Delhi District Court
State vs . Gopal Dass Etc. on 2 January, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MANISH KHURANA
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:NORTH
ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
STATE VS. GOPAL DASS ETC.
PS PRASHANT VIHAR
JUDGEMENT
(a) The FIR no. of the case : 392/2001,
(b) The date of commission of offence : 15.08.2001
(c) The name of complainant :Smt.Moona Dass S/o Sh.Ajit
Dass, R/o Jhuggi No. 779
Sector26, Rohini, Delhi.
(d) The name of accused :1.Gopal Dass S/o Har
Govind R/o Jhuggi No. 783
Sector26, Rohini, Delhi.
2.Sapan Dass s/o Gopal Dass
r/o Jhuggi No. 783,
Sector26, Rohini, Delhi.
3.Prafful Dass s/oHaricharan
Dass r/o Jhuggi No. 730,
Sector26, Rohini, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of proved : U/s 323/324/452/34 IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
and claimed trial.
State Vs. Gopal Dass etc
FIR No.: 392/01
PS: Prashant Vihar
page 1
of 15
(g) Date of Institution : 31.01.2002
(h) The date on which : 30.11.2013
judgment was reserved
(i) The final order : Convicted
(j) The date of such order : 18.12.2013
(k) The Unique Identification No. : 02401R0315452002
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision: 1 The prosecution story in brief is that on 15.08.01 at about 11 pm at Jhuggi No. 779, Sector16, Rohini within the jurisdiction of PS Prashant Vihar all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention forcibly entered into the abovesaid jhuggi of the complainant after having made preparation to cause hurt to the complainant and caused simple hurt on the person of Ajit Dass with a sharp object and also caused simple hurt to Moona Dass with a blunt object and thereby, all the accused persons committed an offence u/s 323/324/452/34 IPC. It is in these circumstances that all the accused have been arrested and chargesheeted.
State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 2 of 15 2 The matter was investigated by the police and a charge sheet U/s 323/324/452/34 IPC was filed against all the accused. 3 From the material on record a charge u/s 323/324/452/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by Ld Predecessor of this court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5 Prosecution was directed to adduce evidence and has examined eight witnesses.
6 PW1 complainant Mona @ Moona Dass deposed that on 15.08.01 at about 11 pm in the night while she was sleeping with her husband in her house she heard knocking at the door. She further deposed that accused Gopal Dass, his son Sapan Dass and one third person called her husband outside the house on which her husband went outside and she heard some noise of quarrel and thereafter her husband, accused Sapan Dass and Gopal Dass came inside the jhuggi and they continued the quarrel. She also stated that accused Gopal Dass pushed her due to which she fell down. She also deposed that accused Sapan Dass caught hold of her husband and accused Gopal Dass gave knife blows to him on the chest under the right arm due to which blood came out and thereafter, accused persons ran away State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 3 of 15 from the spot. She also deposed that her relatives took her husband to the hospital and she informed the police. The police came at the spot and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A . She identified the accused Gopal Dass and Sapan Dass in the court. During her cross examination by Ld defence counsel, she deposed that she wrapped one cloth around the wound of her husband but the police did not seize that cloth. She also stated that police reached at the spot within 510 minutes of the PCR call. She also stated that her statement was recorded in the police station. She also deposed that police could not recover the knife as the accused persons ran away from the spot with the knife. She also deposed that when the incident occurred no neighbourer was present as all were sleeping. She denied that due to dispute over jhuggi the accused persons were falsely implicated.
7. PW2 Ranjit Dass deposed that on 15.08.01 at about 11/12 pm he heard a voice at the house of his brother Ajit Dass who was residing in the neighbourhood. He also deposed that when he reached near his house he saw that accused Gopal was running out from the house of his brother and when he went inside the house he saw that his brother was bleeding and there was a lot of blood in the room and the wife of his brother namely Mona was weeping and many other persons gathered there and thereafter, his brother was taken to the hospital in a TSR. He further deposed that police also State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 4 of 15 reached there and the wife of his brother told him that Gopal and his son caused injuries to his brother and accused Prafful was also an associate in the said incident. He further deposed that on 17.08.01 police arrested accused Gopal Dass at his instance vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and his personal search was also conducted vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that after 23 days accused Prafful Dass was also arrested at his instance from Sector16, Rohini vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was also conducted. He identified accused Gopal, Sapan and Prafful in the court. During his cross examination he deposed that he reached at the spot at about 12 am in the night and his brother was wearing only underwear which was stained with blood. He also stated that police did not seize any cloth in his presence and his statement was recorded in the hospital. He also deposed that police did not record statement of any of the witness in his presence and the statement of his brother was recorded in the hospital. He denied that he was deposing falsely being the brother of the injured.
8. PW3 Ajit Dass Deposed that on 15.08.01 at about 11 pm in the night he was present at his house and upon hearing some noise he came out and found Gopal Dass, Sapan Dass and Prafful Dass present there who were his neighbours and accused Gopal Dass immediately slapped him and thereafter, all three accused started beating him by legs and fist blows. He State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 5 of 15 identified all the accused persons in the court. He also deposed that accused Prafful Dass gave a blow to him with a saria and he got himself freed from their clutches and ran inside his jhuggi. He also deposed that accused persons forcibly entered into his jhuggi and accused Gopal Dass gave knife blow below his right arm and blood came out and thereafter, they all ran away from there. He also deposed that that somebody informed the police and one autowala took him to the hospital. He further stated that about 2 months prior to the incident some quarrel took place between him and the accused persons on parking issue and accused persons had threatened him to see him in future and that was why accused persons caused injuries to him.
9. During his cross examination by Ld defence counsel he admitted that he had not stated to the police about the incident which occurred two months ago. He also stated that his statement was recorded in the hospital and police did not reach at the spot in his presence and IO had not recorded the statement of any other person in his presence. He stated that police did not recover the knife in his presence and he denied that no such incident ever occurred.
10. PW4 HC Khushi Ram was the duty officer proved the FIR as Ex. PW4/A.
11. PW5 Dr. Rajesh Bansal appeared on behalf of Dr. Deepak and State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 6 of 15 stated that he had seen him writing and signing during discharge of his official duties and he proved the MLC of injured Ajit Dass as Ex. PW5/A.
12. During his cross examination he stated that he had not seen the MLC when the same was being prepared. He could not tell as to by which mode the injured received injuries.
13. PW6 HC Gajender deposed that on 17.08.01 he along with SI Sukram Pal went to the jhuggi situated at Sector26, Rohini and met one Sh. Ranjit Dass who was the relative (jeth) of complainant Mona and along with him they went to search the accused and at his instance IO arrested the accused Gopal Dass vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. He also deposed that on 23.08.01 he again joined the investigation with the IO and they reached at the Jhuggi of accused Prafful Dass situated at sector 26 Rohini where accused Prafuful Dass was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/D and his personal search was also conducted. He identified both the accused persons.
14. During his cross examination, he could not tell as to whether any notice was given to any public persons to join the investigation and he did not remember the exact time as to when he returned at the PS. He also did not remember the exact time when the accused Prafful Dass was arrested. He denied that he did not join the investigation or that the accused persons were falsely implicated.
State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 7 of 15
15. PW7 SI Sukram Pal deposed that on 15.08.01 on receipt of DD No. 37 he along with Ct. Ramesh reached at the spot where they came to know that the injured had already been removed to Hindu Rao Hospital. Thereafter, they went to the hospital and collected the MLC of the injured Ajit Dass , however, the injured was found unfit for the statement. He further stated that he returned to the spot and met eye witness namely Mona and recorded her statement and prepared a rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Ramesh for registration of the FIR. He also prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/A and recorded the statement of witnesses. He also deposed that on 16.08.01 he went to Hindu Rao Hospital and recorded the statement of injured Ait Dass and on 17.08.01 he arrested the accused Gopal Dass and recorded the statement of witness Ranjit and Ct. Gajender. He further deposed that on 23.08.01 he arrested accused Prafful Dass and on 30.08.01 he arrested accused Sapan Dass. He identified all the accused persons in the court.
16. During his cross examination, he stated that he recorded the statement of complainant Mona at the spot of incident at 2.00 am. He also deposed that injured Ajit Dass sustained injuries from some sharp edged weapon and he also searched that weapon but the same cold not be recovered. He also deposed that he recorded the statement ofAjit Dass in the State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 8 of 15 hospital and he did not meet any other eye witness in the hospital. He denied that the accused persons were falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant.
17. PW8 HC Ramesh Kumar deposed that on 15.08.01 on receipt of DD No. 37 he along with IO SI Sukram Pal went to the spot where they came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital and thereafter, they went to the hospital and the IO collected the MLC of injured Ajit Dass who was found unfit for the statement. He further stated that they returned at the spot and met the eye witness Mona Dass and recorded her statement and the IO prepared rukka and the FIR was registered through him.
18. During his cross examination, he deposed that they returned at the spot from the hospital at about 2 am. He also deposed that the statement of complainant Mona was recorded in his presence in the street. He also deposed that his statement was recorded at the spot at about 3.30 am and he finally returned to PP Sector 16 at about 3.50 am. He also deposed that no written notice was given by the IO to any public person who refused to join the investigation. He denied that the accused persons were falsely implicated.
19. Thereafter PE was closed and accused persons were examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and all the incriminating evidence coming on record was put State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 9 of 15 to the accused persons and they pleaded innocence and they examined one witness in their defence.
20. DW1 Shekhar deposed that the incident occurred 1011 years ago and there was an altercation between the wives of accused persons and the complainant due to jhuggi he further deposed that after the said quarrel complainant evicted the accused persons from the jhuggi.
21. During his cross examination by Ld APP he did not know as to who was the accused or the injured in the present case. He did not remember the date of the incident and he stated that he had been called by the accused persons to depose in the present case and he did not know about the present case.
22. Thereafter, the evidence was closed and final arguments were heard.
23. I have heard Ld. APP for State and counsel for the accused persons and perused the record.
24 Ld APP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and the testimonies of all the public witnesses and that of police officials corroborate each other. Ld APP therefore, requests that the accused persons may be convicted for the offence complained of.
State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 10 of 15
25. On the other hand, Ld counsel for the accused has argued that the rukka Ex. PW1/A reveals that the complainant had stated that she saw that accused persons were quarrelling with her husband, however, during her deposition before the court she stated that she along with her husband was sleeping in the jhuggi when she heard the noise. Ld counsel has also pointed out that as per the rukka the complainant stated that somebody called the police, however, during her deposition before the court she stated that she informed the police. Ld counsel has also argued that the weapon of offence i.e., the knife was not recovered and even the blood stained cloth of the victim was not seized by the police which shows that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. Ld counsel has also pointed out that all the police witnesses stated that the statement of the witnesses were recorded at the spot, however, the complainant has stated in her crossexamination that her statement was recorded at the PS. Ld defence counsel has argued that cross examination of PW2 Ranjit reveals that the statement of the injured was recorded in the hospital, however, as per MLC the injured was unfit for statement and no such statement which was allegedly recorded at the hospital is on record.
26. Ld defence counsel has also stated that PW6 HC Gajender could not tell the time as to when he returned at the PS or on which vehicle he State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 11 of 15 reached at the spot. He also could not tell the time when the accused Prafful Dass was arrested and he also could not tell as to where his statement was recorded. Ld defence counsel has argued that there are various lapses in the case of the prosecution, therefore, the accused persons are entitled to be acquitted.
27. In the case in hand the FIR was registered on the rukka Ex. PW1/A and the complainant Mona Dass has deposed that the accused Gopal Dass and Sapan Dass and one other person called her husband outside the house and after some time she heard some noise of quarrel and thereafter, the accused persons came inside their jhuggi and accused Gopal Dass pushed her and accused Sapan Dass caught hold of her husband and accused Gopal Dass gave a knife blow to her husband due to which he started bleeding. The statement of the complainant dated 16.08.01 recorded by the police upon which the FIR was registered and the deposition of the complainant before the court dated 20.07.06 do not suffer from any material contradiction and the complainant has deposed categorically regarding the commission of offence and the role played by accused persons. Ld defence counsel has argued that as per rukka the accused persons were quarrelling in the street, however, as per the deposition of the complainant the accused persons entered the jhuggi of the complainant. Perusal of the rukka and the State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 12 of 15 deposition of the complainant before the court reveals that initially the quarrel started in the street, however, later on the accused persons entered her house and caused injuries to her husband.
28. Another argument raised by Ld defence counsel is that as per rukka someone called the police and not the complainant. Perusal of the testimony of the complainant reveals that she informed the police and police came at the spot and her statement was recorded. Further, deposition of injured Ajit Dass corroborates the testimony of the complainant.
29. Ld counsel has argued that as per the prosecution case the statement of injured Ajit Dass, was recorded in the hospital, however, as per the MLC the injured Ajit Dass was unfit for statement. I have perused the testimonies of PW's and perusal of the testimony of the IO SI Sukram Pal reveals that the on 15.08.01 the injured was unfit for statement, however, his statement was recorded on 16.08.01 at Hindu Rao Hospital. The cross examination of PW3 Ajit Dass also corroborates the fact that his statement was recorded in the hospital.
30. Ld counsel has also argued that the alleged knife with which the injuries were caused was not recovered and it creates a dent in the case of the prosecution. As per the testimony of the complainant and that of the injured, the accused persons ran away from the spot after causing injury with State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 13 of 15 a knife. The mere fact that the alleged knife was not recovered by the police does not efface the entire case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention that as per MLC of injured Ajit Dass Ex. PW5/A, there was a 5x3 cms sharp incised wound and there was an active bleeding. So far as an incised wound is concerned, the same could have only been caused by a sharp edged weapon. Hence, the injuries sustained by the injured reveal that the injuries were caused with a sharp edged weapon. Further, the testimony of injured Ajit Dass reveals that accused Prafful Dass gave a saria blow to him and accused Gopal Dass gave him a knife blow due to which he started bleeding. The manner in which the offence was committed clearly shows that all the accused persons shared the common intention to commit the offence.
31. It is also pertinent to mention that the complainant PW1 Mona Dass and PW2 Ranjit Dass were examined in the court after about 5 years of the incident and the injured PW3 Ajit Dass was examined in the court after about 7 years of the incident despite that they have narrated the entire incident and corroborated each other's testimony on all material aspects. Further, minor contradictions as pointed out by Ld defence counsel in my view, are not of such a nature so as to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution.
32. Considering the entire evidence on record, I am of the considered State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 14 of 15 opinion that prosecution has proved beyond doubts that accused Gopal Dass, Sapan Dass and Prafful Dass in furtherance of their common intention committed house trespass into the house of the complainant after having made preparation to cause hurt and they also caused simple injuries on the person of injured Ajit Dass with a sharp edged weapon. Accordingly, accused Gopal Dass, Sapan Dass and Prafful Dass stand convicted for the offence u/s 324/452/34 IPC.
Announced in the open court today on 02.01.2014 (MANISH KHURANA) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE ROHINI : DELHI State Vs. Gopal Dass etc FIR No.: 392/01 PS: Prashant Vihar page 15 of 15