Delhi District Court
State vs . Vijay Pratap Singh Etc. on 3 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Vijay Pratap Singh etc.
FIR No. 785/15
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 323/509/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 05.08.2016
Date of Judgment : 03.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 431334/16
2. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Laxmi Singh
W/o Sh. Sarnam Singh
R/o D289, Nawada Housing
Complex, Uttam Nagar, Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 18.06.2015
4. Name of accused person : (1) Vijay Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Veer Pal Singh
R/o H.No.5, IIIrd, Gali no.5,
Vipin Garden Extn.,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi
(2) Shiv Nath Singh
S/o Late Sh. Virender Singh
R/o E50, Nawada Housing
Complex, Uttam Nagar
New Delhi
(3) Akhilender Pratap Singh
S/o Sh. Surender Pal Singh
R/o N72A, Gurdwara Road,
State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc.
FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 1 of 12
Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar
Delhi (also at G1, Prtap
Enclave, Mohan Garden
5. Offence charged : U/s 323/509/34 IPC
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused have been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 323/509/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that the complainant Ms. Laxmi Singh and her husband Mr. Sarnam Singh received a call from accused Vijay, who had called them to dicuss about some submersible issue. Complainant went to plot no5, Gali no.5, Vipin Garden alongwith her husband. When they were talking with accused Vijay Pratap Singh, he called Shiv Nath Singh, who alongwith accused Akhilender Pratap Singh and 8 others came on four bikes. All of them started abusing the complainant and her husband and stopped them from taking water from the submersible. All of them gave beatings to the complainant and her husband and caused injuries to them, whereafter, complainant made a PCR call. PCR took them to DDU Hospital, where they were treated and their MLCs were prepared.
3. It is further alleged by the complainant that during the fight her mangalsutra and earrings were also lost. According to her, she had to State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 2 of 12 take some payment from Accused Vijay Pratap Singh and Shiv Nath and cheques given by them have been dishonoured. According to her, both of them had got the property papers executed in their favour dishonestly and still some payment is due by both of them to the complainant. On the statement of complainant, present FIR was registered.
4. After conclusion of investigation, the present chargesheet was filed against the aforesaid three accused for offences punishable under Sections 323/509/34 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused were summoned to face trial. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures were supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
5. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused persons for making submissions on charge, a charge for offence u/s 323/509/34 IPC was framed against all three accused persons on 25.11.2016 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution has examined eight witnesses to prove its case.
7. DO ASI Suresh Kumar, who had registered the FIR on the complaint of the complainant on 18.06.2015 has been examined as PW1. He has proved the copy of FIR no.785/2015 as Ex. PW1/A, endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW1/B and certificate u/s 65 B Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW1/C.
8. Sh. Deshraj, who was Medical Record Clerk from DDU hospital, has been examined as PW2. He has proved ME no.9288 & 9398 as Ex. PW2/A and Ex. PW2/B respectively.
State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 3 of 12
9. Constable Karnail Singh, who had joined the investigation of the present case alongwith HC Manoj, has been examined as PW3. He alongwith HC Manoj met Sarnam Singh and arrested accused persons. He has proved arrest memo of accused Vijay Pratap Singh as Ex. PW3/A, arrest memos of accused Ahkilender and Shiv Nath as Ex. PW3/B and Ex.PW3/C.
10. Complainant Laxmi has been examined as PW4, who has deposed that on 18.06.2015 accused Vijay Pratap called her and her husband at Plot no.5A, gali no.5, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar regarding the issue of submersible. Accused Vijay Pratap was present at his house and he told them that he will not allow them to take the water from submersible. He asked accused Vijay Pratap that they were having two floors in the said property, so they are entitled to take water from submersible as her husband installed the same. Accused Vijay Pratap called Shiv Nath at the spot. Accused Shiv Nath came at the spot with other six persons on four motorcycles. Shiv Nath also came at the spot with other six persons on four motorcycles. Shiv Nath also told her that he will not allow them to take water from submersible. When she tried to take water from submersible, Shiv Nath, Vijay Pratap and Akhilender hold her hair and dragged her on the road and started beating her with belts. Other five persons were also started beating her husband. Shiv Nath, Vijay Pratap and Akhilender started abusing her with filthy language (like maa bahen ki gaaliyan). Accused Vijay Pratap and Akhilender were also beating her. PW3 and her husband sustained injuries. She has proved her State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 4 of 12 statement made to police as Ex. PW4/A.
11. Sh. Sarnam Singh (husband of complainant) has been examined as PW5. He deposed on the same lines as PW4 in his deposition.
12. Ct. Diwan, who was on emergency duty alongwith first IO ASI Rajbir Singh and had joined investigation on 18.06.2015, has been examined as PW6.
13. ASI Rajbir Singh, first IO of case pertaining to FIR No.785/15 PS Uttam Nagar, has been examined as PW7. He has proved rukka as Ex. PW7/A.
14. ASI Manoj Kumar, second IO of the case, has been examined as PW8. He has proved site plan as Ex. PW8/A.
15. All the PWs were duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for accused except PW1 & PW2. No other witness has been examined by prosecution.
16. Thereafter, Statements of accused Vijay Pratap Singh, Shiv Nath Singh and Akhilender Pratap Singh U/s 281 Cr.P.C were recorded on 19.11.2018 after putting entire incriminating evidence to them. They submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons choose to lead DE, however, no witness has been examined by them despite opportunity.
17. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of state as well as the accused persons.
18. It is submitted by Ld.APP for State that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against accused, beyond reasonable doubts, through the uncontroverted testimonies of PW4 and PW5 which is State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 5 of 12 duly corroborated by testimonies of other prosecution witnesses and the documents tendered by them in their evidences. He has thus prayed for conviction of accused for both the offences with which they have been charged.
19. On the other hand, according to counsel for accused, prosecution has failed to lead even an iota of evidence, much less, prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. He submits that case of prosecution is fraught with contradictions. In the complaint, the allegations are of beatings by the accused and obstruction by them in the way of complainant from taking the water. He submits that husband of plaintiff is a builder whereas the accused are engaged in small jobs. According to him, the prosecution has failed to produce CDR of the mobile numbers of accused as well as the complainant to prove that accused had called the complainant at the place of incident. He submits that admittedly no workman or plumber was called by complainant or for that matter by accused for repair of the alleged submersible. It is further his contention that during cross examination of prosecution witnesses, the nature of dispute was totally changed.
20. According to him, the present case of complainant is a counter blast to the FIR bearing No.784/15, registered against husband of complainant by one of the accused namely Shivnath for breaking his head. He submits that accused Shivnath had also been taken to the hospital by police which corroborates the defence of the accused that they have been falsely implicated by complainant so as to pressurize State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 6 of 12 the accused persons to compound/settle the case pertaining to FIR No.784/15.
21. It is further submitted that arrest of the accused after more than 6 months of the alleged incident casts reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story and the benefit of the same must go to the accused. He has thus prayed for acquittal of the accused from all the charges.
22. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also carefully perused the material available on record.
23. So far as the charge u/s 323/34 IPC is concerned, the case of prosecution has already been narrated hereinabove. The complainant had alleged that accused Vijay Pratap Singh called her and her husband to discuss the issue of submersible, however, when she alongwith her husband went to meet the accused Vijay Pratap Singh, he did not permit them to take water from submersible. Accused Vijay Pratap Singh called his maternal uncle Shiv Nath. He had come alongwith 8 persons on 4 bikes. All of them stopped the complainant and her husband from taking water from submersible and when objected by complainant, accused Shivnath dragged the complainant with her hair whereas his associates started beating the husband of complainant.
24. It has further been alleged by complainant that due to aforesaid beatings by accused persons, the complainant and her husband suffered injuries for which they got medical treatment in the hospital.
25. It is significant to note that complainant as well as her husband State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 7 of 12 had reaffirmed the said facts once again on oath during their examination in chief, however, during her cross examination, PW4 has made contradictory statement to the effect that there was no quarrel between the parties in respect of supply of water but the accused Vijay Partap Singh had called the complainant and her husband alleging that there was some defect in submersible and he needs to talk about the same with the complainant and her husband.
26. She admitted that she did not call any plumber or workman to fix the submersible and had tried to make out an altogether new story while volunteering that upon her arrival to the house of accused Vijay Pratap Singh, she found that the issue of submersible was used by accused as an excuse to call the complainant and her husband to the place of incident and in fact, he was seeking extension of time for payment against one of the dishonoured cheques.
27. She has admitted during her cross examination that number of people had gathered at the spot at the time of incident and had tried to intervene, however, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent public witness. She had admitted during her cross examination that a case has been registered against her husband upon the statement of accused Shivnath at PS Uttam Nagar. She has further tried to take a plea that accused Shivnath and Vijay Pratap Singh had failed to make the payment in respect of their respective floors purchased by them from the husband of complainant, in as much as, cheques given by them have been bounced.
28. Similar is the case with the testimony of PW5. He has once State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 8 of 12 again reaffirmed the averments made by complainant in her complaint on oath during his examination in chief, however, during cross examination he admitted that he was called by Vijay Pratap Singh for making the payment towards one of the cheques issued by him which had dishonoured.
29. The aforesaid admission on the part of PW5 was contrary to the deposition of PW4 that accused Vijay Pratap Singh called her and her husband on the pretext of some defect in the submersible.
30. PW5 has also admitted during his cross examination that FIR bearing no.784/15 u/s 452/323 IPC has been registered at PS Uttam Nagar against him on the statement of Shivnath which is pending adjudication at Tis Hazari Courts.
31. No other independent eye witness has been examined by prosecution in support of its case despite admission on the part of PW 4 that several persons had gathered at the spot.
32. The complaint Ex.PW4/A in its later part records that accused had got the documents in respect of some property executed fraudulently since the cheques issued by him have been bounced. The complainant had alleged in her complaint that some amount is still due and outstanding against accused Shivnath and Vijay Pratap Singh.
33. The aforesaid submission made by complainant in her complaint coupled with statement made by complainant and her husband during their examination in the court about the call made by accused Vijay Pratap Singh to the husband of complainant on the pretext of making the payment against one of the dishonoured cheques State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 9 of 12 indicates that there had been some dispute between the parties in respect of payment to be made by accused Vijay Pratap Singh and accused Shivnath in respect of two floors purchased by them from the husband of complainant at Plot No.5A, Gali No.5, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar. It is further apparent that admittedly the police had taken accused Shivnath also to hospital and he had sustained certain injuries, however, the complainant as well as husband of complainant have failed to explain the injuries on the person of accused Shivnath. Both the complainant as well as her husband had failed to assign any specific role to each of the accused persons in causing injuries to them.
34. It is a settled legal position that in a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused are asked to put his defence. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the story of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility, the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
35. In the case in hand, in view of the contradiction in the testimony of PW4 and PW5 and non joining of independent witness by the prosecution, there are reasonable doubts about the story sought to be propounded by prosecution regarding voluntarily causing of hurt by accused to the complainant and her husband in furtherance of their common intention. In view of ongoing dispute between the parties regarding payment of floors purchased by accused Shivnath and accused Vijay Pratap Singh from the husband of the complainant and from material available on record, it is not possible to ascertain as to State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 10 of 12 who was the aggressor and hence is liable to conviction for voluntarily causing hurt. The accused are thus entitled to be acquitted of the charge u/s 323/34 IPC.
36. So far as charges u/s 509 IPC is concerned, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had uttered any word, made any sound or gesture, or had exhibited any object with an intent to insult the modesty of complainant. It is settled legal proposition that in order to hold a person guilty u/s 509 IPC, the complainant is required to reproduce the actual words uttered by accused during her examination.
37. In the case in hand, complainant and her husband had vaguely alleged that accused persons started abusing the complainant in filthy language like Maa Behan ki galia. There are no allegations either in the complaint or in the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 that the said language, even if used by accused persons, was used with intent to insult the modesty of complainant who is a woman. In the absence of said allegations, the accused cannot be hold guilty for the charge u/s 509/34 IPC, more so, on the basis of uncorroborated testimonies of PW4 and PW5 by any independent witness in view of the contradictions in the testimonies of PW4 and PW5 noted hereinabove.
38. In view of the aforesaid discussions, accused are entitled to be acquitted even of the charge u/s 509/34 IPC.
39. The accused are thus hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 323/509/34 IPC. Personal Bonds and Surety bonds of the accused are State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 11 of 12 cancelled. Endorsements, if any, stand cancelled.
40. Accused have already furnished personal bonds in sum of Rs. 20,000/ in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C alongwith surety bonds of the similar amount on 23.11.2019. The same have been accepted and shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
41. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court on this 03rd February 2020. This judgment consists of 12 signed pages.
(ARUN KUMAR GARG) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Vijay Prtap Singh etc. FIR No.785/2015 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 03.02.2020 Page No. 12 of 12