Delhi District Court
Fir No. 204/16 Ps Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo on 28 February, 2023
FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
IN THE COURT OF VIPLAV DABASS: ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE : FAST TRACK COURT: SOUTH-WEST
DISTRICT DWARKA COURTS: NEW DELHI
CNR No. DL-SW01-001677-2017
SC No. 120/17
State vs Rishipal @ Bittoo
S/o Late Sh. Surender Singh
R/o RZ-J-38, Gali No. 13,
Defence Enclave, Village
Tajpur, Delhi
FIR No. 204/16
PS Chhawla
Under Section 313/323 IPC
Date of Institution 30.11.2016
Date of committal to sessions 08.02.2017
court
Date of transfer to this court 23.09.2022
Date of Reserving Judgment 28.02.2023
Date of pronouncement 28.02.2023
Final Order /Judgment Acquitted
1/43
FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
JUDGMENT
FACTUAL MATRIX
1. On the intervening night of 12/13.05.2016, at about 10.00 am, at the main road, Defence Colony Enclave, Tajpur, Delhi, accused voluntarily hit on the abdomen of complainant Hema causing hurt to miscarry and had also caused simple hurt to Dharmender Sharma and Samunderi Devi.
2. On the basis of the said allegations, present FIR was registered and a charge-sheet for offences punishable u/s 313/323 IPC was filed after usual investigation.
INITIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS AND CHARGE
3. The Court of Ld. Magistrate took cognizance of the above-said offences punishable u/s 313/323 IPC and provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C were complied. Thereafter, the matter was committed to the Ld. Sessions Court. After hearing arguments on charge, as a prime facie case was made out against the accused persons for offences punishable u/s 313/323 IPC, charge was accordingly framed by the Ld. Predecessor Court against the accused to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In order to prove the guilt of the accused u/s 313/323 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following essential ingredients 2/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo of the said Section:
Section 313 IPC:-Causing miscarriage without woman's consent:-
The woman was with child; that accused caused woman to miscarry; that accused did it voluntarily; that it was not caused in good faith for saving the life of the woman; and that the woman did not consent to the miscarriage Section 323 IPC:-Voluntarily causing hurt That the accused caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim and that accused did so with intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that they would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. During the course of the trial, prosecution examined 07 witnesses to prove aforesaid ingredients for substantiating the accusations levelled against the accused.
6. PW-1/Smt. Hema is one of the three injured and the complainant. She deposed that in the year 2016, her husband Dharmender Sharma purchased a plot measuring 50 sq. Yd (gaj) from Dharampal for total amount of Rs. 13 lacs, that they paid complete amount to Dharampal, that accused Rishipal @ Bittoo, was residing in her neighbourhood and that Rishipal demanded Rs. 55,000/- as commission of the said transaction for about 6 months.
She further deposed that on 12.05.2016, accused Rishipal along with 10-12 persons came at her plot and broke the 3/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo door/gate and boundary wall of said plot, that she made a complaint in this regard to the police, that on the same day, in the night at about 10.00pm, that she along with her husband went to take water from the road side tap where accused Rishipal came and caught hold of her husband and started beating Dharmender, that thereafter, when she tried to save her husband/Dharmender, Rishipal kicked her on her abdomen, that at that time, she was pregnant for about 1 1/2 monhts, that due to the said kick, she fell down, that her grandmother Samunderi Devi also came there and accused pushed her due to which she received injuries, that husband of complainant/Dharmender made a call to police, that in the mentime, the son of Rishipal namely Goldy also came there, that then the police reached there and took Rishipal and his son to RTRM hospital, that she along with her husband and grandmother went to RTRM hospital, Jaffar Pur Kalan, that police took them (complainant and her family) to DDU where she came to know that she had suffered miscarriage and doctor did the abortion, that police recorded her statement Ex. PW-1/1 and that she had shown the place of incident to the police. She correctly identified the accused during her evidence in the Court.
During her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel she deposed that she along with her family was residing at above mentioned address for last 15 years, that the plot which they had purchased from Dharampal was adjacent to their house, that they were residing in 30 sq. Yd house, that she got married in year 2003, that they had three children, that her eldest daughter 4/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo was aged about 14 years, that one son was about 12 years old, other was 10 year old and that their relatives were also residing in the same locality. She admittd that she told to the police that Rishipal, who helped in the said deal, was demanding Rs. 55,000/-, that Rishipal was demanding the said amount from six months and that after purchasing the plot and they had constructed the boundary wall and installed a gate.
She further deposed that the house of accused Rishipal was situated in the next gali of their house and that her brother Jeetu had made a call to the police on 12.05.2016 but she does not know what her brother Jeetu had stated to the police. She admitted that the incident had occurred in the front of H.No. J- 38, Defence Enclave. She further deposed that at the time of incident, she along with her husband was present at the spot.
She admitted that they used to go to take water from the roadside tap at 10.00 pm, everyday and other people of the locality also used to take water from there. She further deposed that no other person from the locality was present at the spot on that day at the time of incident and that accused Rishipal had torn the clothes of her husband and slapped him on his face and also gave kick blows on other parts of his body. She admitted that in the incident her husband received injuries on various parts of body and her husband was treated at RTRM hospital, Jaffar Pur Kalan. She deposed that she does not know whether any MLC of 5/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo her husband was prepared by the doctor or not and that she does not know the house number of accused.
She further deposed that after about 1 month of pregnancy, she came to know regarding the same when she tested on UPT and that she had not gone to any doctor for the pregnancy test or for any medical assistant. She admitted that she had not received any other injury on any part of her body. She deposed that accused kicked only on her abdomen, that she does not know whether accused and his son got injured in the incident, that her grandmother Samunderi Devi came at the spot when she fell down due to kick given by accused, that her statement was recorded by the police on the same day and that she does not know when the FIR was registered.
She admitted that because of same incident a case was registered against her and her relatives by the accused Rishipal. She denied that she alongwith her relatives went to the house of accused Rishipal ie J-38, Defence Enclave and had beaten accused and that she had falsely implicated the accused in the present case.
She further deposed that doctor conducted her test in hospital, that she does not remember the phone number of her brother by which he called the police and that on the next day morning ie 13.05.2016, she was discharged from DDU hospital.
6/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo She further deposed that she was illiterate and she does not remember the number of pages on which she had made her signatures on the aksing of police. She denied that she was deposing falsely, that she was not pregnant at the time of incident or that accused had not given any kick blow to her or her husband and that the present case has been filed just to take revenge from the accused.
7. PW-2 Sh. Dharmender Sharma is one of the injured and was the husband of complainant. He deposed that on 13.05.2016, he was on walk with his dog in front of his house on road, that the time would have been 10.00 pm, that his wife Hema came there at water tap installed on the corner of the road to collect fresh water, that accused Rishipal who resides in gali no. 13 came there and started quarrelling with his wife and started asking for Rs. 55,000/- as commission, that Rishipal had arranged one plot deal, the payment of which was made by them and no commission was to be given to Rishipal, that however, Rishipal used to demand Rs. 55,000/- as commission, that after hearing the noise, he also came at the spot, that Rishipal gave 2-3 slaps to his wife Hema, that in the meantime, his wife's granmother (amma) also came there who also fell on the ground because of said quarrel, that Rishipal also gave a leg blow on the stomach of his wife, that in the meantime, the son of accused Rishipal namely Rishabh also came at the spot, that Rishabh took away Rishipal from the spot, that his brother in law Jeetu came 7/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo there after hearing the noises and that Jeetu called the police at 100 number.
He further deposed that PCR Van came there and they took them to the RTRM hospital, that after some medical treatment his wife and Amma were referred to DDU hospital, that his wife was pregnant and because of said assault, bleeding started and thereafter, she suffered miscarriage in DDU hospital and that the police recorded statement of his wife in DDU hospital. He correctly identified the accused in the Court.
During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused he deposed that he was residing at above said address along with his family since 2004, that he had purchased a 50 sq. Yd plot in year 2016 for the amount of Rs. 13 lacs, that on 13.05.2016, accused Rishipal along with 3-4 persons had broken the boundary wall of said plot and at that time he was at his work place, that the wall was broken in the presence of his wife Hema, that his wife had called the police by calling at number 100, that on 13.05.2016, his wife along with his brother in law had gone to police station and lodged FIR regarding the said incident, that the FIR number of said incident is 204/2016 of PS Chhawla and that the copy of said FIR might have been given by his wife to the IO in present case.
He admitted that Rishipal was asking for commission for the said plot purchased by him and due to which there was a 8/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo dispute between them and that her relatives were also residing nearby to his house.
He denied that he along with his relatives had not gone to the house of accused Rishipal on 12.05.2016 or that had given beatings to Rishipal, his son and his wife.
He further deposed that no injury was caused to him and no MLC was prepared and that police officials did not ask for the torn shirt which he was wearing at the time of incident.
He further deposed that he got married in the year 2003 and he had three children ie one daughter aged about 14 years and two sons of 10 and 12 years of age. He admitted that it came to his knowledge at DDU hospital that his wife was pregnant.
He admitted that after the complaint of accused Rishipal dated 12.05.2016, FIR No. 325/16 of PS Chhawla under section 325/34 IPC, was registered against his wife Hema and his relatives, that they are on court bail, that in the said case accused Rishipal and his son Rishabh got injured and that they were also taken to RTRM hospital.
He denied that they had lodged false case against accused Rishipal on 13.05.2016 in order to save themselves from the FIR lodged by the accused against them, that no such incident had taken place with his wife or that she was not kicked on the stomach or that she was not pregnant at the time of incident or 9/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo that she had not suffered any miscarriage and that he was deposing falsely to take revenge from the accused.
8. PW-3 Dr. Bhavesh Kumar was the Specialist Surgery, DDU Hospital. He deposed that on 05.08.2016, he was posted at RTRM hospital, J.P. Kalan as Specialist Surgery, that the MLCs of patients Hema and Samundri Devi bearing no. 2499/16 Ex. PW-3/1 and 2500/16 Ex. PW-3/2 respectively along with other documents were given to him for rendering the opinioin and that after going through the MLCs and DDU documents he had opined the injuries to be simple and blunt in nature.
During his cross-examination conducted by Ld. Counsel for accused he admitted that he had not examined the patients and that no external and internal injuries were found by the doctor who examined the patients.
9. PW-4 Dr. Pravindra Singh was the Specialist & HoD Department of Forensic Medicine, RTRM Hospital. He deposed that on 01.10.2016, he was posted as Specialist in Department of Forensic Medicine at RTRM hospital, Jaffar Pur Kalan, that an application for seeking subsequent opinion Ex. PW-4/1 regarding the cause of miscarriage suffered by patient Hema was marked to him, that the documents pertaining to patient Hema were MLC No. 2499/16 and treatment papers of DDU Hosptial and that he had opined that possibility of miscarriage by kicking on the abdomen or (natural) spontaneous abortion cannot be ruled out.
10/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo He further deposed that he had also seen the MLCs of patient Hema and Samundri Devi who were examined by Dr. Pawan, that Dr. Pawan had left the service of hospital, that the MLC no. 2499 and 2500 were prepared in his handwriting, that as per MLCs of Hema and Samundri Devi no external injury was found by the doctor and the patients were referred to higher centre, that the MLC Ex. PW-3/1 and Ex. PW-3/2 was bearing signature of Dr. Pawan at point B and that he identify his signature being his senior and he had seen him writing and signing various documents during the course of his officials duties.
During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused persons, he admitted that there is no mention of external injury in MLC No. 2499/16. He admitted that patient does not mention what kind of physical assault she had suffered and she also does not state that she had been kicked on her abdomen. He deposed that as per the MLC, patient was having pain in abdomen and head ache. He admitted that in MLC No. 2499/16 there was no mention that the patient was pregnant or LMP.
10. PW-5 HC Surender Kumar was posted as Constable on 13.05.2016. He deposed that on 13.05.2016, he was on emergency duty along with IO SI Sant Ram, that IO receievd DD No. 50-A regarding quarrel, that he along with IO went to RTRM hospital, Jaffar Pur where they came to know that the doctor had 11/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo referred complainant Hema to DDU hospital, that DD no. 50-A was kept pending and that IO recorded his statment.
During his cross-examination conducted on behalf of accused he deposed that he had not gone to the spot where the incident had taken place.
11. PW-6 Smt. Samundari Devi is one of the injured/grandmother of complainant. She deposed that complainant was residing with her at her address, that they had purchased a plot measuring 50 yards near their house from one Dharampal, that she does not remember the date of incident, however on that day her grand daughter Hema went to fill water from a tap in front of their house on the road, that then accused Rishipal @ Bitto came there and started beating Hema, that she and her son in law Dharmender ran towards Hema to save her, that then Rishipal pusher her and she fell down, that then Rishipal hit his grand daughter Hema on her stomach, that at that time, she was about 2-2 1/2 months pregnant, that due to said hitting, bleeding started to Hema due to which she suffered miscarriage and that she also received injury on her head in the said incident.
She further deposed that thereafter, she along with Hema went to Police Station where her grand daughter Hema gave a complaint to the police. She correctly identified the accused present in Court.
12/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo During her cross-examination conducted by Ld. Defence counsel she deposed that they were residing at the said house from past many years, that she does not know whether accused Rishipal was working as property dealer and that she had never seen the accused Rishipal prior to the incident. She denied that accused Rishipal was residing in their gali. She voluntarily deposed that accused was residing in another gali.
She further deposed that Hema was her grand daughter and she was having three children and that she cannot tell the age of Hema as she was illiterate. She admitted that her other relatives wer also residing in above said locality. She further deposed that when incident occurred no other relative was present there and that prior to this incident, no other incident had happened with them. She denied that this incident had taken place at the house of accused Rishipal She further deposed that when incident had occurred, then she came to know that Hema was pregnant. She voluntarily deposed that prior to incident, she never told her regarding her pregnancy due to shyness. She deposed that no other neighbourer was present at the spot at that time. She admitted that doctors treated in hospital. She further deposed that when Hema received injury, she started bleeding, that police had recorded her statement at police station and that police also recorded the statement of Hema in her presence.
13/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo She further deposed that doctor and police had seen the blood stained clothes of Hema but they did not take them into possession and she had washed the said clothes at her house and that she does not know whether any case has been registered againt Hema or her relatives.
She denied that no beating had been given by the accused to her or to Hema, that she was deposing falsely and that they had made a false case because accused was aksing for his money which they had to pay to him as commission for deal of a plot.
12. PW-7 Retd. SI Santram Bhardwaj was the Investigating Officer of the present case. He deposed that on 13.05.2016, he was posted at police station Chhawla as Sub Inspector, that on that day, on receipt of DD No. 50-A regarding quarrel, he along with Ct. Surender went to the spot ie Defence Enclave, Village Tajpur where no one was found present, that he received a call from RTRM hospital regarding admission of injured and then he went there and Ct. Surender remained at the spot, that he came to know that three injured persons were admitted at the said hospital and they all were referred to DDU hospital, that he obtained MLC of injured Hema, Sundari and accused Rishipal @ Bittoo and went to DDU hospital where only injured Hema was found admitted and two injured persons did not meet him, that Hema was declared fit for statement by the doctor and that he recorded her statement as a complaint Ex. PW-1/1, that thereafer, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW-7/1 and that he returned to the spot 14/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo and handed over the rukka to Ct. Surender for registration of FIR who got the same registered in police station and returned at the spot.
He further deposed that injured Samundari Devi met him at the spot and he prepared the site plan Ex. PW-7/2 at her instance, that he recorded statement of Sundari Devi, that he handed over the MLC of accused Rishipal @ Bittoo to HC Suresh as DD No. 48 was marked to him, that thereafter, he searched for the accused but he could not be found, that he obtained the relevant medical documents regarding miscarriage and other injuries of Hema from the hospital, that he obtained the opinion regarding the injuries and miscarriage of Hema and he formally arrested accused Rishipal vide arrest mmeo Ex. PW-7/3 and released him on bail bond as anticipatory bail was granted to him by the court concerned and that he recorded the statement of all witnesses and prepared the charge sheet and filed the same before the court concerned. The identify of the accused was not disputed by the Ld. Defence counsel during testimony of PW-7.
The witness was not cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel despite opportunity.
13. Accused admitted the factum of preparation and genuineness of FIR No. 204/2016, PS Chhawla as Ex. A-1 in his statement recorded u/s 294 Cr.PC. Accordingly, DO/ASI Bala Rani was dropped from the list of witnesses.
15/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
14. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed vide order dated 18.08.2022 as all the material prosecution witnesses were examined and the matter was fixed for recording statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE
15. In the statement recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C all incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence were put to accused who denied the correctness of the same. He replied that he had to take money from the complainant and his family but not as a commission amount, that no such incident had taken place, that on 12.05.2016 at about 10.30 pm, Hema along with her husband namely Dharmender, her uncle Suresh Chand Sharma and her three cousins namely Rahul Sharma, Anil and Sunil came to his house and started beating him and his on Rishbah Kumar and that they both suffered injuries and thereafter, they made a call to police at 100 number & FIR No. 325/2016 was registered at PS Chhawala against complainant and her family members and that on 12.05.2016, he and his son Rishabh were taken to RTRM hospital by PCR at about 11.45 pm. He stated that witnesses have deposed falsely against him as they are interested witnesses, that he had to take money from the complainant and his family members and that they are not paying back his money and therefore they had falsely 16/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo implicated him in the present case. He further stated that he is innocent. The accused opted to lead Defence Evidence. Therefore, the matter was listed for recording the testimonies of Defence Witnesses.
16. DW-1 Sh. Jai Pal Singh was the brother of accused Rishipal @ Bittoo. He deposed that they used to reside in the same gali, that in the month of May, 2016, four persons namely Jeetu, Sunil, Dharmender and Anil were beating his brother Rishi Pal at his house bearing number J-38, Gali No. 13, Defence Enclave, that Rishabh son of his brother Rishipal was also beaten by the above named persons (they were residing in the same locality) and he shouted for help, that on hearing his shout, he went there to save them, that neighbours namely Rakesh, Meera etc were also present there, at the time of incident, that someone has made call at 100 number and police arrived at the spot, that there was some property dispute between his brother Rishipal and above named persons and that they have also threatened his brother that in case he does not pay amount, he would have to face dire consequences and that his brother and son of his brother were got injured in the incident and were taken to RTRM hospital by the police officials.
During his cross examination conducted on behalf of State, he deposed that he was running business of selling readymade clothes at Jhankar, Goyla Dairy, that he had taken 17/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo the said shop on rent, that he used to go at about 10.00-11.00 am and used to return to home by 5.00-6.00 pm, that one case has been registered regarding the incident where he stated in his examination in chief at Police Station, Chhawla, that he was not the witness in the said case, that he never went in the proceedings of the said case to the court to state that he was the witness in the said case and that he had not filed any complaint to any senior police officer to make him witness in the above said case.
He further deposed that he was not staying with his brother ie accused Rishi Pal, that the distance between his house and the house of accused was around 100-150 meters, that around 6-7 houses fall within that area, that he had not made any call at 100 number regarding the incident in the month of May, 2016, that pursuant to call at 100 number, police officials had reached there, that he had not given any written complaint to the police officials regarding the incident and that thereafter, he never made any efforts to give his statement to the police.
He further deposed that he does not remember the details of the property qua which there was a dispute between his brother and Dharmender, that he was not the witness of the said transaction, that he had not filed any complaint before any authority regarding giving of threats that in case he/accused did not pay the amount he would have to face the dire consequences 18/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo and that he does not have personal knowledge regarding the injuries on the person of the complainant in the present case.
He denied that on the intervening night of 12/13.05.2016 at about 10.00 pm at main road, Defence Colony Enclave, Taj Pur, accused voluntarily hit the abdomen of the complainant and caused miscarriage to her and that he had concocted wrong story in order to save accused in this case being his brother.
17. DW-2 Sh. Dharam Pal Singh deposed that accused Rishipal @ Bittoo was known to him since last many years and even his father was known to him, that he also know the husband of the complainant in the present case, that Dharmender had approached him for purchase of a plot and he referred name of accused Rishi Pal, that they both had negotiated and a deal was finalized for a sum of Rs. 13.5 lacs for property measuring around 50 sq. yards, that bayana amount was paid to him by Dharmender and he paid the same to Rishi Pal and after receipt from Rishipal and he had handed over the same to Dharmender and he had never sold any plot to Dharmender.
During his cross examination conducted on behalf of State he deposed that he does not have personal knowledge regarding facts of the present case, that he had retired from Air Force in the year 2008, that he was drawing pension, that he had stood as a witness at the above mentioned bayana receipt, that he does not have personal knowledge regarding any documents for 19/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo completion of transaction between Dharmender and Rishi Pal and that he had not received any summons from the court and that he was known to the accused and had come to the court along with him. He denied that he had concocted a false story to save the accused being friend of his father.
It is evident that the present witnesses have been brought into picture for the first time and their existence as well as version deposed above was neither put to PWs during evidence nor stated during statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. Moreover, DW-1 did not say anything about this case and he admittedly is not a witness to the cross case facts of which he stated herein.
Similarly, DW-2 admitted in his cross examination that he does not have any personal knowledge qua the facts of this case as well as qua any documents executed towards the completion of transaction between Dharmender / PW-2 and accused. He even did not bring on record any Bayana receipt or its copy to prove the authenticity/ truthfullness of his version.
These observations establish that the aforesaid witnesses have been introduced after due deliberation and are result of after thought which further shows that their versions cannot be relied.
18. Vide order dated 03.12.2022 on the submissions of Ld. Defence counsel, Defence Evidence was closed and matter was fixed for final arguments.
20/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo FINAL ARGUMENTS
19. Ld. Sub. Additional Public Prosecutor for State argued that the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients necessary for completion of offence punishable under section 313 and 323 IPC i.e. the accused voluntarily hit on the abdomen of complainant Hema and caused hurt to miscarry and had also caused simple hurt to Dharmender Sharma and Samunderi Devi. He submitted that the complainant has proved the manner in which the accused had hit the complainant and caused simple injuries to Dharmender and Samunderi Devi. He further stated that the medical and FSL witnesses have successfully established the fact that the victim was medically examined after the incident and that the complainant was pregnant at that time and miscarriage was caused due to hitting by accused on her abdomen. He further averred that the accused has failed to shatter the credibility of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses who have fully supported their statements made under section 161 Cr.P.C.
He argued that the testimony of defence witnesses is also of no consequence to demolish the duly established version of prosecution witnesses who successfully withstood the litmus test of cross-examination and that the defence witnesses have been introduced in defence evidence after due deliberation and after thought. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ld. Sub. Addl. PP 21/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo submitted that the accused is liable to be convicted for the offences charged with.
20. On the other hand, Ld. Legal Aid counsel for accused argued that the accused has been falsely implicated by the complainant in this case. He submitted that there was some property dispute between accused and complainant's family and to take revenge accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that public persons were not joined during the investigation who were admittedly present immediately after the incident. He referred to various lacunas, discrepancies and inconsistancies in the testimonies of the complainant/injured PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 and the other police witnesses to infer that there is no reliable incriminating material/witness available on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences. He further argued that nothing was recovered or discovered at the instance of the accused, that entire police investigation was conducted while sitting at the police station without going to the spot and that all the memos have been subsequently manufactured to falsely implicate the accused. In view of the aforesaid submissions, Ld. Defence counsel stated that the accused deserves to be acquitted.
21. This court heard the Ld. (substitute) Additional PP for the State as well as the Ld. Defence counsel and perused the record.
22/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE AND REASONING
22. The case of Prosecution is that accused had arranged a property deal for the complainant and her husband who had made entire payment of the said deal. The accused kept on demanding Rs. 55,000/- as commission of the said deal which was not due because no such commission was to be paid. On the intervening night of 12-13.05.2016, at about 10:00 pm, at the main road, Defence Colony Enclave, Tajpur, Delhi, accused Rishipal @ Bittoo quarreled with the complainant/ PW-1 for non payment of said commission amount and voluntarily hit on the abdomen of the complainant Hema causing hurt to her which resulted into miscarriage and also caused simple hurt Dharmender Sharma and Samunderi Devi.
23. The version of the accused is that he is innocent, that the present case has been filed just to avoid payment of his dues qua property deal and that the present case has been filed in order to save the complainant and her family from the FIR lodged by the accused against them with respect to the same incident in which the accused Rishipal @ Bittoo and his son were mercilessly beaten up by the complainant and her other family members due to the dispute regarding payment to be made to the accused herein by the complainant and her family.
23/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
24. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused Rishipal @ Bittoo for the offence punishable under Section 313 and 323 IPC, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of accused as assailant, the factum of demand of commission made by accused without the same being outstanding qua the alleged property deal, the fact that the alleged incident happened in the alleged manner, that the accused voluntarily hit on the abdomen of the complainant who was pregnant at that time due to which miscarriage took place and that the accused caused simple hurt to PW-2 Dharmender and PW-6 Samunderi Devi in the said incident along with the manner in which the said hurt/injuries were caused to them.
25. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention here that the accused and the complainant as well as her relatives are previously known to each other as it is an admitted case that property transaction had taken place between them prior to the incident and that cross FIR was also registered by the accused herein against the complainant and her family members qua the same incident. So, there is no need to discuss the aspect of identity and presence of the accused at the time of present incident as facts admitted need not be proved.
26. This Court now proceeds further to analyse the reliability, credibility and consistency of testimonies of prosecution witnesses out of which PW-1 complainant, PW-2 her husband and PW-6 her grand mother are the most important one being the 24/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo eye witnesses as well as injured. The remaining witnesses are police witnesses or doctors who carried out usual investigation and medical examination of the victims and accused.
27. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1 reveals that she deposed that the incident happened on 12.05.2016 in the night at about 10:00 pm, when she along with her husband had gone to take water from the road side tap where accused Rishipal came and caught hold of her husband and started beating him. Perusal of the testimony of PW-2 (husband of PW-1) reveals that he deposed that he was walking with his dog in front of his house on the road on 13.05.2016 at about 10:00 pm and his wife Hema came there at the water tap installed on the corner of the road to collect fresh water, when the accused came there and started quarrelling with his wife by asking for Rs. 55,000/- as commission and after hearing noise he also reached there. Perusal of the testimony of PW-6 (Grand Mother of PW-1) reveals that she deposed that she does not remember the date of the incident but on that day her grand daughter Hema went to fill water from a tap in front of their house on the road and the accused Rishipal @ Bittoo came there and started beating Hema. She further deposed that she and her son in law Dharmender ran towards Hema to save her.
28. Appraisal of the aforesaid testimony reveals that as per PW-1 she was going with her husband for fetching fresh water from the tap, whereas PW-2 nowhere stated that he ever 25/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo accompanied his wife for fetching the water and PW-2 has rather come with a new version that he was walking with his dog on the road when his wife/PW-1 came at the water tap and he reached the spot after hearing noise of quarrel between his wife and accused. PW-2 has stated that the date of incident is 13.05.2016, whereas PW-1 stated that date of incident is 12.05.2016.
Testimony of PW-6 reveals that she did not support the version of PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the manner in which PW-1 reached the tap as she deposed that she and her son in law Dharmender ran towards Hema to save her after the accused Rishipal came near the tap and started beating Hema which is inconsistent with the testimony of PW-2, who did not say anywhere that he and PW-6 had together ran towards Hema to save her.
29. Record shows that PW-1 stated that the accused Rishipal caught hold of her husband and started beating him due to which PW-1 got involved in the commotion as she tried to save her husband, whereas PW-2 stated that he went to help his wife after hearing the noise caused due to the quarrel between Rishipal and PW-1 (wife of PW-2). It implies that as per PW-1, the accused had hit her husband whereas as per PW-2 the quarrel happened initially between his wife PW-1 and the accused. PW-2 stated that Rishipal gave 2-3 blows to his wife Hema/PW-1 and then kicked her on her abdomen, whereas PW-1 testified that accused kicked on her abdomen and admitted in her cross examination 26/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo that she had not received any injury on any part of her body and that the accused hit only on her abdomen. So, as per PW-1 she did not receive any other injury i.e. blows etc. except kick on the abdomen while as per PW-2, accused Rishipal had given 2-3 blows on her other parts of body also.
30. PW-1 testified in her cross examination that the accused Rishi Pal had torn the clothes of her husband, slapped him on his face and also gave kick blows on other parts of his body. She further admitted that her husband received injuries on various parts of his body and he was treated at RTRM hospital, Jaffarpur, Kalan. So, as per PW-1 her husband was given kick blows by the accused, whereas testimony of PW-2 reveals that he nowhere stated in his examination in chief that he was hit with kick/blows in the incident and has further admitted in his cross examination that no injury was caused to him and no MLC was prepared. Perusal of testimony of PW-6 who is also an injured and eye witness further shows that she has nowhere mentioned even a single word that the accused had also hit PW-2 Dharmender in the incident. These inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 create grave doubt upon the very factum of causing of any hurt to PW-2 by the accused in the entire incident.
31. Record shows that PW-1 deposed that when she tried to save her husband, accused kicked her on her abdomen due to which she fell down and her grand mother also came there who 27/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo was pushed by the accused causing her injuries. In her cross examination PW-1 admitted that her grand-mother came at the spot when she fell down due to which kick given by the accused. It implies that PW-1 wants to convey that PW-6 came to the spot after PW-1 had been hit on her abdomen by the accused. Testimony of PW-2 reveals that he deposed that after hearing noise of quarrel between his wife/PW-1 and accused, he came at the spot, that accused Rishipal gave 2-3 slaps to his wife Hema, that in the meantime his wife's grand mother/Amma also came there but fell on the ground because of said quarrel and that Rishipal also gave leg blow on the stomach of his wife. This testimony shows that as per PW-2 grand mother of his wife i.e. PW-6 reached the spot prior to giving of leg blow on the stomach of PW-1/his wife by the accused. It is also clear that as per PW-2, accused had not given any push or pull to PW-6, who had simply fallen on the ground because of the said quarrel. It implies that it cannot be specifically said that accused had pushed her/PW-6 or not voluntarily or with an intention to cause hurt. Perusal of the testimony of PW-6 reveals that she and her son in law ran towards Hema to save her, that then Rishipal pushed her and she fell down, that then Rishipal hit her/grand-daughter on her stomach. This testimony shows that PW-1 Hema was hit on stomach by the accused after reaching of PW-6 at the spot which is contrary to the testimony of PW-1 who stated that PW-6 came at the spot after PW-1 was hit on her abdomen and had fallen down. These contradictions create a grave doubt upon the very 28/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo presence of PW6 on the spot which further creates grave suspicion upon the factum of causing any hurt to her by the accused.
32. Furthermore, testimony of PW-1 shows that she simply stated that the accused pushed Samunderi Devi/her grand mother due to which she received injuries. PW-1 nowhere specifies as to on which part and in what manner her grand mother/PW-6 sustained the injuries. Testimony of PW-2 reveals that he simply stated that PW-6 also came there and fell down on the ground because of the said quarrel and he did not anywhere state that the accused had hit PW-6 in any manner or that PW-6 was pushed or pulled by the accused or that PW-6 had sustained injuries.
33. Testimony of PW-6 Samunderi Devi reveals that she stated that accused Rishipal pushed her and she fell down and she also received injury on her head on the said incident. Perusal of the MLC of PW-6 Ex. PW-3/2 reveals that the patient has stated an alleged history of physical assault and was complaining of pain in abdomen and vomiting. Perusal of the said MLC further reveals that no external injury was visible at the time of examination of the patient.
Testimony of PW-3 Dr. Bhavesh Kumar who had given opinion on the injuries shows that he also admitted in his cross examination that no external and internal injuries were found by the doctor who examined the patient. This testimony of the doctor along with the observation made in the MLC that no 29/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo external injury was found as well as symptom stated by the PW-2 at the time of examination being pain in abdomen along with her deposition made at the time of recording of her testimony that she received injury on her head in said incident makes her version highly unreliable as no person of ordinary prudence is going to believe that a person having sustained head injury would not say about the same to the doctor examining him or her and would rather complaint about having pain in abdomen instead of head. So, considering the aforesaid observations as well as the medical documents, it is quite clear that factum of sustaining of injury by PW-6 in the incident is itself highly suspicious.
34. Testimony of PW-1 shows that prior to the present incident which happened on 12.05.2016 in the night at about 10.00 pm, on the same day the accused along with 10-12 persons had come at her plot and had broken the door/ gate and boundary wall of the said plot, she stated that she had also made a complaint in this regard to the police.
Testimony of PW-2 reveals that he testified in his cross- examination that accused Rishi Pal along with 3-4 persons had broken the boundary wall of the said plot and FIR bearing number 204/16 qua the said incident was lodged at PS Chhawla. These testimonies indicate that PW-1 and PW-2 are telling different dates of visit of accused for breaking the wall and different number of persons who had gone with accused for that purpose. The deposition of PW-2 that FIR No. 204/16 was 30/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo registered qua the said incident completely demolishes the reliability of his entire testimony as the said FIR pertains to the present case which does not relate to breaking of wall etc.
35. These inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 further reinforce the observation that their overall version cannot be believed as no reasonable person would have given such incoherent replies in case the incident has actually happened.
36. The complainant/ PW-1 and her husband/ PW-2 have deposed that accused was demanding the commission for the property deal due to which present incident of quarrel took place. However, they did not disclose the details of the property/ plot/ its owner or its documents during the entire trial. PW- 6/grandmother of PW-1 simply stated that they had purchased the plot from one Dharampal and she also did not furnish the documents pertaining to the said property. She even did not say that the said deal was mediated by Rishi Pal ie accused. Accused had consistently taken the stand that amount was due to him from the complainant qua a property deal but it was not towards commission.
In these facts, it was imperative for the prosecution to prove that there was some dispute qua commission of amount due to which the present incident took place as no such commission/ other amount was outstanding. During the entire trial no documentary evidence qua execution of such a property 31/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo deal mediated by the accused has been proved which is a material omission going to the roots of the case as disclosure of the documents would have thrown some light on the aspect of motive/ intention of the accused to commit the alleged offence. It further indicates that prosecution failed to establish the happening of the incident in the alleged manner beyond reasonable doubts.
37. PW-7/ IO deposed that duly proved site plan Ex. PW-7/B was prepared at the instance of injured/ PW-6 Samundari Devi. However, PW-6 nowhere testified about preparation of site plan at her instance. Record shows that PW-1 stated that she had shown the place of incident to police which is contrary to the aforesaid version of IO. These submissions, inconsistencies and contradictions make the factum of preparation of site plan at the instance of PW-6 or PW-1 as well as after visiting of spot highly doubtful.
38. Perusal of the duly proved site plan Ex. PW-7/B shows that the place of incident is depicted at point A which is opposite to entry of street no. 13 in which house of the complainant is shown as situated at point B. The house of accused is shown at C in street no. 12 which is parallel to street no. 13. It means that place of incident as per police version is not situated in front of or opposite the house of the accused or the street in which his house is shown and is a bit away from the house of accused. Record shows that PW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that incident 32/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo had happened in front of house no. J-38 Defence Enclave which as per the record is the address of the accused. It implies that there is grave contradiction qua the place of incident as per the site plan and the testimony of PW-1 who is the main injured/ eye witness.
39. These contradictions create doubt about the truthfulness and correctness of the site plan which further raises a question mark upon the factum of happening of the incident on the alleged spot in alleged manner and thus makes the version deposed by PW-1/ complainant, PW-2/ her husband and PW-6/ her grand mother highly suspicious.
40. Record further shows that PW-1 whose miscarriage took place did not say anything about the factum of bleeding anywhere in her testimony immediately after hitting by the accused on her abdomen. Testimony of PW-2 reveals that he stated that his wife was pregnant and because of the said assault bleeding started and thereafter she suffered miscarriage in DDU Hospital.
Testimony of PW-6 reveals that she deposed in her examination in chief that at that time PW-1 was two and half months pregnant and that due to said hitting bleeding started to Hema due to which she suffered miscarriage. In the cross- examination, she testified that when Hema received injury she started bleeding. She further stated that doctor and police had 33/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo seen the blood stained clothes of Hema but did not take them into possession and she had washed the said clothes at her house.
This testimony of PW-6 reveals that PW-1 had started bleeding immediately after receiving the injury which was given by leg blows on her abdomen at the spot, implying that PW-1 must have started bleeding at the spot itself. However, PW-1 herself is silent on this aspect of bleeding. PW-4/Dr. Parvinder Singh, specialist and HOD Forensic Medicine RTRM proved that possibility of miscarriage by spontaneous/natural abortion cannot be ruled out. His testimony shows that PW-1 did not even tell the examining doctor about her pregnancy, bleeding, the kind of assault she suffered and that she has been kicked on her abdomen which an expecting lady is bound to disclose to the doctor in such circumstances.
These contradictions in the testimonies of concerned witnesses and ommissions in the conduct of PW-1 at the time of her medical examination as well as the aforesaid opinion of PW- 4 further create grave doubt upon the manner of happening of alleged incident as well as manner of causing alleged injuries i.e. by hitting on the abdomen of PW-1 due to which she suffered miscarriage and by kicking and beating PW-2 with blows as well as pushing PW-6 due to which she sustained head injuries.
41. It is further seen from the record that PW-1 deposed that her husband/PW-2 had made a call to the police whereas PW-2 stated that his brother in law Jeetu had called the police after the 34/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo incident. This is again a major contradiction in the version of PW-1 and PW-2 which in ordinary circumstances should not have been there and thus indicates that the PWs have cooked up false story which has fallen down like a pack of cards while deposing before the Court.
42. It is evident from aforementioned discussion that factum of kicking on abdomen of PW-1 by the accused is already under grave doubt so it can be said that factum of causing of miscarriage due to kick blow is not established beyond reasonable doubts. Still for the sake of arguments if it is admitted that the abortion was caused due to the said kick blow given by the accused then also it cannot be held that accused has voluntarily caused that hurt which resulted in the miscarriage and this finding would be clear from the discussion made hereunder.
43. Perusal of testimony of PW-1 reveals that she stated in her examination in chief that she was pregnant for about one and a half months at the time of incident and due to the said kick she fell down. In the cross examination she stated that after about one month of pregnancy she came to know regarding same when she tested on UPT. She stated that she had not gone to any doctor for the medical test or any medical assistant. PW-2 who is the husband of PW-1 admitted in his cross examination it came to his knowledge at DDU Hospital that his wife was pregnant. Testimony of PW-6 reveals that she stated in her examination in chief that PW-1 Hema was about 2 and half months pregnant at 35/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo the time of the incident. She admitted in her cross examination that while the incident had occurred then only she came to know that Hema was pregnant.
These testimonies along with the duly proved medical documents establish that the Hema was pregnant at the time of the incident and she suffered miscarriage due to which her abortion was done by the doctors. It is also evident that her husband and even PW-6 were not aware about the pregnancy of the Hema at the time of incident. The testimony of PW that after about 1 month of pregnancy she came to know about the same after she tested on UTP and she had not gone to any doctor for pregnancy or any medical assistance is not believable as natural course to be followed in these circumstances would have been to go to doctor and at least tell her husband about pregnancy which was not done. The medical documents further show that PW-1 did not even tell the examining doctor about her pregnancy, bleeding, the kind of assault she suffered and that she has been kicked on her abdomen which an expecting lady is bound to disclose to the doctor in such circumstances.
These observations and omissions further indicate that even PW-1 was not aware of her pregnancy at the time of incident and the term of pregnancy admittedly was not so long that factum of her carrying child would have been inferred from her physical appearance.
36/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
44. Perusal of the evidence of the witnesses including PW-1 shows that the fact the accused was having knowledge that she was carrying a pregnancy of one and a half months at the time of incident, is not proved at all. It is true that the witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-6 have stated that PW-1 was carrying the pregnancy, but they have not stated that the pregnancy of the lady was known to the accused nor the same can be inferred as PW-2 and PW-6 themselves admitted that they came to know about the pregnancy of PW-1 after the alleged incident. None of the witnesses have stated that in order to cause her to miscarry, the accused had assaulted PW-1 in such a way as to have the effect of causing miscarriage of the PW-1. It is thus established from the aforementioned observations that even PW-1 herself cannot be said to be aware of her pregnancy and common public/accused cannot be expected to have knowledge that she was pregnant as the pregnancy was at very initial stage i.e. one and a half months only.
45. In the present facts, it is also apt to refer to Section 312 & 313 of the IPC which read as under:
Section 312 IPC stipulates that:
" Causing miscarriage- whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, orwith both; and, if the woman be 37/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo quick with the child shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 313 IPC stipulates that:-
"Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine".
46. On perusal of the above provision what appears is that the act of causing the woman to miscarry must be done voluntary and the fact that the woman was pregnant or quick with a child must also be known to the accused who had by any means intended to cause the lady to miscarry otherwise than to save her life.
47. The word "voluntarily" has been defined by Section 39 of the IPC which reads as under:-
"Voluntarily".-
"A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it."38/43
FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
48. Thus, what appears from the definition of the term "voluntarily" is that before doing an act so as to cause an effect an accused must have the knowledge as to what he wants to cause or he must have the reason to believe that the act which he was likely to commit or was committing was likely to end in or cause the desired effect. Thus while doing the act for causing an effect, the person who wishes to cause the effect, must by evidence be shown knowing as to what effect in context to a particular situation was either likely to be caused by his acts or by the acts which he was likely to commit. It must be shown by evidence that he was aware of the existence of particular situation or state of thing which might be affected by the commission of an act by him and further, that acts done by him were meant to bring about the effect in the existing state of a thing or a person. Whether the person is doing an act or contemplating to do it, his knowledge about a particular situation and his intent to change it or his belief of the change likely to be affected by his acts already done or to be done has to be established by evidence. It may only be in the above state and nature of evidence that the offence under Section 312 & 313 IPC can be said to be constituted. On a bare perusal of Section 312 & 313 IPC it may be gathered that the accused must know that the lady was pregnant/quick with a child and then should be shown by evidence to have committed some acts so as to causing the miscarriage i . e . to cause the effect, then only the act could be said to be committed voluntarily, making the offence complete.
39/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo This is what this Court deduces from the plain reading of Sections 39 and 312 & 313 IPC.
49. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 might have stated that PW-1 was carrying a pregnancy on the day she was assaulted, but no part of the evidence indicates that the accused knew that she was carrying such pregnancy. No evidence is available on the record further to indicate that knowing that the lady was carrying the pregnancy, the accused was intending the lady to miscarry and so as to causing that particular effect, he was intentionally and knowingly assaulting her either on her stomach to cause the lady to miscarry the child and thus to be aborted. If this had been the evidence then the charge under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which makes the offence of causing miscarriage of a lady who was pregnant with a child could be said to be constituted and proved.
50. In view of the inconsistent and unreliable depositions of prosecution witnesses the initial burden of prosecution to prove its version comes under scrutiny. Regarding the burden of proving the prosecution version it is pertinent to mention the case law reported as "Sadhu Singh Vs. State of Punjab : 1997 (3) Crime 55, wherein the Punjab & Haryana High Court had observed that-
40/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo "In a criminal trial it is for the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused".
Following the aforesaid observations and considering the inconsistencies, omissions, contradictions and incoherent testimonies, this Court is of the view that prosecution has not been able to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have' and thus it cannot be said that prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
51. Considering the present factual matrix, it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in the case titled as 'Bhagwan Singh and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [2002 (4) SCC 85], that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing out to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that the miscarriage of justice is avoided. So, following the aforesaid observation and the testimony of witnesses, benefit of doubt also accrues in favour of the accused.
52. It thus emerges from the aforesaid discussion and perusal of testimonies of PWs as well as record that there is neither any 41/43 FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo reliable eyewitness/electronic/scientific evidence of the incident nor any other circumstance to prove beyond reasonable doubt the manner in which the alleged incident happened and the alleged injuries were caused and the fact that the accused had voluntarily and knowingly assaulted PW-1 in such a way as to cause miscarriage of the PW-1 and also voluntarily caused hurt to the PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 which are essential elements for completion of offence punishable u/s 313 & 323 IPC.
53. Considering the afore-discussed testimonies, this Court is of the view that arguments advanced by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients necessary for completion of the alleged offences do not have any force whereas the arguments made on behalf of defence that the accused has been falsely implicated are found to be justified.
54. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, accused Rishipal @ Bittoo S/o. Late Sh. Surender Singh is hereby acquitted of the charge u/s 313 & 323 IPC levelled against him. Bail bond stands cancelled and Surety be discharged, if any. Documents, if any, be returned to the rightful person against receiving and after cancellation of endorsement, if any.
42/43FIR No. 204/16 PS Chhawla State vs Rishi Pal @ Bittoo
55. Fresh bail bond and surety bond furnished in compliance of Section 437 (A) Cr.P.C are considered and accepted.
56. File be consigned to the Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Viplav Dabass)
on 28th day of February, 2023 ASJ(FTC)/SW-DWARKA
NEW DELHI/ 28.02.2023
43/43