Delhi District Court
State vs . (1). Krishna on 24 October, 2016
FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 IN THE COURT OF SHRI VIDYA PRAKASH: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI SC No. 57960/16 State Vs. (1). Krishna W/o Sh. Chunni Lal (2). Mahesh S/o Sh. Chunni Lal (3). Smt. Badli Devi W/o Sh. Chunni Lal All R/o B4/113, Sultanpuri Delhi. FIR No. : 410/10 Police Station : Sultanpuri Under Sections : 307/458/34 IPC Date of committal to Sessions Court : 15.09.2012 Date on which judgment was reserved: 24.10.2016 Date on which Judgment pronounced : 24.10.2016 JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
1. The factual matrix of the case as mentioned in the chargesheeted is as under:
(i). That on 27.11.2010 at about 3.47 am, intimation with regard State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 1 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 to quarrel at B328, Sultan Puri was recorded in PS Sultan Puri vide DD no. 6A ( Ex. PW6/A) and same was entrusted to HC Rajinder ( PW9) for necessary action. Accordingly, HC Rajinder alongwith Ct. Mukesh Kumar went to the place of information, where they came to know that injured had been removed by PCR Van to SGM Hospital. Accordingly, they went to said hospital and collected MLC of injured Smt. Lali Devi (PW1);
(ii). That on 27.11.2010 at about 10.15 am, complainant Smt. Lali herself visited PS, where HC Rajinder recorded her statement ( Ex. PW1/A), wherein she claimed that during said night at about 3.00 am, Krishna, Badli, Kallu @ Suraj and Mukki (JCL) forcibly entered inside her house and assaulted her. Mukki was armed with hockey and Suraj was armed with some sharp edged weapon. On the basis of said statement, FIR U/s 452/324/34 IPC was got registered and investigation was carried out by him. During investigation, he prepared rough site plan of the place of occurrence and recorded statements of relevant witnesses. On receipt of result on MLC of complainant, offence U/s 326 IPC was added during investigation;
(iii). It is further the case of prosecution that accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by Hon'ble Delhi High Court and they were formally arrested in this case. Weapon of offence State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 2 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 could not be recovered despite efforts made in this regard.
During investigation, relevant documents of FIR no. 170/10 U/s 324/34 IPC of PS Khyala were collected. The CDRs of mobile phone through which PCR call at 100 number was made, was also collected. After completion of investigation, chargesheet had been filed before the Court.
2. After compliance of section 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was assigned to Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
3. After hearing arguments on the point of charge, Ld. Predecessor of this Court framed the charge for the offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC against all the three accused persons vide order dated 16.05.2013, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses namely PW1 Smt. Lali Devi, PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh, PW3 HC Chottu Ram, PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra, PW5 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, PW6 ASI Jagmer Singh, PW7 Inspector Surya Prakash, PW8 HC Kailash, PW9 HC Rajender Prasad and PW10 SI Kulvir Singh, during trial.
5. It may be noted that Ld. Additional PP dropped PWs i.e. MHC(R) PS Sultanpuri and PW W/Ct. Kiran from the list of witnesses as both the said witnesses were formal in nature and had nothing to do with the investigation of the case.
State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 3 of 20FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016
6. Thereafter, statements U/s 313 Cr.P.C. of all the three accused persons were recorded, during which all the incriminating evidence were put to them. However, they denied the same and claimed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Their defence is of general denial. All the three accused persons also examined three DWs i.e. DW1 Sh. Khem Chand, DW2 Smt. Asha and DW3 HC Hukam Singh towards their defence.
7. I have already heard Sh. Pankaj Bhatia, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Ld. counsel Sh. Sachin Sharma, Adv. for all three accused persons. I have also considered the material available on record.
8. Before discussing the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it would be appropriate to discuss, in brief, the testimonies of the aforesaid star witnesses examined by prosecution during trial.
PUBLIC WITNESSES:
9. PW1 Smt. Lali Devi: She is the complainant/injured as per the case of prosecution. She deposed that on 27.11.2010 at about 3 am, she sent her husband to matrimonial house of her daughter Dhapi at Raghuvir Nagar after receipt of call that quarrel was going over there. The accused persons namely Badli, Mahesh @ Kalu, Mukesh and Krishna forcibly entered inside her house and assaulted her. She deposed that accused Mahesh @ Kalu was having surgical blade in her hand and Mukki State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 4 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 @ Mukesh was having baseball bat, whereas accused Krishna was having belan. Accused Kallu @ Mahesh gave number of surgical blade blows on her face and on her right hand and fled away from there. She became unconscious. On regaining consciousness, she found herself admitted in the hospital, where police came there but she was not in a position to give statement. On 27.11.2010 at about 10 am, she herself went to PS and gave statement Ex.PW1/A. She exhibited the photographs showing her in injured condition as Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW1/C. In her cross examination, she initially testified that she had no relation with accused Badli, but subsequently, she admitted that she is motherinlaw (Chachiya saas) of accused Badli in distant relationship. Accused Krishna, Mahesh and Mukesh are children of accused Badli. She denied to have disclosed the name of assailant as Karo @ Suraj in her initial police statement. She claimed that her statement was not properly recorded by police in SGM Hospital and she was also not in complete sense. Accused persons were residing 34 streets away from her house. Initially, accused Krishna had made a call at 100 number. She denied to have told the police in her police statement that she was beaten up by hockey. She admitted that many criminal cases were pending against her elder son Anil. She admitted that FIR No. 170/10, U/s 324/34 IPC in PS Khayala was registered against her son Anil during the same intervening night. Copy of said FIR was exhibited as Ex.PW1/DA. She denied the suggestion that she was given injuries by her son Anil who was in drunken State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 5 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 condition or that she lodged false complaint in order to save her son Anil or to pressurize the accused persons.
POLICE WITNESSES:
10. PW3 HC Chottu Ram: He is the Duty Officer and has proved factum regarding registration of FIR No. 413/10 in PS Sultanpuri. He proved copy of said FIR as Ex.PW3/A and his endorsement as Ex.PW3/B made on the rukka, vide kayami DD no. 21A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
11. PW6 ASI Jagmer Singh: He was working as Duty Officer in PS Sultanpuri in the intervening night of 26/27.11.2010. He proved DD No. 6A as Ex.PW6/A regarding quarrel at B328A, Sultanpuri, which was received from mobile number 9278818141. In his cross examination, he deposed that he does not know the name of the person to whom mobile number 92788 belonged.
12. PW7 Inspector Surya Prakash: He was the IO of case FIR No. 170/10 of PS Khayala. He deposed that on 27.11.2010, DD no. 4A regarding quarrel was entrusted to him. Accordingly, he rushed to the place of occurrence i.e. Near Shiv Mandir, B2, Raghuvir Nagar, wherefrom he went to GGS Govt. Hospital, Raghuvir Nagar and collected MLC of injured Mukesh S/o Sh. Chunni Lal. After discharge of injured Mukesh from the hospital on the same night, he alongwith injured Mukesh went to the spot, where accused Krishna had already reached. He prepared State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 6 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 site plan of the spot at the instance of injured Mukesh and also recorded the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. Injured Mukesh alongwith accused Krishna had left the spot at about 2.45 am. He also identified accused Krishna during trial.
13. PW8 HC Kailash: Accused persons were formally arrested by IO SI Kulbir Singh in his presence in police station on 28.08.2011 vide memos Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C.
14. PW9 HC Rajender Prasad: He alongwith Ct. Mukesh Kumar had rushed to the place of occurrence after receipt of DD No. 6A during intervening night of 26/27.11.2010. He deposed that from the spot, they went to SGM Hospital, where he collected MLC of injured Lali Devi, who was not in a position to make statement. In the morning, Smt. Lali Devi came to police station and made statement Ex.PW1/A. He prepared rukka Ex.PW9/A and got the FIR registered. He had also prepared site plan Ex.PW9/B at the instance of complainant. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
15. PW10 SI Kulvir Singh: He remained IO of this case from 05.02.2011 till filing of chargesheet. He deposed about the relevant investigation carried out by him. He deposed that on 06.02.2011, offence U/s 307 IPC was added in view of receipt of opinion regarding nature of injury as grievous. Accused persons, who were granted anticipatory bail from Hon'ble High Court, were formally arrested by him vide memos Ex.PW8/A to Ex.PW8/C. He collected CDRs of mobile number of PCR State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 7 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 caller.
In his cross examination, he deposed that he did not collect any other medical document from the hospital in respect of injured Lali. He could not tell the date when he made request to the company for providing call details record.
MEDICAL WITNESSES:
16. PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh: He had examined complainant/ injured Lali Devi in SGM Hospital, vide MLC Ex.PW2/C. According to said MLC, she was found having sustained the following injuries:
(i). Incised wound around 10 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over right side of neck and face.
(ii). Incised wound around 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm over right side of face.
(iii). Incised wound around 10 cm x 1 cm x 0.5 cm over left side of face.
(iv). Multiple superficial laceration over right forearm.
a). 10 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
b). 3 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
c). 6 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm.
In his cross examination, he deposed that injured was conscious at the time of her medical examination and she was discharged on the same day.State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 8 of 20
FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016
17. PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra: He had opined the nature of injuries sustained by complainant/injured Lali Devi as grievous on her MLC Ex.PW2/A. He has not been cross examined on behalf of accused persons despite grant of opportunity.
ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE:
18. PW5 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan: He produced relevant records concerning SIM connection no. 9278018141. He deposed that said SIM connection was issued in the name of Shankar S/o Sh. Chunni Lal as per Customer Application Form Ex.PW5/A. He exhibited CDRs of said connection number of the period 25.11.2010 to 30.11.2010 as Ex.PW5/C, Cell ID Chart in respect of said CDRs as Ex.PW5/D and Certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW5/E. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND CASE LAW CITED
19. After referring to the case of the prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet and the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record during trial, Ld Additional PP vehemently argued that prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of accused persons for the offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC. For the said purpose, he placed heavy reliance upon the testimony of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi who is complainant/victim in this case as well as the medical evidence in the form of testimonies of PW2 Dr. Brijesh Singh and PW4 Dr. Manoj Dhingra of SGM Hospital as also MLC Ex. PW2/A . He therefore, urged that the State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 9 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 accused persons should be convicted in this case.
20. Per contra, Ld defence counsel has vehemently argued the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of accused persons beyond pales of reasonable doubt. He argued that the testimony of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi is not trustworthy as she is an interested witness. He also argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of PW1 visavis the prosecution story propounded in the charge sheet. He further argued that accused persons were not even present at the scene of crime at the alleged date and time as Mukesh @ Mukki (JCL) was assaulted by Anil who is son of PW1, during the same night in the area of PS Khyala and thus, all the three accused persons alongwith Mukesh @ Mukki were in hospital and then at the scene of crime of the previous incident for which FIR no. 170/10 U/s 324/34 IPC was registered at PS Khayla on the statement of injured Mukesh @ Mukki. He therefore,urged that accused persons are entitled to be acquitted in this case.
21. Before dealing with the rival submissions made on behalf of both the sides, it may be noted that for the purpose of bringing home the guilt of accused persons for the offence punishable U/s 452/34 IPC, the prosecution was enjoined upon to prove the following ingredients:
i). That the accused persons committed criminal trespass by entering into the property in possession of complainant or they forcibly remained therein, with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession thereof ; and State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 10 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016
ii). That the accused persons had made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt or of assault or of wrongful restraint.
22. Likewise, it was essential for the prosecution to prove the following facts in order to prove their guilt for the offence punishable U/s 307/34 IPC:
i). That the accused persons attempted to cause death of any person;
ii). That the death was attempted to be caused by, or in consequence of, the act of the accused; and
iii). That such act was done by the accused persons with intention of causing death; or that it was done with intention of causing such bodily injury as: (a) the accused knew to be likely to cause death; or (b) was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or that the accused attempted to cause such death by doing an act known to him to be so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause (a) death, or (b) such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, the accused having no excuse for incurring the risk of causing such death or injury.
23. Now adverting back to the facts of the present case. As noted above, PW1 Smt. Lali Devi is the sole star witness examined by prosecution in this case. Thus, the entire case of prosecution is rested on the testimony of this witness. Thus, it has to be seen by the Court as to State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 11 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 whether the testimony of said witness inspires confidence or not.
24. No doubt, PW1 has testified during trial that all these three accused persons had forcibly entered inside her house during the intervening night of 26/27112010 and had assaulted her. It is also proved on record that PW1 had sustained injuries on her face and on her right hand as per her MLC Ex. PW2/A and the nature of those injuries is opined to be grievous by PW4. However, the question arises as to whether the prosecution has been successful in establishing beyond shadow of doubt that these accused persons had caused those injuries to PW1 during the alleged incident. The answer, in the opinion of the Court, has to be in negative for the reasons to be discussed hereinafter.
25. Firstly, in her initial police statement ( Ex. PW1/A), PW1 Smt Lali Devi claimed that accused Krishan, Badli, Kallu @ Suraj & Mukesh had forcibly entered inside her house. Out of said assailants, Mukki was armed with hockey. Accused Krishan and Badli caught hold of both her hands and Mukki gave blows on her back and other parts of the body from the hockey, whereas Kallu @ Suraj inflicted several blows on her face with some sharp edged object. When she raised alarm, all four of them fled away from there and someone, after hearing the alarm, made PCR call at 100 number after which she was removed to SGM Hospital by PCR Van. Record shows that prosecution has filed supplementary statement U/s 161 Cr.PC dated 07.05.2011 of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi alongwith chargesheet, wherein she claimed that it was Kalu @ Mahesh S/o Sh.
State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 12 of 20FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 Chunni Lal and not Kallu @ Suraj who was amongst the assailants. She also claimed therein that Mukki @ Mukesh was armed with baseball bat, whereas Kalu @ Mahesh was armed with sharp edged weapon. However, when PW1 Smt. Lali Devi entered into witness box during trial, she deposed that Mahesh @ Kalu was having surgical blade in his hand, Mukki was having baseball bat and Krishna was having belan. She further deposed that all the assailants assaulted her and gave several blows on her back and accused Kalu @ (Mahesh) also inflicted several blows with surgical blade on her face and on the right hand and fled awayafter she became unconscious. In her cross examination, she specifically denied to have told the police in her initial statement the name of assailant as Kallu @ Suraj. Thus, PW1 is found to have made considerable improvements in her testimony recorded during trial visavis her initial police statement Ex. PW1/A, in as much as she nowhere claimed in Ex. PW1/A that accused Krishna was armed with belan. She claimed in her police statement Ex. PW1/A that Mukki was armed with hockey but testified during trial that Mukki was armed with baseball bat. In her police statement Ex PW1/A, she alleged that Mukki had inflicted blows with hockey on her back and other parts of body but no specific role has been attributed by her to Mukki in her testimony recorded during trial. The name of the assailant has been changed from Kallu @ Suraj to Mahesh @ Kalu.
26. Although, Ld. Additional PP vehemently argued that PW1 Smt. Lali Devi had also made supplementary statement dated 07.05.2011, State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 13 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 wherein she had clarified that the name of assailant was Mahesh @ Kalu and Mukki was having baseball bat with him but said argument of Ld Additional PP is without any substance for the simple reason that PW1 Smt Lali Devi categorically denied the suggestion put to her on behalf of accused persons that she had disclosed the name of assailant as Kalu @ Suraj in her initial statement made before police. PW1 nowhere claimed in her entire deposition made during trial that she had also made any supplementary statement dated 07.05.2011 during the course of investigation. Even if the supplementary statement dated 07.05.2011 is taken into consideration, the said supplementary statement is found to have been made after a gap of more than five months from the date of alleged incident and no explanation is forthcoming either from PW1 Smt. Lali Devi or from any other prosecution witness including IO i.e. PW10 SI Kulvir Singh as to why PW1 Smt. Lali Devi could not disclose the correct name of assailant as Mahesh @ Kallu in her initial statement Ex. PW1/A. This is more so when PW1 has admitted in her cross examination that accused persons were not only previously known to her but were also her distant relatives and she had been knowing all the children of accused Badli. Moreover, PW1 has also disclosed the names of children of accused Badli Devi during her cross examination. In this backdrop, there was no occasion for her to disclose the name of son i.e. Kallu @ Suraj of accused Badli Devi in her initial police statement Ex. PW1/A, instead of other son namely Mahesh @ Kalu of accused Badli Devi. Similarly, there is also no State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 14 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 explanation whatsoever as to why the weapon of offence was disclosed as hockey and under what circumstances, PW1 came to know that it was a baseball bat. It may be noted here that baseball bat and hockey are entirely two different weapons of offence having no similarity whatsoever.
27. Secondly, in her police statement, PW1 Smt Lali Devi claimed that she had raised alarm of " BachaoBachao" on which all the four assailants fled away from the spot and after hearing her alarm, someone had made PCR call at 100 number on which PCR Van removed her to SGM Hospital. However, she testified during trial that assailants had fled away from the spot after she became unconscious and when she regained her consciousness, she was admitted in the hospital.
28. Thirdly, it is the case of prosecution as mentioned in the charge sheet as well as in the rukka Ex. PW9/A that PW1 Smt. Lali Devi did not make any statement to the police in SGM Hospital and she herself had visited PS at about 10.00 am on 27.11.2010 and made statement Ex. PW1/A. However, PW1 testified during her cross examination that her statement was not correctly recorded by police at SGM Hospital as she was not in her complete senses at that time and had signed the said statement on the asking of police official.
29. Fourthly, It is recorded in statement Ex. PW1/A that Mukki was armed with hockey but she denied the suggestion during cross examination that she had told the police in her previous statement on the basis of which FIR was recorded that she was beaten up by hockey. She State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 15 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 rather volunteered that she had told the police that she was beaten up by baseball bat and police recorded wrong statement.
30. Fifthly, the presence of accused persons at the alleged place of occurrence on the alleged date and time also seems to be doubtful on the basis of evidence brought on record. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place at about 3.00 am during the intervening night of 26/27 112010 when it is alleged that all these three accused persons alongwith Mukesh @ Mukki @ Ramesh (JCL) had forcibly entered inside the house of complainant Smt. Lali Devi (PW1) and attempted to commit her murder. It has been established on record as also admitted by PW1 Smt. Lali Devi in her cross examination and also by PW10 SI Kulvir Singh in his cross examination that Anil who is son of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi, had caused injury on the face of Mukesh @ Mukki @ Ramesh (JCL) with surgical blade at about 12.35 am during the same intervening night of 26/27112010 in the area of PS Khayla, whereafter JCL Mukesh @ Mukki was removed to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, Raghubir Nagar, where PW7 Inspector Surya Parkash ( the then SI) alongwith Ct. Rajesh No. 979/W had reached there. For the said purpose, the testimony of PW7 assumes relevancy. He has deposed during trial in this case that after recording statement of injured Mukesh @ Mukki in the hospital, he alongwith said injured had gone to the spot where accused Krishna had already reached. He had prepared site plan in case FIR no. 170/10 of PS Khyala, whereafter JCL/injured Mukesh @ Mukki @ Ramesh alongwith State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 16 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 accused Krishna left the spot at about 2.45 am. The prosecution has also filed on record one signed statement dated 28.02.2011 of SI Surya Parkash (PW7) recorded by IO (PW10) of this case. In the said statement, SI Surya Parkash has stated that DD no. 4A was received in PS Khyala on 27.11.2010 at 12.44 am regarding inflicting of blade injury to one boy, whereafter he alongwith Ct. Rajesh No. 1074/W initially went to the place of information and thereafter, to Guru Gobind Singh Hospital, where he had recorded statement of injured Mukesh @ Mukki S/o Sh. Chunni Lal at 2.10 am. Thereafter, he alongiwith Ct. Rajesh, complainant and family members of complainant i.e. Mukesh @ Mukki had prepared site plan of the place of occurrence. Ct. Rajesh had returned back to the spot after registration of FIR at about 2.35 am and thereafter, he had supplied copy of FIR to injured/complainant Mukesh @ Mukki and thereafter, they were relieved at 2.45 am. The place of occurrence of present case is situated in the area of PS Sultan Puri, whereas the place of occurrence which took place against JCL Mukesh @ Mukki during the same intervening night, is situated in the area of PS Khyala. It has been established on record that JCL Mukesh @ Mukki alongwith accused Krishna and other family members were present at the place of occurrence of FIR no. 170/10 of PS Khyala till 2.45 am. Thus, it is quite unbelievable that accused Krishna and JCL Mukesh @ Mukki alongwith remaining two accused would have reached the house of PW1 Smt Lali Devi situated in Sultan Puri at 3.10 am duly armed with weapons as alleged by her in her police statement Ex.
State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 17 of 20FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 PW1/A and assaulted her.
31. Moreover, it is also quite unnatural and thus, not acceptable that JCL Mukesh @ Mukki who had received several injuries with sharp edged weapon like blade on his face and had received medical treatment from hospital in between 1.00 am and 2.00 am, would be in a position to visit the house of complainant after covering such a long distance and that too being armed with hockey/baseball bat and inflicted injuries to PW1 Smt. Lali Devi in such a injured condition.
32. Sixthly, in her police statement Ex. PW1/A, PW1 Smt. Lali Devi claimed that it was only after hearing alarm raised by her, someone had made PCR call at 100 number after the assailants had fled away from the spot. However, the testimony of PW5 who is Nodal Officer of Tata Tele Services Limited, would suggest that PCR call at 100 number was made by none other than the family member of the accused persons from mobile no. 9278818141. Same mobile number is mentioned in DD no. 6A ( Ex. PW6/A). The said mobile connection is shown to be in the name of Sh. Shanker S/o Sh. Chunni Lal. It may be noted here that said Shanker would be the brother of accused persons namely Krishna and Mahesh @ Kalu as their parentage and residential address are same. Even otherwise, PW1 Smt. Lali Devi has also admitted in her cross examination that it was accused Krishna who had made PCR call at 100 number.
33. Seventhly, it is an admitted fact on record that FIR no. 170/10 U/s 324/34 IPC, copy of which is Ex. DW3/A, had already been registered State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 18 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 against Anil who is son of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi at PS Khyala somewhere in between 2.00 am 2.30 am or so during the same intervening night. The incident in question is alleged to have taken place at 3.10 am i.e. after the registration of FIR (Ex. DW3/A) at PS Khyala against son of the complainant. In this background, the possibility of lodging of false FIR against the accused persons by complainant in order to save her son Anil in FIR no. 170/10 (supra) as well as to pressurize accused persons to settle the said previous matter, cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the defence raised by accused persons that they were not even present at the place of occurrence at the alleged date and time, has been substantiated by them by examining DW1 Sh. Khem Chand and DW2 Smt. Asha who are residing in their neighbourhood during the relevant period. Both the said witnesses deposed that during the intervening night of 26/27112010 in between 12.30 am till 1.30 am, accused Krishna, Badli and Mahesh had informed them that somebody had caused injury to Mukesh @ Mukki. DW1 had accompanied all these three accused persons in TSR to Raghubir Nagar after handing over key of their house to DW2 Smt. Asha. DW1 categorically deposed that all of them had left PS Khyala at about 6.30 am and came back to Sultan Puri. Nothing material could be elicited during their cross examination on behalf of State so as to disbelieve their testimonies in that regard.
34. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is totally in agreement with the submission raised on behalf of accused persons that it State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 19 of 20 FIR No. 413/10 U/s 307/458/34 IPC; P.S. Sultanpuri D.O.D. 24.10.2016 would not be safe to rely upon the testimony of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi who is the only star witness of prosecution examined during trial. She being mother of Anil against whom FIR no. 170/10 had already been registered at PS Khyala on the complaint of JCL Mukesh @ Mukki, had every reason to lodge false FIR against these accused persons in order to save her son from their conviction in said other criminal case. Brushing aside the testimony of PW1 Smt. Lali Devi, there is no cogent evidence whatsoever available on record so as to connect these accused persons to the injuries sustained by the victim Smt. Lali Devi.
35. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has been unsuccessful in bringing home the guilt of accused persons namely Krishna, Mahesh & Smt. Badli Devi for the offences punishable U/s 452/307/34 IPC beyond pales of reasonable doubt. Consequently, they are hereby acquitted for the said charge by giving them benefit of doubt. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance of Section 437A Cr.PC.
Announced in open Court today
On 24.10.2016 (Vidya Prakash)
Additional Sessions Judge04 (North)
Rohini Courts, Delhi
State V/s Krishna etc. (" Acquitted.") Page 20 of 20