Delhi District Court
State vs Jagdish on 10 November, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. REKHA
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
NORTHWEST DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
Unique Case ID No. : 02401R0951892005
STATE VS JAGDISH
FIR NO. 726/05
P.S. : SARASWATI VIHAR
U/S : 323/341/34 IPC
J U D G M E N T
a)Date of commission of offence : 28.07.05
b) Name of the complainant : Raj Bala W/o late Sh. Ajit Singh
c)Name, parentage and : 1. Jagdish S/o Sh. Naval Singh address of the accused 2. Joginder Singh S/o Jagdish
3. Savitri W/o Jagdish
4. Neelam W/o Joginder @ Leelu R/o R/o: WZ212 Village Shakurpur, Delhi
d)Offence complaint of : 323/341/34 IPC
e)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
f)Final Order : Acquitted
g)Date of order : 10.11.2014
h)Date of conclusion of : 10.11.2014 final arguments BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
1. Brief facts of this case, as per the prosecution, are that on Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 1 28.07.05 at about 11:45pm in open gali in front of house No. WZ213, Shakurpur Village, Delhi, all accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained the complainantRajbala W/o late Sh. Ajit singh from proceeding in a direction in which she had a right to proceed and caused simple injuries on the person of complainantRajbala. After investigation, they were duly charge sheeted to the Court.
2. Copies of the relevant documents were supplied to the accused persons and charge U/s 323/341/34 IPC was also framed to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. At the time of trial, prosecution examined following PW's: PW1 Deen Dayal PW2 Bhupender Yadav PW3 SIBrahm Prakash PW4 Rajbala W/o late Sh. Ajeet Singh Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 2 PW5 Const. Neel Kamal PW6 Rama Shankar PW8 HCSurender Kumar
4. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused persons recorded separately. They denied the allegations and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case and complaint regarding illegal construction by the complainant had been made by Jagdish with the SHO, P.S.S. Vihar and she had made a 3 ft. wall in front of their gate and also dug submersible bor in front of their house and blocked their passage by throwing debris in front of their house and also put wooden plank (balli) in front of their house and she got slipped herself and got injuries and thereafter she made a false complaint against all the family members. They chose not to lead evidence.
5. I have heard Ld. APP for the State and counsel for the accused and carefully perused the record.
Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 3
6. So far as the evidence led by the prosecution is concerned, as per testimony of PW1Deen Dayal, he cannot tell the exact date and month but it was 2 and half years back he was running the shop of press/washerman at WZ309, Shakur Pur, Delhi. On that day, at about 11 am lady/Raj Bala was breaking the wall with the help of labourers near his shop. Accused Jagdish asked the lady Rajbala not to do the same but she told in reply that will break the wall. In the meantime, altercation took place between the accusedJagdish (correctly identified) and lady Raja Bala. Joginder Singh came out his house. On seeing the accusedJoginder, lady Raja Bala tried to run towards her house but got slipped.
7. As per PW2Bhupinder Yadav, he is the resident of WZ307, Village Shakurpur, Delhi and residing with his parents. In the summer of previous year at about 12 to 1 PM he was sitting at the shop of his uncle. He heard some noise and came out of the shop. He Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 4 saw that his aunt was getting the wall broken through labourers. His uncleJagdish Yadav told to his auntRaja Bala not to do the same but she started abusing him. In the meantime, his cousinJoginder Yadav came out of the house and his auntRaj Bala ran away inside the house. His aunt slipped and got injuries.
8. As per testimony of PW3 SIBraham Prakash, on 28.07.05, he was working as Duty Officer in PS S. Vihar and he proved the copy of FIR vide Ex. PW3/A bearing his signatures at point A. He also proved the endorsement on rukka Ex. PW3/B.
9. As per PW4Rajbala, on 28.07.2005 at about 11 am she was getting the wall constructed of her aforesaid house. The house of the accusedJagdish is adjuscent of her aforesaid house. At about 11.45 am, the accusedJagdish came to her house and stop the construction work. When she asked why the accused was stopping the construction work accusedJagdish started abusing her. Meanwhile, Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 5 the accusedJogender S/o accused Jagdish, Savitri and Neelam came there and accusedJogender slapped her. All the accused gave her beatings by giving fist blow and leg kicks and chapals and accused Jogender had also beaten her with wooden plank (balli) due to the which she sustained injuries. During the scuffle and beatings given by the accused persons his pair of gold bengals and one ear ring got misplaced. Someone called the police, PCR van took her to hospital. IO recorded her statement Ex. PW4/A bearing her signature at point A. She had shown the place of incident to the IO. AccusedJoginder, Neelam and Savitri were arrested at her instance on the same day in the evening vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/B to D all memos bearing her signature at point A. Personal search of the accused persons were carried out vide memo Ex. PW4/E to G bearing her signature at point A. AccusedJagdish was not found on that day he had fled away. AccusedJagdish was later on arrested vide memo Ex. PW4/H bearing Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 6 her signature at point A.
10. As per testimony of PW5Lady constable Neel Kamal, on 28.07.2005 on the request of Investigating Officer (in short IO) she reached at the spot at WZ 212, 213 Shakur Pur, Delhi. IO arrested the accused Joginder, Jagdish, Savitri and Neelam at the identification of complainantRaj Bala. She also relied upon Ex. PW4/C and PW4D. She took the personal search of the accusedNeelam and Savitri vide personal search memo EX. PW4/F and Ex. PW4G which bears his signature at point D. IO recorded his statement.
11. As per PW6Sh. Rama Shankar, Record clerk, BJRM Hospital, he had been deputed by Ms to depose on behalf of Dr. Anand who has left the BJRM hospital and whose present whereabouts were not known to the hospital. He had worked with DR. Anand in the hospital and he is aware of his handwritings and Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 7 signatures as he had seen him writing and signing during the course of official duties. ME No. 51695 dated 22.07.2005 of patient Raja Bala W/o Sh. Ajit is in the handwriting of Dr. Anand which is Ex. PW6/A bearing the signature of Dr. Anand at point A.
12. As per PW8/HCSurender Kumar, on 28.07.2005 on receipt of DD NO. 27B Ex. PW8/A, he alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar reached at the spot at WZ213, Shakurpur Village, Delhi from where they came to know that there was quarrel/fight took place and injured Rajbala was taken to BJRM hospital by PCR. He alongwith Ct. Raj Kumar reached at BJRM hospital. From there he obtained the ME NO. 51695 of injured Rajbala upon which doctor opined that injury was simple blunt and the patient Raj Bala was fit for statement. He recorded the statement of Smt. Rajbala Ex. PW4/A and preparedd rukka Ex. PW8/B bearing his signature at point A and sent the same through Ct. Raj Kumar to PS for registration of the case. He Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 8 alongwith complainant/injured Rajbala reached at the spot. He prepared site plan Ex. PW4/A1 at the instance of Smt. Rajbala. Ct. Raj Kumar alongwith copy of FIR and Tehrir and with Lct. Neel Kamal reached at the spot and handed over the same to him. He tried to search the accused persons but they could not found on the spot. He also tried to join the independent public persons but they could not be found. At the instance of complainant Raj bala accusedJoginder @ Lilu, Neelam and Savitri Devi were arrested from their house vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/B, C and D bears his signatures at point B. AccusedJagdish was not found on that day as he was absconded. He recorded the supplementary statement of Smt. Rajbala. The Lct. Neel Kamal took the personal search of accusedNeelam and Savitri vide memo Ex. PW4/F and G bearing his signature at point B. Personal search of Jogender was taken vide memo Ex. PW4/E bearing his signatures at point B. He recorded the statement of witnesses. All the Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 9 three accused persons were released on police bail. He recorded the statement of Lct. Neel Kamal.
On 29.07.2005 he visited the place of incident and two eye witnesses namely Deen Dayal and Bhupender met him and he recorded their statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. He also tried to search the accusedJagdish in the area but could not found. He came to know that accusedJagdish had gone to Gurgaon. On 11.08.2005 he went to the area i.e. Village Shakurpur and complainantRaj bala told him that accusedJagdish had come to his house. He arrested the accused Jagdish at the instance of Rajbala vide arrest memo Ex. PW4/H bears his signatures at point B and took his personal search vide memo Ex. PW8/C which bears his signatures at point A. AccusedJagdish was released on police bail on producing the surety. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the court.
13. I have heard the arguments and perused the material Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 10 available on record.
14. Before evaluating the evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the allegations levelled against the accused persons, I deem it necessary to have a reference to the relevant provisions of law which are attracted in the present matter. Sections 323 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code are the main provisions around which the facts of the present case are revolving. These Sections run as under : Section 323 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both."
14. As per prosecutionPW4complainant is the star material prosecution witness and as per her testimony, her statement is PW4/A and as per PW4/A, the accusedJagdish tried to stop the construction carried on and on intervention of the complainant, he abused her and Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 11 her labourers and she told the accused that he had no right to stop the construction work & to abuse them as she had got constructed the wall of her house. It is also stated that when she reached in the street of her house, she was surrounded and was beaten by the accused persons. While as per her testimony as PW4, she had not said anything regarding her surrounding in the gali by the accused persons. She only stated that on her intervention, the accused abused her and her testimony shows that incident took place at the spot of the construction. More so, as per the testimony of PW4Raj Bala, she was beaten by wooden plank (bali) but perusal of the same, it is found that wooden plank (bali) was not shown to the witness. It is relevant to pen down here that as per the testimony of PW4complainant, someone called the police and PCR Van took her to hospital while as per her crossexamination, she had called the police by dialing 100 number at the place of the occurrence and she had made a PCR call at Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 12 about 10.45 from a shop. She voluntarily said that she had made A PCR call from the chemist shop which is near her residence. During cross examination, she also stated that the police had reached at the place of occurrence and after that she reached the place of occurrence and she became unconscious when the accused persons gave beatings to her and she got conscious at the Jahangirpuri hospital. She also stated during crossexamination that she did not remember the time at which the police reached at the spot and how much time police remained on the spot and how many police persons were there as she was unconscious. She also stated that she did not know who actually got her admitted in the hospital and no one had gone to take her back from the hospital and she came back to her house by three wheeler scooter and she was discharged from the hospital at about 4.00 PM on the day of the incident. She also stated that her fatherinlaw had three brothers who reside in the same locality but no one came to rescue Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 13 her.
Here, view of the Court is that it is highly unbelievable that such an alleged incident took place that a lady was beaten by four accused persons and no one from here own family came to rescue her.
15. It is to pen down here that as per the testimony of PW8, PW1 and PW2 are the eye witnesses who met on 29.07.2005, when IO visited the spot and both of them turned hostile and they stated that the complainant got slipped and got injuries and they did not support the case of prosecution even during crossexamination of ld. APP for State.
16. It is relevant to pen down here that as per PW4, no one was present at the spot except the four labourers and two masons but in the present matter, neither any labourer nor any mason has been examined by the prosecution.
17. Section 341 of Indian Penal Code: Punishment for Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 14 wrongful restraint "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
18. In the present matter, PW4 during crossexamination stated that after recording her statement, IO never visited her house and IO also stated that no case is made out as no witness was present at the spot and it is to note that as per site plan shows, Mark B is that place where the incident took place and MarkA is the place where dispute arose regarding construction of the wall and A1 is the place where construction works were going on. It is relevant to pen down here that as per PW4/Acomplaint, the accused persons beaten her in the Gali but as per her testimony as PW4, all accused persons beaten and abused her at the spot of construction.
19. In light of above discussions, I am of the considered view Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 15 that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons and testimony of witnesses are not consonance with each other as two eye witnesses i.e. PW1 and PW2 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution as stated before. More so, there are major contradictions in statement of the star material witness i.e. PW4 the complainant. At the one hand, she testified that someone called the police and PCR van took her to hospital while during crossexamined, she stated that the incident took place at 11.00 am and she herself made a PCR call at around 10.45 AM from chemist shop which is nearby her residence. She also stated that she became unconscious when the accused persons gave beatings to her and she regained his conscious when she was in Jahangirpuri hospital. This is clear major contradiction in her statement because as per her testimony, when she was unconscious after allegedly beating by all accused persons then how she made a Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 16 call to police from a chemist shop. More so, as per her statement Ex. PW4/A, the accused persons beaten her outside her house in Gali but as per her testimony as PW4, all accused persons beaten and abused her at the spot of construction work. So, all these create doubts and it is settled law that benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution is to be given to the accused in all probabilities. Hence in the given facts and circumstances, all accused namely Jagdish, Joginder Singh @ Leelu, Savitri and Neelam are acquitted for offence U/s 323/341/34 IPC. All accused persons are on bail in this case. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case property, if any be confiscated. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Court Today on this 10th November 2014 (REKHA) CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 17 (NORTHWEST) : ROHINI:DELHI Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 18 Fir No. 726/05 State vs. Jagdish etc. page 19