Delhi District Court
State vs . Naresh Sharda Etc. on 31 March, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR, MM-04,
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE Vs. NARESH SHARDA ETC.
FIR No. 88/1997
PS: MOTI NAGAR
U/S: 324/34 IPC
JUDGMENT
Sr. no. of the case : 1074/1/10
Unique Case ID no. : 02401R0063591997
Date of commission of offence : 22.12.1996
Date of institution of the case : 06.05.1997
Name of the complainant : Sh. Sanjay Gupta
Name of accused and address : A-1 Naresh Sharda
S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Gupta
R/o B-39, Karampura,
Delhi.
A-2 Aradhana Gupta
D/o Sh. Suraj Pal Gupta
R/o B-39, Karampura,
Delhi.
Offence complained of or proved : 324/34 IPC
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment : 24.03.2015
Date of judgment : 31.03.2015
******************************************************************************************************************************* BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION:
THE FACTS :
1. As per the prosecution, the accused persons are siblings of the complainant. That on 22.12.1996 at about 06:00-07:00 PM, the accused persons entered into the room of the complainant where a quarrel took place between them, wherein accused Naresh Sharda gave a blow on the left hand of the complainant with a sharp edged object i.e. a Pechkas (screwdriver). Thereafter, police was called. MLC of the FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 1/9 complainant and accused Naresh Sharda were prepared as both of them had received injuries. However, complainant gave an application stating therein that a compromise has been reached between the parties and he does not require any police action. However, after 1½ month complainant made a complaint to senior police official, hence the present FIR was registered. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused.
2. Complete set of copies were supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, charge framed against the accused persons for trial of offence U/s 324/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
3. The Prosecution in support of present case has examined following witnesses:-
4. PW1 HC Nirmal Singh exhibited on record copy of FIR as Ex.PW1/A and stated that he made endorsement on the rukka Mark A at point A.
5. PW2 HC Tek Ram stated that on 01.03.1997 accused Naresh Sharda was arrested vide memo Ex.PW2/A.
6. PW3 ASI Sheelavati stated that on 01.03.1997 accused Aradhana Gupta was arrested vide memo Ex.PW3/A.
7. PW4 Sanjay Gupta stated that accused Naresh Sharda is his brother and co-accused Aradhana Gupta is his sister. It is stated by him that both the accused persons used to reside in front portion of the house and he used to reside in back portion of the house. It is stated by him that both the accused persons came into his room and started quarrel with him, broken the electric wire, fridge, almirah kept there. It is further stated that accused Naresh Sharda had given a blow with a sharp edged weapon on his left hand. It is stated that police took him to DDU Hospital, where he received medical treatment. He exhibited his statement made to the police as Ex.PW4/A. It is further stated by him that he had apprised HC Rajesh Tyagi that any settlement reached FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 2/9 between the complainant and accused persons was under pressure and was not voluntarily. During cross-examination, it is stated by him that he used to live in the same house separately from his brothers and sisters. It is stated by him that he came to know regarding the fact that his father has debarred him from the property only after the incident in question. It is accepted by him that his mother lodged a complaint against him regarding an attack on her with a knife. It is stated by him that he was prosecuted in that FIR, however, it is stated by him that he was acquitted in that case. He denied the suggestion that the injury inflicted on his left hand was self-inflicted injury. It is accepted by him that he had given an application Ex.PW4/A to the police, however, it is stated by him that he was forced by the police to write that application.
8. PW5 ASI Rajesh Kumar stated that on 22.12.1996 he was posted at PS Moti Nagar. On that day on receipt of DD No.20A (Ex.PW5/A), he went to the spot where complainant met him and handed over a written complaint (Ex.PW4/A) wherein it is stated that an altercation had taken place between complainant and the accused persons, however, thereafter, a compromise has been taken place. It is further stated that he obtained MLC of complainant and accused Naresh Sharda. It is further stated that on 13.02.1997 complainant met senior police officials and apprised them that he is not satisfied with compromise. On that, rukka Ex.PW5/B was prepared on the basis of which FIR was registered. He exhibited the site plan as Ex.PW5/C. It is further stated that on 01.01.1997 both the accused persons were arrested and released on bail. It is stated that he recorded statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet in the Court.
9. During the course of trial accused persons have admitted preparation of MLC of the victim Sanjay Gupta as well as MLC of accused Naresh Sharda.
10. No other witness was left to be examined, hence PE was closed.
THE DEFENCE :
11. Statement of accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 3/9 wherein the accused persons controverted and denied the allegations leveled against them. Accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is stated by them that complainant Sh. Sanjay Gupta has been debarred by their father. On the day of incident, complainant had altercation with their father and had also injured accused Naresh Sharda with a sharp object.
He (complainant) hit accused Naresh Sharda with a screwdriver and thereafter, self inflicted an injury by that screwdriver on his left hand. However, on the persuasion of the neighbours, he (complainant) gave statement of settlement to SHO Moti Nagar but thereafter, he lodged this FIR just to harass them. Accused persons further stated that the victim Sanjay Kumar Gupta has deposed falsely against them due to their family dispute. In fact, victim Sanjay Kumar Gupta had once stabbed their mother. He was tried before the Court of Ld. MM, however, their mother had compounded that case. Accused persons opted to lead defence evidence and examined Sh. Suraj Pal (father of the accused persons and complainant) as DW1.
12. DW1 Suraj Pal stated that complainant as well as accused persons are his children and they used to live separately in the same house. It is stated by him that complainant often used to quarrel with him and other family members. It is stated by him that complainant had earlier assaulted his wife Smt. Surenderi Devi with knife, due to which an FIR was registered against him. It is stated by him that he has debarred the complainant from his property. It is specifically stated by him that on 22.12.1996 when he went to the bathroom, there he saw that the complainant was doing something with the electricity wire and on his intervention complainant assaulted him and when he raised hue and cry his son Naresh Sharda and daughter Aradhana Gupta (accused no.1 and 2) came over there to save him and on that complainant Sanjay Gupta attacked accused Naresh Sharda with a pechkas (screwdriver) and thereafter also inflicted a superficial injury on himself with the help of same screwdriver. It is stated that thereafter police reached the spot and some neighbours also gathered there and complainant Sanjay FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 4/9 Gutpa settled the dispute and got prepared an application in the name of SHO, PS Moti Nagar. In cross-examination of this witness by Ld. APP for State, it is stated by him that complainant Sanjay had inflicted injuries on his right hand. It is stated by him that he does not know from where complainant Sanjay Gupta had brought the screwdriver. It is again stated by him that complainant Sanjay Gupta had earlier caused injury to accused no.1 on his hand and then inflicted injury on his own hand (palm) by using his right hand.
THE ARGUMENTS:
13. Ld. APP for state has argued that complainant/injured has supported the prosecution and his testimony has remained unrebutted.
That on a combined reading of testimony of prosecution witnesses, offence U/s 324/34 IPC is proved beyond doubt.
14. On the other hand, Ld. counsel for accused persons has stated that there is no legally sustainable evidence against the accused Persons. It is argued that no other public witness except complainant has been named or examined as witness. It is argued that the weapon of offence i.e. screwdriver has not been recovered.
THE FINDINGS:
Offence U/s 324/34 IPC:
15. Arguments adduced by Ld. APP and Defence Counsel have been heard and evidence and documents on record are carefully perused.
16. In order to bring home guilt of the accused persons for the offence under Section 324/34 IPC, the prosecution was required to prove that accused persons had inflicted a simple injury on the person of the injured with a sharp edged object.
17. In the case in hand the star witness is the complainant himself. The complainant has stated that accused persons came into his room and broken the electric wire passing from there, on that a quarrel had started between them wherein the accused persons broken his fridge, FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 5/9 almirah. It is also stated that accused Naresh Sharda gave a blow on him with a sharp edged weapon due to which he received injury in his left hand. These are the only incriminating evidences against the accused persons came in the testimony of the complainant. From this statement, it appears that complainant has made improvement in his testimony as in his statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C made to the police, he had nowhere stated regarding damages caused to his fridge or almirah. These facts are clear improvement in his testimony. Furthermore, he had stated nothing against accused Aradhana Gupta as the only evidence against the accused Aradhana Gupta is that she came in the room and started quarreling with him. There is no allegation that accused Aradhana Gupta caught him while accused Naresh Sharda allegedly hit him with a pechkas. Further from the testimony of the complainant incident appears to a spontaneous one as the quarrel had taken place on breaking the electricity wire. Thus it cannot be said that accused Naresh Sharda had allegedly hit the complainant with pechkas in furtherance of his common intention with accused Aradhana Gupta. Thus there is no evidence at all against accused Aradhana Gupta in the present matter.
18. The main defence taken on behalf of accused Naresh Sharda is that the injury received by the complainant are self-inflicted. It is also stated by him that he (accused Naresh Sharda) had also received injuries during that altercation. It is argued by Ld. defence counsel that as per Wikipedia Website, there are only 10% left handed person in the world and remaining 90% are right handed and in the present matter complainant Sanjay Gupta has received superficial injury in his left hand and accused Naresh Sharda has received similar injury in his right hand as it is clear from the MLCs of complainant and accused Naresh Sharda which are on record.
19. It is stated by the Ld. counsel that accused Naresh Sharda is a right handed person and so is complainant Sanjay Gupta, thus it is probable for the complainant who is right handed person had inflicted the superficial self-inflicted injury on his left hand. It is further stated by him FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 6/9 that similar injury sustained by accused Naresh Sharda was received by him as accused had inflicted that injury on him as it would be improbable that accused who is a right handed person would inflict injury by his left hand on his right hand. It is also stated by Ld. defence counsel that DW1 who is father of both the parties have categorically stated that complainant had inflicted injury on accused Naresh Sharda and thereafter self-inflicted the injury on his left hand. It is also stated by the Ld. counsel that even earlier complainant had attacked his own mother with a knife.
20. There is no evidence on record to suggest whether the complainant is right handed person or left handed person, however, it is claimed by the accused that he is a right handed person. It is stated by him that he signs on the documents with his right hand and does all the work with his right hand. Considering the fact that 90% of the human being are right handed person as per the data available on Internet, in such situation there are 90% chances that accused Naresh Sharda would have been a right handed person, thus it would be improbable that accused Naresh Sharda would have inflicted self-injuries on his right hand. At the same time it is quite probable that complainant Sanjay Gupta would have inflicted an injury on his left hand with the help of his right hand. Furthermore, following points also make it probable that the injury sustained by complainant was self-inflicted:-
a). There is an improvement in the evidence of complainant as earlier he had nowhere stated that his fridge and almirah were damaged by the accused persons but in his evidence before the Court, he stated so.
b). Complainant has received superficial injury on his left hand which shows that the same might have been a self-inflicted injury.
c). There is a history of the complainant inflicting injury on the person of his mother with a knife regarding which an FIR was registered. Though, the accused was acquitted in that case. As it is also stated by the accused persons that the matter was compounded by their mother.FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 7/9
d). Apparently there is family dispute between the complainant and the accused persons, hence, the probability of false implication of the accused persons cannot be ruled out.
e). DW1 who is father of the complainant as well as accused persons has categorically stated that complainant had inflicted injuries on the person of accused Naresh Sharda and thereafter on his own inflicted injuries on his hand. Though in his cross-examination, DW1 said that complainant inflicted self injury on his right hand but considering the old age of DW1 it is possible that he might have not remember entire incident completely. However, it is proved beyond doubt that complainant had received injury on his left hand only.
21. At this stage, it would be fruitful to remember that it is settled proposition of criminal law that prosecution is supposed to prove its case on judicial file beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that in order to prove its case on judicial file, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit whatsoever from the weaknesses, if any, of the defence of the accused. Further it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of the prosecution in a criminal trial throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts on to the accused. Also it is a settled proposition of criminal law that accused is entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt in the prosecution story and such reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal.
22. Considering all the facts stated above, there is no evidence for commission of offence U/s 324/34 IPC against accused Aradhana Gupta. Thus she deserves acquittal in the present case. Considering the fact that probability of self-inflicted injury cannot be ruled out in the present case, in such situation the allegation of offence U/s 324/34 IPC against accused Naresh Sharda cannot be held to be proved beyond reasonable doubt either, hence, he also deserves acquittal in the present matter. In view of the above stated facts and discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 8/9 guilt of accused persons namely Naresh Sharda and Anuradha Gupta beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly it is a fit case in which benefit of doubt must be given to accused persons, which is accordingly given. Hence, accused persons namely Naresh Sharda and Anuradha Gupta are hereby acquitted of offence U/s 324/34 of IPC.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) COURT ON 31.03.2015 MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI
Containing 9 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
(GAJENDER SINGH NAGAR) MM-04 (WEST)/DELHI FIR No. 88/1997, PS Moti Nagar Page 9/9