Delhi District Court
Title State vs . Rahul & Anr. on 20 July, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. HIMANSHI TYAGI,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-03, EAST
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : DELHI
JUDGMENT
DLET020004182015 FIR No. 174/2013 Police Station Mandawali Unique Case ID No. 422/2016 Title State Vs. Rahul & Anr.
Name of complainant Smt. Amresh
Name of accused 1. Rahul
S/o Sh. Raj Kumar
R/o H. No. 103, Sanjay Colony,
JCB Chowk, Ballabh Garh,
Faridabad, Haryana.
2. Charan Singh
(Discharged in the present case
on 01.08.2017).
Date of institution of challan 21.07.2015
Date of Final arguments 07.07.2023
Date of pronouncement 20.07.2023
Offence complained of Under Section 323/451/34 IPC
Offence charged with Under Section 323 IPC
Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
Final order Convicted
BRIEF REASONS FOR THE DECISION OF THE CASE:-
Vide this judgment, I shall decide the case of the prosecution against accused namely Rahul pursuant to charge sheet FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 1 of 12 Digitally signed HIMANSHI by HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: 2023.07.20 15:25:46 -0700 filed by PS Mandawali U/s 323/451/34 IPC subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR No. 174/2013.
02. The prosecution was set into motion in the present case on the basis of complaint Ex PW1/A of the complainant i.e. Smt. Amresh dated 26.03.2016. In her complaint, the complainant had alleged there is a property dispute between her and her in-laws and on 26.03.2016 at about 8:15 pm, the accused, who is the son of her brother-in-law, came inside the room of the complainant and her husband and started a heated conversation and verbally abused her husband. As per the above complaint, the accused Rahul was about to hit the husband of the complainant, so when the complainant intervened to save her husband, who was in ill health, the accused Rahul gave beatings on the stomach of the complainant and caused her bodily pain and hurt. The complainant has alleged that she was pregnant at the time of the incident. On the basis of aforesaid allegations the present case was registered and investigation was taken up. Accordingly, after the investigation, police filed the present charge sheet against the accused Rahul and Charan Singh for commission of offences punishable U/s 323/451/34 IPC.
03. Upon appearance of the accused persons, complete set of charge sheet and other documents were supplied to the accused persons. After hearing arguments, notice for offence punishable under section 323 IPC was framed against the accused Rahul by the Ld. Predecessor on 01.08.2017, to which he pleaded not guilty and Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 15:26:00 -0700 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 2 of 12 claimed trial. Vide the above mentioned order, accused Charan Singh was discharged in the present case.
04. The prosecution had cited total 10 witnesses in the present matter. In the statement recorded u/s. 294 Cr.PC, the accused had admitted the genuineness and correctness of the preparation of MLC and opinion given by the concerned Gynaecologist on the MLC No. 4576/2013 and report of Radiologist and accordingly, Dr. Nidhi, Dr. M.N. Singh and Dr. Kavita were dropped from the list of witnesses. PW Sanjay Kumar expired during trial on 11.08.2014, as per Death Verification Report. During the course of trial prosecution therefore examined only six witnesses in support of its case.
EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IN BRIEF:-
05. PW1 Smt. Amresh is the complainant, who deposed that on 26.03.2013, accused Rahul came to her room in inebriated condition and started beating her with the legs and fist blows and at that time, she was three months pregnant and her husband was sick and was also present in their room. She deposed that accused Rahul hit her with the fist and blow in her stomach, due to which, she felt pain. She further deposed that accused Rahul had also beaten her husband and was abusing her and her husband and was saying "niklo is ghar se". She deposed that meanwhile, her father in law namely Charan Singh also came to her room and he also started abusing her and husband and he also said " tum log yahan se nikalte Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 3 of 12 2023.07.20 15:26:07 -0700 kyo nahi, bhaago yahan se". She deposed that thereafter, she made a call at 100 number and PCR reached and took her and her husband to LBS hospital where her medical examination was got conducted and her MLC was prepared. She deposed that some other police officials had also come in the hospital and police had recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A in the hospital and the case was registered. She deposed that she had shown the spot of the incident to the IO. The witness was cross-examined by the defence Counsel. In her cross examination she admitted the suggestion that her in laws did not allow her and her husband to live in their matrimonial house. She denied the suggestion that she felt pain due to her pregnancy and also denied filing the present case under her father's pressure.
06. PW2 is Ct. Vijay Pal, who deposed that on 26.03.2013, at about 8.45 p.m. after receiving DD entry pertaining to quarrel, he alongwith IO/SI Naveen Kumar went to the spot, where they met some public persons and IO made enquiry from them about the quarrel, upon which, it was revealed that the injured persons had already been taken to LBS hospital by the PCR van. He deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO went to the LBS hospital, where they met the injured lady, examined her, recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A, endorsed rukka Ex. PW2/A and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR. He deposed that he went to the PS, got the FIR registered, returned back to the hospital with copy of FIR and original rukka. He deposed that complainant had revealed the name and address of accused Rahul and thereafter, he alongwith IO Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 4 of 12 15:26:17 -0700 went to the spot and met accused Rahul. He deposed that IO interrogated the accused, arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and released the accused on police bail. He further deposed that IO had recorded his statement u/s. 161 Cr.PC in the police station. The witness was cross-examined by the defence Counsel.
07. PW3 is ASI Shamsher Ali, who was the Duty Officer and he has proved the registration of FIR No. 422/2016 Ex. PW3/B, endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW3/A and certificate u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. PW3/C. The witness was not cross- examined by the accused despite opportunity.
08. PW4 is retired ASI Hukan Chand, who deposed that on 30.05.2021, the investigation of the present case was marked to him. He deposed that during investigation, he obtained the result on MLC of injured Amresh. He deposed that as the investigation was complete in other aspects, therefore, he prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the Court. The witness was cross- examined by the defence Counsel, wherein, he admitted the suggestion that he has no personal knowledge of the incident.
09. PW5 SI Naveen Kumar, who deposed that on 26.03.2013, on receiving DD No. 46-A, he alongwith Ct. Vijay went to the spot, where he came to know that the injured were taken to LBS hospital by the PCR officials. He deposed that they went to the LBS hospital and collected the MLC of injured Smt. Amresh and thereafter, he recorded the statement Ex. PW1/A of the injured. He Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 5 of 12 15:26:24 -0700 further deposed that on the basis of the said statement, he prepared the rukka and handed over the rukka to Ct. Vijay for registration of FIR. He further deposed that meanwhile, he alongwith the complainant and her husband went to the place of occurrence. He deposed that he interrogated the accused Rahul and his grandfather Charan Singh. He further deposed that Ct. Vijay came at the spot and handed over him copy of FIR and original rukka. He deposed that accused Rahul was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/B and released on police. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW5/A at the instance of the complainant. He further deposed that after giving the relevant instructions to the complainant party and accused party, he alongwith Ct. Vijay departed for PS and after reaching the PS, he recorded the statement of Ct. Vijay and husband of the complainant. The witness was cross-examined by the defence Counsel. In his cross examination he denied the suggestion that he has investigated the case at the behest of the complainant or her father.
10. PW6 is Dr. S. Prasad, who deposed that on 26.03.2013, he had examined the patient Amresh and referred the patient to SR Surgery and Gynecologist as she told that she was three months pregnant and prepared the MLC Ex. PW6/A. The witness was cross-examined by the defence Counsel.
11. After examination of the above six prosecution Digitally signed by HIMANSHI witnesses, PE was closed vide order dated 22.11.2022. HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 15:26:32 -0700 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 6 of 12
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED:-
12. Statements of accused persons were recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C wherein all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence were put to him to which he pleaded innocence and stated he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present matter due to some property dispute between the complainant and his grandfather. Evidence has been led by the accused in his defence.
13. In his defence, accused has examined himself as DW1 and deposed that on day, he came to meet his grandfather at H. No. 358/4, Gali No. 1, near Hanuman Mandir, Mandawali, Fazalpur, Delhi. He deposed that he remained there for sometime and he saw that his uncle Sanjay was going to take his aunty Amresh to the doctor. He further deposed that after sometime, police officials came and asked him to got to PS alongwith themselves. He deposed that after reaching at the PS, he came to know that his aunty Amresh had filed a case against him. He deposed that his aunty has already filed a case against his grandfather Sh. Charan Singh, his father Sh. Raj Kumar and his younger uncle Sh. Hari Om and she wanted to pressurize them and therefore, she had filed the false and fabricated case against him also. He deposed that his grandfather also made a complaint against Amresh which is Mark DW1/B. He further deposed that after departure of his uncle and aunty, he had received a call from his friend Sachin to meet him and he went to his house and while returning when he reached in the gali, police Digitally officials met him and took me him to the PS. The witness was cross- HIMANSHI signed by HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 7 of 12 15:26:38 -0700 examined by the Ld. APP for the State.
ARGUMENTS:-
14. Final arguments heard from Sh. Satish Shukla, Ld. APP for the State and from Ld. Counsel for accused Sh. Ahsaas Hussain During final arguments, The Ld. APP urged that testimonies of the material witnesses have remained unchallenged in the cross examination and there is no reason to doubt their testimonies. The Ld. Counsel for the accused, on the other hand, argued that material contradictions have appeared in the testimonies of the PWs and prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
FINDINGS AND REASONS THEREOF:-
15. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions made before me. Accused is indicted for the offence U/s 323 IPC which provides punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. To decide whether the accused is liable to be convicted for offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC or not, reference to Section 319 IPC is essential. Section 319 IPC defines hurt and it lays down that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. A bare perusal of Section 319 IPC clearly shows that even causing bodily pain falls within the ambit of Section 319 IPC and if the said bodily pain is caused voluntarily then the said Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 8 of 12 2023.07.20 15:26:45 -0700 offence is punishable u/s. 323 IPC. No particular kind/ nature of injury is required/ essential for attracting the provisions of Section 323 IPC.
16. The testimony of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW 5 and PW6 is of formal in nature. PW2 had joined the investigation of the present case with the IO who has been examined as PW5. The testimony of the complainant, PW1 is the most important in the present case.
17. PW1 in her testimony recorded in court categorically stated that she was beaten up by the accused Rahul by legs and fist blows and due to this she had felt pain. As per testimony of PW1, the incident in question took place at about on 26.03.2013 and she soon made a PCR Call about this incident and also gave a written complaint on the same day itself. She was also medically examined on 26.03.2013. The testimony of PW1 is fully corroborated regarding PCR call by the testimony of PW2 as well as PW5 and both deposed about receipt of DD entry pertaining to quarrel. The nature of injuries sustained by PW 1 is simple as per the opinion of the doctor which is Ex A1. This injury is within the ambit of Section 323 IPC. In the detailed cross examination Ld defence counsel failed to shake the basic edifice of the prosecution case. Perusal of lengthy cross examination clearly shows that Ld defence counsel had placed much reliance/ stress upon the alleged family dispute between the parties. Whether the parties had property dispute between them or not is not of much significance in the present case. Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 15:26:52 -0700 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 9 of 12 The complainant has already stated the genesis of the present incident to be the property dispute and she has categorically stated in her complaint Ex PW 1/A that accused came and told them to leave the house due to the property dispute. The complainant has not tried to conceal this fact and hence the mere existence of the property dispute does not make the evidence of PW1 doubtful. Further, it is settled proposition of law that proving of motive for commission of an offence is essential in those cases in which the whole prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence. In the present case, the prosecution has not relied upon circumstantial evidence and in the present case the injured/ victim had appeared in the court and had deposed against the accused.
18. Perusal of testimony of DW1 shows that he had not stated anything about the incident in question. DW1 had made a sweeping statement that no such incident had taken place between the complainant and the accused and the present case is false and fabricated one filed by the complainant in order to pressurize the family members of the accused. The accused stated that his grandfather has already made a complaint against the complainant.
The examination in chief of DW1 in itself is not of much significance as the accused has merely denied the incident in question. He could not prove the existence of another version of the incident other than that of the prosecution. This mere denial therefore doesn't create any doubts over the story of the prosecution. Moreover, the defence taken by the accused could not Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 15:26:58 -0700 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 10 of 12 stand the test of the cross-examination and accused failed to depose anything material about his stand.
19. The first contention of Ld defence counsel that no public witness/ independent witness was asked by the IO to join the investigation of the present case and therefore, the whole prosecution case is without merits. It is true that PW1 in her cross examination had stated that some tenants had gathered at the spot at the time of the incident. However, she did not tell the names of the tenants, who have since vacated the premises, to the IO as he did not ask her. No suggestion was put, however to the IO in his cross examination regarding non joining of the public persons. Moreover, non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution when other prosecution witnesses are found to be trustworthy and reliable. At this stage reliance may be placed upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563 , it is observed and held by this Court that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that accused was falsely implicated. Also, in the case of Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh (2020) 9 SCC 627, after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. v. Pardeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808, it was observed and held by the Apex Court that the examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-
examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case. Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date:
2023.07.20 15:27:07 -0700 FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 11 of 12
20. The second contention of Ld defence counsel regarding contradiction in the testimony of PWs is also without merits. Perusal of testimony of PWs clearly shows that their testimony is clear, consistent and inspires confidence. Minor contradictions here and there do not make the testimony of otherwise reliable witnesses doubtful. Even otherwise the doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India.
21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved all the essential ingredients of offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC. The
22. Hence the accused Rahul is hereby convicted for offence punishable u/s. 323 IPC.
23. A copy of this Judgment be given to the convict free of cost today itself.
Pronounced in open Court on 20.07.2023.
The Judgement contains 12 pages and each page has been signed by the undersigned. Digitally signed by HIMANSHI HIMANSHI TYAGI TYAGI Date: 2023.07.20 15:27:17 -0700 (Himanshi Tyagi) Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (East), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi FIR No. 174/2013 State Vs. Rahul & Anr. Page 12 of 12