Case No. 6/2
Unique Case ID No. : 02405R0434312009

State Vs. Naveen Kumar
FIR No. 768/2008
P.S. Dwarka
U/s 289/324/34 IPC

Date of institution : 04.11.2009
Judgment Reserved on : 08.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 22.01.2013


a) Serial No. of the case 02405R0434312009
b) Date of commission 06.11.2008
of the offence
c) Name of the complainant Rajinder Kumar s/o Sh. Mange Ram
r/o Village Kakrola New Delhi.
d) Name of the accused person, Naveen Kumar s/o Sh. Lal Singh r/o
and his parentage and Village PO Kakroal, New Delhi
e) Offence complained or U/s 289/324/34 IPC
f) Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty and claimed trial
g) The final order Convicted
h) Date of such order 22.01.2013


1. Both the accused persons were sent to this case to face trial upon the allegations that on 06.11.2008 at about 7.00 am near Sahajkor Baratt Ghar, Kakrola Village, New Delhi, they knowing or negligently omitted to take such order with their dogs in their possession as was sufficient to guard any probable danger to human life or any probable danger of FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/1 grievous hurt and the said dog gave a bite to the complainant as both the accused sued the dog upon the complainant and thus caused simple injury on his person and therefore, they committed offence punishable u/s 289/324/34 IPC. FIR against the accused persons were registered. Investigation was conducted. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed.

2. Accused persons were summoned and on appearance copy of chargesheet as well as documents were supplied in compliance of provisions u/s 207 Cr.P.C. Vide order dated 28.05.2010 the charge against both the accused u/s 289/324/34 IPC was framed to which the they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. To prove its case prosecution examined total six witnesses. PW1 HC Mohan Singh deposed that on 08.11.2008 on receipt of rukka, he recorded the present FIR no. 768/08 and also made endorsement on original rukka. Computerised copy of the same is Ex.PW1/A and endorsement upon rukka Ex.PW1/B.

PW2 Sh. Rajinder Kumar appeared as complainant. He deposed that on 06.11.2008 at about 7.00 am he was going towards his home from a plot situated near his home. The house of accused Naveen is on the way. Accused is having two dogs which he usually kept untied. When he was on the way on that day dog of the accused attacked. He raised alarm for help. Mother of the accused who is present in the court as co­ accused sued the dog on him and one of the dog bite him on his left leg. One small danda was lying nearby which he picked up and threw on the dog and somehow escaped himself. He went to the private doctor and later he medically examined at DDU Hospital. His FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/2 statement was recorded by police which is Ex.PW2/A which bears his signature. He identified both the accused person present in the court. He further deposed that during investigation police prepared the site plan at the instance of the complaint on 08.11.2008 which is Ex.PW2/B. The witness was cross examined at length.

5. Witness PW3 HC Chanchal deposed that on 02.01.2009, he joined the investigation with HC Babu Lal. On that day he alongwith HC Babu Lal went to H. No. 5 Kakrola Village where accused Sumitra Devi present in the court was arrested by the IO. The arrest memo is Ex.PW3/A. She carried out the personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW3/B. This witness was not cross examined.

6. PW4 Dr. Vineet Kumar Soni deposed that on 07.11.2008 the complainant Rajinder Kumar was brought to the hospital with the alleged history of dog bite. Under his supervision, MLC no. 22045 was prepared. The said MLC is Ex.PW4/A which bears signature of Dr. Puneet. The nature of injury was opined on MLC as simple blunt.

PW5 HC Mahender Singh deposed that on 08.11.2008 rukka was handed over to him by the IO on the basis of which he got the present FIR registered. He returned back rukka alongwith copy of FIR to the IO. His statement was recorded by the IO. This witness was not cross examined.

8. PW6 HC Babu Lal deposed that on 08.11.2008 Sh. Rajinder Kumar came to PP Sector 16B and handedover him a written complaint Ex.PW2/A. The complainant Rajinder Kumar was got medically examined at DDU hospital. He prepared the site plan at the spot at the instance of complainant. He correctly identified both the accused FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/3 present in the court. He further deposed that both the accused were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/B and PW3/A. Their personal search were conducted vide memo Ex.PW6/C and Ex.PW3/B. During investigation he recorded the statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C of witnesses and after completion of investigation, he handedover the case file to the SHO. This witness was cross examined at length.

9. After completion of the investigation statement of both the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the material allegations levelled against them. However, they did not prefer to lead evidence. They stated in their statement that they had no pet dogs. They have been falsely implicated by the complainant who is their neighbour and having no good relations with them.

10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced on behalf of the parties. I have perused the record. First contention has been raised that none of the accused are having any pet dog. In this regard it is pointed out that in his cross examination witness PW6 testified that dog was not taken into the police possession. However, in his cross examination itself the witness has voluntarily said that the dog was admitted in veterinary hospital as told by the accused persons. He further deposed that he had seen the dog at the spot earlier on receiving of first call i.e. on 06.11.2008. He denied the suggestion that accused persons were not having dog at the time of incident. Moreover, in the cross examination of PW2 complainant Rajinder Singh no suggestion was given on behalf of accused that they were having no pet dog. Instead the PW2 has been cross examined on the point that whether he knows that dog of the accused had ever bitten any other persons. Thus, by inference it can be held that FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/4 accused persons themselves admitted they were having pet dog. Moreover in bail application of the accused Naveen, dated 20.11.2008 it is clearly mentioned that he filed the complaint against the present complainant in the Chowky Sector 13, PS. Dwarka on 07.11.2008 as well as 15.11.2008 and PCR call was made on 100 number on 06.11.2008 that the present complaint inflicted injuries upon his dog. It has been further mentioned in the bail application itself that MLC no. J480 in respect of injuries caused by present complaint was also handedover to the concerned police. Even it has been further mentioned that the complaint in this regard u/s 341/428/506 IPC r/w Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act was filed by accused Naveen against the present complainant which was fixed before this court for 21.11.2008.

11. It is settled principle of law that documents of other party can be read into evidence against him without any formal proof. The bail application is dully signed by the accused Naveen. Thus it is proved on record that the accused Naveen was having pet dogs. This fact has been proved otherwise also in the cross examination of PW2, wherein he clearly stated that accused Naveen is having two dogs which he kept untied.

12. Next contention have been raised that no public witness has joined investigation and allegations levelled by the complainant has not been corroborated by producing any independent witness. This contention is meritless as there is nothing material contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. In his cross examination PW2 deposed that 1­2 person gathered at the spot after the incident. Thus, in view of the circumstances it can not be said that any other person had seen the dog bite and thus there were no question of producing any other FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/5 public witness.

13. Lastly, it has been argued that no complaint was made on 06.11.2008 i.e. on the alleged date of incident and even complainant was not medically examined on the same day. Moreover, the witness PW4 in his cross examination admitted that it cannot be said that injury was caused by dog biting. In the MLC Ex.PW4/A it has been clearly mentioned that the complainant took private medication on 06.11.2008. He was advised for injection of Rabbis which is used only for the purpose of animal bite. No person who has no animal bite will ever be administered the injection against Rabbis. So far as a reporting the matter on 06.11.2008 is concerned, as per evidence prove on record, the complainant was taking private medical treatment on 06.11.2008. Thereafter he was medically examined in DDU Hospital on 07.11.2008. After the MLC, the case was registered on 08.11.2008 and thus there is sufficient explanation regarding delay.

14. Now the question is as to whether the accused Naveen has committed the offence punishable u/s 289 as well as 324/34 IPC. In the testimony of PW2, it has been clearly stated by the witness that two pet dog belonging to the accused persons were kept untied. However, Naveen was not present at the time of incident. The dogs attacked upon PW2. They bite the complainant as co­accused Sumitra Devi sued them. Thus, it stands proved on record that the dogs were belonging to the accused persons Naveen and dogs caused simple injuries upon the person of the complainant upon suing of the co­accused Sumitra. However, accused Naveen was not present at the time of incident.

15. In the light of aforesaid discussion this court is of the opinion that FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar Page 1/6 prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Naveen beyond reasonable doubt u/s 289 IPC. However charge u/s 324 IPC against him could not be proved. So far as accused Sumitra is convicted charge against her u/s 289 and 324 IPC have been proved. Accordingly, accused Naveen is convicted u/s 289 IPC and accused Sumitra is convicted u/s 289 and 324 IPC.

Let they be heard on the point of sentence on 22.01.2013 at 2.00 pm.

Ahlmad to prepare miscellaneous file for the purposes of arguments and order on sentence.

Judgment be sent on server www.delhidistrictcourts.nic.in Dictated & Announce (Devendra Kumar Sharma) Dated : 22.01.2013 ACMM­02/Dwarka Courts New Delhi FIR No. 768/08 State Vs. Naveen Kumar

Report Disclaimer Applies

कृपया प्रसार करें:

पिछला लेख
अगला लेख