Delhi District Court
State vs . Mamta Tyagi & Anr. on 13 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. PARAMJIT SINGH : ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTH-WEST)-04, ROHINI : DELHI
(Sessions Case No. 59/09)
Unique ID case No. 02404R0662042007
State Vs. Mamta Tyagi & Anr.
FIR No. : 355/2006
U/s : 308/506/34 IPC
P.S : Adarsh Nagar
1. Mamta Tyagi
W/o Sh. Ashok Tyagi
R/o H. No. BG-I/40B,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
Presently At :
BB-34B, Shalimar Bagh ( West)
Delhi
2. Ashok Tyagi
S/o Sh. Bhopal Singh
R/o H. No. BG-I/40B,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
Presently At :
BB-34B, Shalimar Bagh ( West)
Delhi
Date of institution of case- 06.10.2007
Date on which, judgment have been reserved-01.09.2010
Date of pronouncement of judgment-13.09.2010
S.C No. 59/09 1/12
2
JUDGEMENT:
In the present case on 21.6.2006, a complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC was received at PS Adarsh Nagar and in the said complaint, it has been stated on behalf of the complainant-Sunita that she was residing at the given address and in the same premises on second floor, both the accused were also residing and they were having inimical relations with the complainant and her family members and were harassing them in one way or the other and had made their life miserable and a complaint in this regard was also lodged by the complainant with the SHO, PS Adarsh Nagar but the police did not take any action against the accused persons. Thereafter on 09.12.2003 in the night time, complainant and her husband had gone to market, when Jaswant and Ram Niwas came to their house and informed about their arrival and accordingly, complainant and her husband came back to their house at about 10:00 P.M and while the husband of the complainant was parking his motorcycle, complainant started going to her house through stairs and at that time accused persons came out from their house and illegally detained her and also gave iron rod blow on her head as a result of which she received head injury and fell down on the floor and accused started beating her with rod. It has been stated that complainant cried for help and thereafter she was saved by her husband, Jaswant Singh & Ram Niwas, who rushed to the spot after hearing her cries and they also took the complainant to Sunder Lal hospital for treatment, where police came in the morning hours on 10.12.2002 and obtained her signatures on blank papers, but no action was taken by them against the accused persons and accordingly the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint case before the court of concerned Ld. M.M, which resulted in the registration of the present case vide FIR No. 355/06 at PS Adarsh Nagar and investigation of this case was entrusted to ASI S.C No. 59/09 2/12 3 Dalbir Singh.
During the investigation, IO-ASI Dalbir Singh inspected the spot and prepared site plan. Accused persons got the anticipatory bail from the court and accordingly, they were only formally arrested by the IO. Thereafter, the statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the court of concerned Ld. M.M.
2. After committal, arguments on the point of charge were heard and on the basis of the material on record, charge for committing the offences punishable u/s- 308/34 IPC & u/s 506/34 IPC was framed against accused-Mamta Tyagi & Ashok Tyagi by the Ld. Predecessor of this court, to which the said accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution has examined seven witnesses i.e PW-1 to PW-7.
PW-1 Ranbir Singh is the husband of the complainant/injured and prosecution is relying upon his testimony to prove its case on record.
PW-2 W/ASI Pushpa recorded the FIR No. 355/06 of this case and she has proved the carbon copy of the same as Ex. PW-2/A and her endorsement on the rukka as Ex. PW-2/B. PW-3 Sunita Rana is the complainant/injured and prosecution is mainly relying upon her testimony to prove its case on record.
S.C No. 59/09 3/12 4PW-4 Jaswant Singh resiled from his earlier statement and was not supporting the case of the prosecution and accordingly he was cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-4 admitted the case of the prosecution to some extent and stated that on receiving the said blow, Sunita became unconscious on the stairs, but he denied the remaining contents of his statement recorded by the police and he also denied the suggestion that accused Ashok Tyagi gave beatings to Santosh.
PW-5 Ramniwas also resiled from his earlier statement and does not support the case of the prosecution.
PW-6 Dr. Alam has proved the MLC No.4889/03 of injured Sunita Rana prepared by Dr. Anamika Lal as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-7 ASI Dalbir Singh is the IO of this case and he deposed that on 22.6.2006 copy of FIR alongwith complaint u/s 156 (3) Cr. PC was handed over to him by the DO for investigation and on receipt of the same, he went to the house of complainant where complainant and her husband met him and on the pointing out of complainant, he prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence which was Ex. PW-7/A. Thereafter, he searched for accused persons and came to know that accused persons had left their given address. During investigation, PW-7 collected the photocopy of MLC of injured/complainant Sunita Rana and formally arrested accused Ashok Tyagi & Mamta Tyagi vide arrest memo Ex. PW-7/B and Ex. PW-7/C and released them on bail as they were already granted anticipatory bail by S.C No. 59/09 4/12 5 the Hon'ble High Court and Ld. ASJ. PW-7 further deposed that after completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and presented in the court.
4. After recording of prosecution evidence, statements of accused u/s- 313 Cr.PC were recorded, wherein all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons, which they denied as incorrect. Accused Mamta Tyagi & Ashok Tyagi claimed to be innocent and stated that they do not want to lead any evidence in their defence.
5. I have heard arguments put forward by Ld. Addl. PP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel for the accused persons and have carefully gone through the record of the case. I have carefully considered the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution in support of its case.
6. It has been submitted by Ld. Addl. PP that in view of the evidence adduced on record, in particular the testimony of PW-3 ( complainant/injured) and her husband (PW-1), the prosecution has been successful in proving on record the guilt of the accused beyond the reasonable doubt. It is further submitted that prosecution has been successful in proving on record that on the day of the incident, both the accused-Mamta Tyagi and Ashok Tyagi in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Sunit Rana W/o Sh. Ranbir Singh and caused simple injuries on her person with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, they had caused death of Sunita Rana they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and they also criminally intimidated complainant- Sunita Rana by threatening to kill her. Ld. S.C No. 59/09 5/12 6 Addl. PP also submitted that in view of the evidence and material brought on record by the prosecution, the guilt of the accused persons have been proved beyond reasonable doubts and he prayed that both the accused may be convicted of the charged offences.
On the other hand, it has been submitted by the ld. Defence counsel that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. It is further submitted that from the material on record, no offence u/s- 308 IPC or u/s- 506 IPC was made out against both the accused. It is also submitted that accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant and her husband. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that the present case has been got registered against the accused persons by the complainant in connivance with the police as the husband of the complainant is working in Delhi Police. It is further submitted that due to harassment meted out by the complainant and her husband, the accused persons have already left their earlier premises and are now residing in the rented premises. It is also submitted that complainant wanted to compel the accused persons to sell their house to her and that is why to pressurize them the present false case has been planted upon the accused persons at the instance of the husband of the complainant. Ld. Defence counsel further submits that the testimonies of the complainant ( PW-3) and her husband (PW-4) lacks credibility as there are material contradictions/discrepancies in their testimonies and the said contradictions/discrepancies are fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that no injuries were found on the head of the complainant, which contradicts the version of incident being put forward by the prosecution. Ld. Defence counsel submitted that two other independent witnesses i.e PW-4 & PW-5 have also resiled from their earlier statement and do not support S.C No. 59/09 6/12 7 the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is self contradictory and there were various loopholes in the testimonies of various prosecution witnesses, which entitles the accused persons to the benefit of doubt. Ld. Defence counsel further submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on record, beyond the reasonable doubts and he prayed that accused may be acquitted of the charged offences.
7. In the present case, both the accused-Mamta Tyagi & Askok Tyagi have been charged for committing the offences punishable u/s 308/34 IPC and u/s- 506/34 IPC.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 9.12.2003 at C-597, Gali no.13, Majlis Park, Delhi within the jurisdiction PS Adarsh Nagar, both the accused-Mamta Tyagi and Ashok Tyagi, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Sunita Rana W/o Sh. Ranbir Singh and caused simple injuries on her person with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act, they had caused death of Sunita Rana they would have been guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is also stated that at the time of incident, accused persons also criminally intimidated complainant-Sunita Rana by threatening to kill her.
8. In order to prove its case on record, prosecution is mainly relying upon the testimonies of the complainant/injured i.e PW-3 Sunita Rana and her husband i.e PW-1 Ranbir Singh.
In her examination-in-chief, PW-3 Sunita Rana, who is the complainant/ S.C No. 59/09 7/12 8 injured in this case, deposed that on 9.12.2003, she alongwith her husband had gone to market for purchasing house hold articles on motorcycle, when her husband received a telephonic call on his mobile from Jaswant and he told her husband that he alongwith Ram Niwas had come to their house to meet him and accordingly, she alongwith her husband came back to home at about 10:00 p.m and while her husband was parking his motorcycle, she went upstairs and when she reached on the second floor, Mamta Tyagi and her husband Ashok Tyagi said that they would not leave her and Mamta Tyagi was having an iron rod in her hand and she caught hold of her hair and hit on her head with iron rod, while Ashok Tyagi also caught hold of her hand and he also gave her kick and fist blows. PW-3 further deposed that she raised alarm and on hearing her cries, Jaswant and Ram Niwas, who were present on third floor came down & her husband also rushed to the second floor. She also deposed that she became unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself admitted in Sunderlal Jain Hospital and police came in the hospital and recorded her statement. PW-3 deposed that she had given complaint in the police station Adarsh Nagar which was Ex. PW3/A but police had not taken any action and then she filed a complaint before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate which was Ex. PW3/B and on her complaint, Court issued orders to register the case.
Further, in his examination-in-chief, PW-1 Ranbir Singh deposed that on 09.12.2003, he alongwith his wife went to Adarsh Nagar main market for purchasing the medicines and goods, when two persons namely Jaswant Singh and Ram Niwas came to his house and Jaswant Singh made a call to him and requested that he should comeback to home immediately. PW-1 further deposed that he S.C No. 59/09 8/12 9 alongwith his wife Sunita came back to home at about 10:00 P.M and he handed over the goods and medicines to his wife and while he was parking his motorcycle, he heard the noise of his wife 'Bachao-bachao" and he went upstairs to his house and saw his wife was lying on the second floor stairs outside the house of accused persons and accused Mamta was having an iron rod in her hand and her husband caught hold of the hand of his wife while she was lying on the ground and Mamta Tyagi was kicking his wife and Jaswant and Ram Niwas also came down stairs. He also deposed that his wife became unconscious and she received injuries on her head, stomach and hands and he removed his wife to Sunder Lal Jain hospital, where police also came and recorded his statement.
In the instant case, prosecution is primarily relying upon the testimony of the complainant/injured i.e PW-3 Sunita Rana and her husband ( PW-1) and as far as the testimonies of these witnesses i.e PW-1 and PW-3 are concerned, their testimonies do not inspire confidence as they have made inconsistent statements and there are material contradictions/ discrepancies and improvements also in their testimonies as is evident from their cross examination done by the ld. defence counsel and the said inconsistencies & contradiction/ discrepancies are fatal to the case of the prosecution. In order to properly appreciate the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-3, it will be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portions of their cross- examination. In his cross examination by ld. defence counsel, PW-1 stated that he had purchased medicine for his wife from Vardhman Medical Store, whereas on the other hand, PW-3 stated that on that day, they had purchased sugar, rice, ghee, butter, tea in cash and the amount of said articles must be around Rs. 1500-2000/-, while PW-1 stated that on that day, they had made purchases in the sum of Rs.450/-. Further, it has been stated by the PW-1 & PW-3 that while they had gone S.C No. 59/09 9/12 10 to market PW-1 received a call on phone from the PW-4 Jaswant, while it has come on record in the evidence of PW-5 that PW-1 was not having mobile at that time. Further, PW-3 stated that she had seen the iron rod and it was the water supply G.I. Pipe and was around two feet in length, whereas on the other hand PW-1 stated that he had also seen the iron rod and it was about 5 ft. but he has not given description of pipe to the police. It is pertinent to note here that the said alleged iron rod have also not been recovered in this case. In addition to this, the testimonies of PW-1 & PW-3 have also not been corroborated by the medical evidence on record. Both these witnesses i.e PW-1 & PW-3 have stated that PW-3 received the injuries on her head, after being hit by an iron rod by the accused, however no injuries were seen on the head of PW-3 as is evident from her MLC (Ex. PW-6/A) which nullifies the entire version of incident given by PW-1 & PW-3. In fact in this regard PW-6 Dr. Alam has specifically stated that only injury found on the patient-Sunita ( PW-3) were echymatic patches on her right middle upper arm and he has not deposed anything about any head injury being there on the person of the complainant/injured Sunita Rana .
In view of the above, it is evident that PW-1 Ranbir Singh and PW-3 Sunita Rana ( complainant/injured ) have made inconsistent statements in their examination in chief and cross examination. Further, there are also material contradictions/discrepancies in their statements. In these circumstances, the testimonies of PW-1 &, PW-3 lack credibility and they do not appear to be reliable or trustworthy witnesses and in my considered opinion, it will not be safe to rely upon their testimonies in the fact and circumstances of the present case.
9. Further, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-3 have also not been S.C No. 59/09 10/12 11 corroborated by independent public witnesses i.e PW-4 Jaswant Singh and PW-5 Ram Niwas, both of whom resiled from their earlier statements and do not support the case of the prosecution and were cross examined by the Ld. Addl. PP.
In his cross examination by the Ld. Addl. PP, PW-4 Jaswant Singh denied that as soon as Santosh reached in front of the house of accused persons present in the court started beating her. He further denied that on hearing her noise, he alongwith Ramniwas came down and saw that accused persons had caught hold of Santosh and were giving her leg and fist blows or that accused Mamta Tyagi had caught hold of Santosh with her hairs and she gave rod blow on the head of Santosh. PW-4 also denied the suggestion that accused Ashok also gave beatings to Santosh. Similarly, in his cross examination by the Ld. Addl.PP, PW-5 also denied that as soon as Satto reached in front of the house of accused persons, they started beating her. He further denied that on hearing noise, he alongwith Jaswant came down and saw that accused persons had caught hold of Sunita and were giving her leg and fist blows. PW-5 denied the suggestion that accused Mamta Tyagi had caught hold of Sunita with her hair and she gave a rod blow on the head of Sunita. He further denied that due to lapse of time, he had forgotten some facts. PW-5 denied the suggestion that both the accused present in the court had beaten Sunita in his presence or that accused Mamta hit on her head with pipe/rod. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely as he have been won over by the accused persons.
10. Thus, in view of the above discussion and observations and having regard to the fact and circumstances of the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons on S.C No. 59/09 11/12 12 record, beyond the reasonable doubts. Accordingly, I acquit both the accused- Mamta Tyagi & Ashok Tyagi of the charged offences, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Personal bond and bail bonds of both the accused-Mamta Tyagi & Ashok Tyagi are cancelled. Their sureties are discharged.
File be consigned to the record room.
(Announced in the open ) (Paramjit Singh)
(court on 13.09.2010) Addl. Sessions Judge
(North-West)-04
Rohini/Delhi
S.C No. 59/09 12/12