Delhi District Court
Brij Mohan Mehta V. Sukhdev Singh & Anr vs Present Complainant Case Was Filed By ... on 3 October, 2018
Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN, MM06, NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, NEW DELHI
Brij Mohan Mehta v. Dalip Singh & Ors.
CC no. 136/1/12 Date of Institution 23.01.1993
Police Station Adarsh Nagar Judgement Reserved on 25.08.2018
Sections 323, 342 and 506 (Part II) Date of Judgment 03.10.2018
read with Section 34 IPC
JUDGMENT
a) Serial Number of the case 4452/16
b) Date of offence 23.11.1992
c) Name of Complainant Brij Mohan Mehta son of Late Shri
Paras Ram Mehta, resident of H. No.
44, Ashok Park Extension, New
Delhi110026.
d) Name and address of the 1. Sukhdev Singh, son of Dalip accused Sngh, resident of B410, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi110033
2. Beant Singh @ Bittoo son of Dalip Singh, resident of B410, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi110033
3. Mrs. Amarjit Kaur, wife of Dalip Singh, resident of B410, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi110033 (Since deceased)
e) Offences complained of Sections 323, 342 and 506 (Part II) read with Section 34 IPC
f) Plea of accused persons Not guilty
g) Final Order Acquittal
h) Date of Order 03.10.2018 CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 1 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
Brief reasons for the decision--
1. Present complainant case was filed by the complainant Brij Mohan Mehta against four respondents namely Dalip Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh @ Bittoo and Amarjit Kaur. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant alleges that he is the coowner of plot bearing no. B411, Majlis Park, Azadpur, Delhi. On 23.11.1992, at about 1:45 PM he went to see his plot. He contends that he found the respondent, Dalip Singh present there. Dalip Singh, then asked the complainant to compromise the matter. However, the complainant refused. The sons of Dalip Singh, Sh. Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh came to the spot and started to abuse him. They dragged him to a room and gave beatings to him with kicks, fists and lathis. He states that he was threatened with his life. The complainant stated as the police authorities did not cooperate, he was forced to approach the court.
2. The complainant moved an application under Section 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC). Report was called from the concerned police authorities and this application was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.1993. Matter was consequently fixed for pre summoning evidence.
3. In presummoning evidence, the complainant examined three witnesses. He examined Kanwar Singh, Record Clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital as CW1, Constable Daya Ram as CW2 and himself as CW3. Thereafter, pre summoning evidence was closed and CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 2 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
respondents Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh @ Bittoo and Mrs.Amarjit Kaur, wife of Mr. Dalip Singh were summoned for the offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 506 (part II) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code vide order dated 02.02.1996. As the court felt there was no prima facie evidence, against respondent Sh. Dalip Singh, he was not summoned.
4. Accused persons put their appearance and matter was subsequently fixed for pre charge evidence. In pre charge evidence the complainant examined himself. He adopted his statement made on 20.05.1994. He was crossexamined by learned defence counsel for respondents. In precharge evidence, the complainant also examined one K.V. Singh, Medical Record Keeper from H. R. Hospital.
5. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for consideration on charge. Order on charge was passed on 03.03.2011 and matter was fixed for framing of charge for the offences punishable under Section 323, 342, 506(part II) read with Section 34 IPC for 30.04.2011. Respondents preferred revision petition against the order dated 03.03.2011. This revision petition was disposed by the learned Sessions Court vide order dated 09.02.2012, holding that, "...The trial court has also found the grounds that prima facie the accused persons have committed the offences punishable under Section 323/342/506/34 IPC. I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 03.03.2011". Consequently vide order dated 30.10.2012 charge for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 506(part II) read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons.
CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 3 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
6. In post charge evidence, the complainant examined himself as CW
1. He stated in his examinationinchief, that his father and uncle were coowners of plot no. B411, Majlis Park, Delhi. His father and uncle had filed a civil suit for possession against accused persons in the year 1966 as accused persons illegally trespassed and took possession of the abovementioned plot. In the year 1976, a decree was passed in favour of his father and uncle. It was ordered to the accused persons that the possession of abovementioned plot be handed over within 2 months. The father of accused persons namely Dalip Singh filed an appeal against the order of civil judge in the court of Ld. Additional District Judge from where the matter was remanded back for fresh trial. In the year 1989, a fresh decree of possession was passed in their favour. He stated that on 23.11.1992 he went to the said plot to check the status of construction in the plot. When he was standing at the gate of the plot, in the meantime one Sh. Dalip Singh came to the plot. He apprised him about the decrees passed against him in the year 1976 and 1989. He asked him to vacate the plot and to hand over the possession but Dalip Singh refused to hand over possession and asked him to instead compromise the matter. However, he refused to do this. In the meantime, two sons of Dalip Singh, namely Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh @ Bittoo came there. They started abusing him. They caught hold of him and started to take him inside the plot. Sukhdev Singh, Beant Singh and Dalip Singh took him to a constructed room in the plot. He was beaten by them by fists and kicks in the room. The wife of Dalip Singh, namely Amarjeet Kaur, started slapping CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 4 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
him. One of them picked a lathi and started beating him with it. Blood started oozing out of his face. In the meantime, Beant Singh took out a Kirpan, sat on his chest and put that Kirpan on his neck and asked him the reason for coming to the plot. He stated that they threatened him that if he ever returned, they would kill him and his family members. By this time, a police constable had come from Adarsh Nagar Police Station to the plot. CW1 was then taken in a car to the Police Station. He made a complaint to the Duty officer who however refused to record his complaint. The duty officer told him that DD no. 9A dated 23.11.1992, had already been lodged by accused Sukhdev Singh against him. He asked the police officials to take him to the hospital. He was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital. His MLC No. 8283 was prepared. He remained in the hospital for around 4 hours. He was again taken to police station Adarsh Nagar by the police official and his statement was recorded. Accused persons also planned to kill him in the police station. He was cross examined at length by learned defence counsel.
7. The complainant also examined Shri K. V. Singh Medical Record Clerk from Hindu Rao Hospital as CW3(wrongly mentioned). He produced the MLC of complainant and also identified the signatures of the examining doctor on the MLC, Ex. CW1/A.
8. During the course of trial accused Amarjeet Kaur expired. Matter stood abated against her vide order dated 16.01.2018.
9. Thereafter post charge evidence was closed. The accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh were examined under Section 313 read with Section 281, CrPC on 28.06.2018 and 06.07.2018 CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 5 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
respectively. Accused persons opted not to lead any defence evidence.
10.Consequently, matter was fixed for hearing final arguments.
Arguments of both the prosecution as well as the defence were heard at length. Record perused. Findings are as follows.
11.In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. Similarly in a complainant case also that burden has not shifted to the shoulders of the accused. It is for the complainant to show through his evidence that the it was the accused persons who were responsible for the alleged incident.
12.In the instant matter, to bring home the guilt of hurt caused, confinement and threats having been extended by accused persons, the essential ingredients of Sections 323, 342 and 506 (part II) need to be proved. Voluntarily causing hurt has been defined in Section 323 IPC. The necessary ingredients to prove the offence are as follows--
i. Hurt has been caused.
ii. Hurt was caused voluntarily.
iii. Accused intended to or knew it to be likely to cause hurt.
13.Hurt has been defined by the IPC under Section 319 IPC. Section states "whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."
14.Under Section 342 IPC, the prosecution would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that--
CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 6 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
i. That the accused voluntarily caused obstruction to the complainant.
ii. The obstruction was to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed.
iii. That the complainant was wrongfully restrained from proceedings beyond a certain circumscribing limits.
iv. That the accused persons committed offence in furtherance of their common intention.
15.The accused persons were charged under Section 506, part II IPC for threatening the complainant. The essential characteristics to prove said charge is as follows--
i. That the accused threatened someone to cause death or grievous hurt,
1. or to cause destruction of any property by fire,
2. or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment with life
3. or for imprisonment with a term which may extend to seven years
4. or to impute unchastity to a women or to the person, reputation or property of another in whom the former was interested, ii. That the accused did so with intent to cause alarm to the victim of offence CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 7 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
iii. That the accused did so to cause the victim to perform any act which he was not legally bound to do.
16.It is alleged by the prosecution that all the accused persons performed with offences in common intention thus attracting the provision of Section 34 IPC. This section deals with constructive criminal liability which provides that where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone. Reference be made to Nand Kishore v. State of M.P. (2011) 12 SCC 120.
17.In the instant matter, after framing of charge the complainant has only examined himself and through CW2 proved his MLC Ex. CW1/A. It is pertinent to closely examine the evidence given by the complainant and also to see it in comparison across the spectrum with the statements made by the complainant since filing this case and also earlier statements made before the police.
18.It is been stated by the complainant in his post charge evidence that he had gone to the plot in question. He was standing outside, when accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh @ Bittoo came and dragged him inside the plot. It is relevant to note that this is not in tune with the earlier version of the complainant, where the complainant alleged that Sh. Dalip Singh, father of accused Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh @ Bittoo had called him inside the plot, where later his sons, accused Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh @ Bittoo had also came.
CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 8 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
19.Then it is further stated by the complainant that accused Beant Singh @ Bittoo took out a kirpan, sat on the complainant's chest and put the kirpan to his neck. Whereas, earlier the complainant had alleged these two as separate incidents, where accused Beant Singh @ Bittoo had taken out a kirpan whilst he was standing and then later sat on him and tried to strangle him. There is thus an unexplained improvement in the version of the complainant in his latest evidence.
20.What is also noteworthy, is the chain of events after the alleged incident. As per the testimony of the complainant in the post charge evidence, the complainant stated that he was beaten for an hour nearly. He does not explain as to what seems to stop this attack, as to why he was eventually let go and as to where the accused persons went at that time. There is thus a gaping hole in the version of the complainant.
21.Furthermore, the complainant makes no statement that he went out of this room he was allegedly confined in. He merely states instead that a police constable reached there. It can only be presumed then that this police constable has then taken the complainant out from the room. This again is conjecture, as neither the police constable was examined nor did the complainant state so.
22.It is relevant also to note that the very presence of this constable at the spot is also unexplained. The questions that arise for consideration are--whether the presence of the constable was a mere coincidence? Or, Was the constable present, as there was a complaint which had been made in the police station? And if so, CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 9 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
Who made this complaint and when was there the opportunity to make it? Though there is no clear answer, however what can be derived from the testimony of the complainant seems to be that the police officer was there due to a complaint received in the police station. This derivation is being made as the complainant states in his testimony that when he was taken to the police station, the duty officer refused to record his statement and informed him that DD no. 9A dated 23.11.1992 had already been lodged by accused Sukhdev Singh in the police station. This statement of the complainant raises two additional queries--first, as per the allegation of the complainant he was being beaten in a locked room by the accused persons, at no point in his testimony did it come to the fore that any accused had left the room, then how could a report be lodged by accused Sukhdev in a police station when he was supposedly still beating the complainant. Secondly, the credibility of the DD no. 9A is sanctified further by the complainant's deposition where he does not allege any time lag between the incident having ended and him being taken to the police station. Infact, he states he was directly taken to the police station after the incident and the purportedly only came to an end when the police constable came there. This, therefore reduces the time for the accused persons to have made it to the police station before the complainant to launch the alleged false complainant DD no. 9A.
23.The complainant states that he was taken to Hindu Rao Hospital where he was medically examined. It is pertinent to note that MLC, Ex. CW1/A mentions that name of relative present as Ghanshyam CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 10 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
Meena. The presence of this person has neither been explained nor has he been examined.
24.Furthermore, based on DD no. 9A recorded on the date of the incident, another DD no. 52B was recorded wherein the complainant refused to give his statement to the police and stated that he will only do so in the police station in presence of his relatives. This fact also stands admitted by the complainant, though the complainant stated that he was not in a condition to record the statement, however MLC of the complainant states differently, where the patient was declared fit for statement by the doctor. The refusal of the complainant coupled with the other contradictions discussed above, hints to a delay which can give a person time to formulate a more credible alternate version of events.
25.The contradictions stated above in the testimony of the complainant if seen individually might seem to be minor variations, however when seen collectively it appears that there is a constant shift in the narration of the complainant's version. These contradictions are thus all material aberrations. There are also gaping holes in the version of the complainant, which casts a grave shadow of doubt.
26.It is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt. No matter how weak the defence of accused, the golden rule of the Criminal Jurisprudence is that the case of the prosecution has to stand on its own legs. In the instant matter, the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt.
CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 11 of 12 Brij Mohan Mehta v. Sukhdev Singh & Anr.
Thus, in view of the above discussion, accused persons Sukhdev Singh and Beant Singh @ Bittoo are hereby acquitted of all charges.
27.Surety bonds and personals bond stands cancelled. Sureties are discharged. Endorsement on sureties' documents if any be cancelled and original documents if any of sureties' retained on record be returned to the person entitled legally.
28.As per section 437A of the CrPC, as amended vide the Amendment Act, which came into force on 31.12.2009, the accused persons as well as their sureties' shall remain bound by their personal and the surety bond respectively for a period of six months from today.
29.File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in Open Court on 03.10.2018 Sadhika Jalan MM06/North District Rohini Courts/Delhi/03.10.2018 This is to certify that this judgment contains 12 pages and each page bears my signature.
Sadhika Jalan MM06/North District Rohini Courts/Delhi/03.10.2018 CC no. 136/1/12 Adarsh Nagar Police Station Page 12 of 12