Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2813 (DEL)

RAMA CHOUHAN v. STATE

2016-07-29

P.S.TEJI

body2016
JUDGMENT : P.S. TEJI, J. 1. By this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) read with section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment dated 30.09.2014 as well as order on sentence dated 16.10.2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 24/13 (FIR No. 88/2012 under Section 302/34 IPC, Police Station South Rohini). 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of the complainant Ashok Sehgal, who in his neighbor stated that on 04.05.2012 at about 10.15 PM, when he was sitting on a chabutra under the tree in front of house No. 212, he saw that his neighbor Dinesh (since deceased) was strolling in the street and he seemed to be in a drunken state. According to the complainant, Ms. Rama Chauhan (appellant herein) who was his neighbor and known to him for the last 2-3 years, came near Dinesh alongwith one boy. The appellant told Dinesh “kyo be too us din us nai ko mere bare me kya patti padha raha tha.” Dinesh replied “mere muh mat lag apna rasta nap”. According to the complainant, the appellant started quarrelling with Dinesh and told him that “us din to badi hekdi dikha raha tha aaj tujhe maja chakhati hu.” It is further stated by the complainant that the appellant attacked the head of Dinesh with a heavy object which she was holding in her right hand, thereupon Dinesh caught his head with both hands and the boy who was accompanying the appellant gave a head blow to Dinesh as a result of which Dinesh Fell down. The complainant further stated that he reached near Dinesh and started lifting him. It is further stated that it was the appellant who made a call at No.100, whereupon the police reached at the spot and the victim was taken to B.S.A. Hospital. 3. The case was registered as FIR No. 88/2012 at Police Station South Rohini and investigations were carried out. Appellant as well as her companion were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed the final report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. On 21.11.2012, the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. Appellant as well as her companion were arrested. After completion of investigation, the police filed the final report under Section 173 of Cr. P.C. On 21.11.2012, the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC was framed against the accused persons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 4. To prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses. After closing of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. was recorded and all the incriminating evidences were put to her, to which she claimed to be innocent and claimed trial. In her defence, the appellant examined four witnesses. 5. Ashok Kumar (PW-4) who was the eye witness, had supported the case of the prosecution and as far as motive is concerned, it is reported by the prosecution that the appellant thought that the deceased was spreading rumor about her, so in connivance with co-accused Milan she killed Dinesh. The eye witness to the incident, i.e. Ashok Kumar (PW-4) in his cross-examination stated that he used to take liquor with Dinesh in the evening and at the time of the incident he was sitting on the road in front of his house on a chabutra. He further stated that the incident took place at a distance of 25 ft. from the chabutra. He further stated that though he had seen the appellant coming but he cannot say whether she was carrying any heavy object and he had only seen her hitting on the head of the deceased Dinesh with a heavy object. He further deposed that he had not seen the heavy object but it was the appellant who after the arrest told that she had hit Dinesh with a stone. 6. Dr. Sumeet Khetrapal (PW-14) was the consultant radiologist, Max Hospital Shalimar Bagh, Delhi, who deposed that on 5.5.2012, he had reported the CT Scan of the deceased and his report in on record as Ex.PW-14/A and Ex.PW-14/B. However, in his cross-examination he deposed that he cannot comment on the means which resulted into the injury. Another medical witness Dr. Vijay Dhankar (PW-16), who is HOD Forensic Medicine, B.S.A. Hospital conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. In his report, he found the following external injuries: (a) Stitched wound 28cm “C” shaped present over the left front of temporo pariental region of head.