i.e. RE 31, Gali no.04, Vikas Nagar,
Uttam Nagar. My police verification was
conducted by my landlord. It is wrong to
suggest that I was a habitual drinker and
had entered into a house and fought and
thereafter the police had falsely implicated
the accused Lochan in order to escape
liability. I cannot tell whether accused
Lochan knew accused Rakesh or Vineet. It is
wrong to suggest that accused Lochan never
caught hold of my hand on 29.01.2012. It is
wrong to suggest accused Lochan was not
present that day. It is wrong to suggest that I
was unconscious due to heavy drinking at
the time incident on 29.01.2012 at 7:30 AM.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing
falsely.
RO&AC”
17. Perusal of the statement of PW-1 Surjit Singh reveals that
he has narrated the entire incident in detail. He has
deposed that on 29.01.2012 at around 7-7:30 PM, he had
called Lochan Singh for the purpose of making the
payment which was due from him. Lochan Singh had
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 19 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
asked to come at the house of his friend Vineet Kumar
(absconding) and collect the payment. He thereafter
reached at the house of Vineet Kumar, where accused
Lochan, Vineet Kumar (absconding) and Rakesh Kumar
(absconding) were present along with two other persons.
All of them consumed food and drinks there. An argument
took place between him and Rakesh Kumar (absconding).
Thereafter, he tried to leave the house but the remaining
persons present there caught hold of him. He rescued
himself from their clutches. Accused Vineet Kumar
(absconding) hit on his head with a wooden rod and he
started bleeding from his head. Thereafter, he escaped from
the house but accused Vineet (absconding) chased him and
scratched on his face with a knife. Thereafter, he went to
Ashirwad Nursing Home and received treatment. The
doctors who gave him treatment had called the police. He
further stated in his cross-examination conducted by Ld.
APP for the State that when accused Vineet Kumar
(absconding) attacked him with the blade, accused Lochan
Singh and accused Rakesh Kumar (absconding) had caught
hold of him. He further stated that after the attack with the
blade, he fell on the ground and accused Lochan Singh and
accused Rakesh Kumar (absconding) attacked him with
kicks and fist blows.
18. Although the victim did not narrate the entire incident in
his examination-in-chief and it was only when he was
cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State that he stated
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 20 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
further facts, however, it has to be kept in mind that there
is a considerable gap between the statement of PW-1 Surjit
Singh when he was examined in chief in the Court and the
date of incident. The incident took place on 29.01.2012,
whereas the examination in chief of PW-1 Surjit Singh was
recorded on 15.04.2015, i.e., after a gap of more than three
years and his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel
was conducted on 29.11.2019, i.e., after more than seven
years from the date of incident. It is a settled law that
minor contradictions have to be ignored for the reason that
if the incident is an old one, it is difficult for the witnesses
to remember it in a parrot like manner. Therefore, in the
opinion of the court the fact that victim did not narrate the
entire incident in his examination-in-chief and had to be
assisted by Ld. APP for the State, is not fatal to the
prosecution version for the reason that human memory
diminishes with time.
19. Therefore, the fact that witness did not mention complete
facts in his examination-in-chief and added the facts
relating to incident only after his cross-examination by Ld.
APP for the State has to be ignored as it cannot be
expected from him to narrate the entire incident in a parrot
like manner even after a lapse of more than three years
from the date of incident.
20. Perusal of cross-examination of the witness reveals that
defence was unable to shake victim’s version as stated by
him in his examination-in-chief. The witness has
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 21 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
categorically stated in his examination-in-chief that
accused persons Lochan Singh and Vineet Kumar
(absconding) caught hold of him when he tried to escape
after a fight with Rakesh Kumar (absconding). He has
further stated that accused persons Lochan Singh and
Rakesh Kumar (absconding) had caught hold of him when
accused Vineet Kumar (absconding) attacked him with a
blade and that accused persons Lochan Singh and Rakesh
Kumar (absconding) also attacked him with kicks and fist
blows. As discussed above, the accused has not been able
to discredit the testimony given by the victim (PW-1).
21. The MLC of the victim (Ex. PW-5/A) prepared on
29.01.2012 at 10:30 PM proves that the victim had
obtained simple injuries with sharp weapon. The MLC
(Ex. PW-5/A), therefore, supports the version of the victim
that he was given beatings by accused Lochan Singh and
other co-accused persons. In view of the above discussion,
in the opinion of this Court, the prosecution has proved its
case u/s 324/34 IPC against accused Lochan Singh.
22. Let this Court now address the other argument of Ld.
Counsel for the accused that there is contradiction in the
prosecution version regarding the place of arrest of
accused.
23. Let this Court first rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble
Apex Court on the aspect of contradiction in the
prosecution version. In the judgment titled Narayan
Chetanram Chaudhary and Anr. v/s State of
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 22 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
Maharashtra, 2000 (8) SCC 457, passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, it was held that only contradictions in
material particulars and not minor contradictions can be a
ground to discredit the testimony of the witnesses.
Relevant paragraph of the judgment is reproduced
hereunder:
“Only such omissions which amount to
contradiction in material particulars can be
used to discredit the testimony of the
witness. The omission in the police
statement by itself would not necessarily
render the testimony of witness unreliable.
When the version given by the witness in the
court is different in material particulars
from that disclosed in his earlier statements,
the case of the prosecution becomes
doubtful and not otherwise. Minor
contradictions are bound to appear in the
statements of truthful witnesses as memory
sometimes plays false and the sense of
observation differ from person to person.
The omissions in the earlier statement if
found to be of trivial details, as in the
present case, the same would not cause any
dent in the testimony of PW 2. Even if there
is contradiction of statement of a witness on
any material point, that is no ground to
reject the whole of the testimony of such
witness.”
24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Bharwada Bhoginbhai
Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 3 SCC 217, has
cautioned about attaching too much importance on minor
discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses and held as
under:
“5. … We do not consider it appropriate
or permissible to enter upon a
reappraisal or reappreciation of the
evidence in the context of the minorState v/s Lochan Singh Page 23 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
discrepancies painstakingly highlighted
by the learned counsel for the appellant.
Overmuch importance cannot be
attached to minor discrepancies. The
reasons are obvious:
(1) By and large a witness cannot be
expected to possess a photographic
memory and to recall the details of an
incident. It is not as if a video tape is
replayed on the mental screen.
(2) Ordinarily it so happens that a
witness is overtaken by events. The
witness could not have anticipated the
occurrence which so often has an
element of surprise. The mental faculties
therefore cannot be expected to be
attuned to absorb the details.
(3) The powers of observation differ from
person to person. What one may notice,
another may not. An object or movement
might emboss its image on one person’s
mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on
the part of another.
(4) By and large people cannot
accurately recall a conversation and
reproduce the very words used by them
or heard by them. They can only recall
the main purport of the conversation. It
is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a
human tape-recorder.
(5) In regard to exact time of an incident,
or the time duration of an occurrence,
usually, people make their estimates by
guess work on the spur of the moment at
the time of interrogation. And one cannot
expect people to make very precise or
reliable estimates in such matters. Again,
it depends on the time-sense of
individuals which varies from person to
person.
(6) Ordinarily a witness cannot be
expected to recall accurately the
sequence of events which takes place in
rapid succession or in a short time span.
A witness is liable to get confused, or
mixed up when interrogated later on.
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 24 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
(7) A witness, though wholly truthful, is
liable to be overawed by the court
atmosphere and the piercing cross-
examination made by the counsel and out
of nervousness mix up facts, get confused
regarding sequence of events, or fill up
details from imagination on the spur of
the moment. The subconscious mind of
the witness sometimes so operates on
account of the fear of looking foolish or
being disbelieved though the witness is
giving a truthful and honest account of
the occurrence witnessed by him–
perhaps it is a sort of a psychological
defence mechanism activated on the spur
of the moment.”
25. There are thus, bound to be certain contradictions in the
statement of a witness, which have to be ignored.
Therefore, keeping in mind the above law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, the
inconsistency regarding the place of arrest of accused is a
minor contradiction, which has to be ignored, in the
interest of justice. In these circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the complainant (PW-1) has given a fairly
consistent version of the incident and is, thus, a credible
witness and his statement can safely be relied upon for
convicting the accused.
26.Thus, in view of the above discussion, this court is of the
opinion that although the prosecution has not proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence with which
the accused was charged (i.e., section 326 IPC), however,
the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
accused Lochan Singh had given beatings to victim and he
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 25 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
also acted in furtherance of common intention with co-
accused persons (who have been declared absconders), and
caused simple injury with sharp weapon to the
complainant, which is also clear from the MLC (Ex. PW-
5/A). Accused Lochan Singh is, therefore, held guilty for
the offence u/s 324/34 IPC and convicted accordingly.
27. Copy of this judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
28.This judgment contains 26 pages and the same has been
pronounced by the undersigned in open court today and
each page bears my signatures.
29. Let a copy of the judgment be uploaded on the official
website of District Courts, Dwarka forthwith.
Digitally
signed by
DEEKSHA
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT DEEKSHA SETHI
SETHI Date:
TODAY, i.e., ON 09.06.2025 2025.06.09
15:50:18
+0530
Deeksha Sethi
Judicial Magistrate First Class-08
South-West District/New Delhi
09.06.2025
State v/s Lochan Singh Page 26 of 26
Cr Case No. 16494/2019
[ad_2]
Source link