Delhi District Court
State vs 1) Satpal Singh on 23 April, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAMESH KUMAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, NORTH-
EAST, DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No.225/21
CNR No.DLNE01-001720-2021
FIR: 329/2016
Police Station: Karawal Nagar
Under Sections: 307/323/34 IPC
STATE Versus 1) Satpal Singh
S/o Keshu Singh
R/o H. No.672, KH No.K-94
Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
2) Sonu
S/o Keshu Singh
R/o H. No.672, KH No.K-94
Village Karawal Nagar, Delhi.
Date of Institution : 08.04.2021
Date of Argument : 23.04.2022
Date of Judgement : 23.04.2022
JUDGMENT
1. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 29.09.2016, at about 11.00 PM, at Pyare Lal Marg, Behind State Bank, Karawal Nagar Village, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Karawal Nagar, Delhi, complainant Gaje Singh (hereinafter referred to as the SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 1/14 complainant) was standing in the balcony of the second floor of his house. Then, Satpal Singh and Sonu came and started abusing Sugna @ Suman Devi, wife of complainant Gaje Singh on which Sugna @ Suman Devi also abused them in retaliation. In the meantime, Satpal took a stone piece (silli) lying there and struck the same, in the head of Sugna @ Suman Devi. On seeing that, complainant Gaje Singh objected to the same.Thereafter, Satpal and Sonu came up on the second floor and carried Gaje Singh by lifting from there to the first floor and banged him against the floor. After hearing noises of quarrel, Danvir, son of complainant came out of the room. Danvir was also given beatings by Satpal and Sonu. In the meantime, Sonia, wife of Danvir had made a call at 100 number and PCR reached at the spot, and, took injured persons Sugna @ Suman Devi, Gaje Singh and Danvir to JPC Hospital. Later, on the basis of statement of the complainant, Gaje Singh, FIR no.329/16, under section 307/323/34 IPC, was registered, against accused persons Satpal Singh and Sonu, at PS Karawal Nagar.
2. On appearance, in compliance of section 207 IPC, copies were supplied to all the aforesaid accused persons and, as, offence punishable u/sec. 307/323/34 IPC, is triable by the Court of Sessions, case was committed to Sessions Court.
3. In the present matter, accused persons, namely, Satpal Singh SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 2/14 and Sonu were charged for the offences punishable under section 307/323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for prosecution evidence. During the course of trial, witness Sugna @ Suman Devi had expired on 26.04.2021.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined three witnesses i.e PW-1 Gaje Singh, PW-2 Danvir and PW-3 Sonia.
PW-1, Gaje Singh, deposed that the exact date of the incident was not known to him, however, the incident happened in the ninth month of the year 2016. He further deposed that, on that day, at about 10.00/11.00 PM, he was standing on the balcony of his second floor and heard the noises of quarrel coming from the ground floor and in those noises, the noise of his wife was also involved. Thereafter, PW-1, immediately, rushed down through the stairs for seeing the matter and, in that process, he slipped on the stairs and sustained injuries on his head as well as on his waist/hip. Thereafter, on seeing him, his wife rushed to help him and, in that process, her head hit the corner of the wall and she sustained injury in her head. Meanwhile, his son Danvir came out of his room. Somebody informed PCR and PCR came and took PW-1, his son and his wife to the hospital where they were treated and statement of PW-1 Gaje Singh was recorded by the police which is Ex.PW1/A. PW-1 further deposed that he knew both the accused persons as they are his younger real brothers but they have not committed any incident/offence in this case. He further deposed that SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 3/14 his wife Sugna @ Suman has expired.
Since, PW-1, Gaje Singh, did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from his previous statement, on material facts, he was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
This witness, during cross-examination by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, deposed that it was correct that they are four brothers, including him, and, there was some dispute between them for the partition of 50 yards plot. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether the exact date of incident is the intervening night of 29.11.2016 and 30.11.2016, but it was the ninth month of year 2016, when this incident happened. He further denied that, on that day, when he was standing on the balcony of second floor, his brother Sonu and Satpal, who are accused in this case, came there and started abusing his wife Sugna @ Suman and his wife also started abusing them in retaliation. He further denied that, on this, accused Satpal picked up a stone piece lying there and hit it in the head of his wife. He further denied that when he objected to the same, both the accused persons came up, on the second floor, and carried him by lifting from there to the first floor and banged him against the floor, due to which he sustained injury in his hip and head. He further denied that when his son, Danvir, tried to save them, after coming out of his room, then, both the accused persons had also beaten them. He further deposed that he did not remember as to whether his wife had informed the PCR or not, but he admitted that PCR had come at the spot, on that day. He SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 4/14 further admitted that they were treated in JPC hospital and their MLCs were prepared. He further denied that he compromised the matter with the accused persons, being his real brothers, due to which he was deposing, falsely, to save them. He further denied that he is deliberately not telling the truth.
PW-2, Danvir, deposed that it was the last rainy season of the year 2016. He further deposed that, on that day, he was present at his house, and, at about 11.00 PM, he heard noises of some hot talks going on between his father and both the accused persons, who are his uncle. He further deposed that, at that time, the electricity of the area was off and, due to darkness, his father who was present, on the second floor, slipped from the stairs, while coming down and sustained injury, in his head and hip. He further deposed that, on seeing this, his mother rushed towards his father and, in that process, she also fell from the stairs and her head hit the corner/edge of the stairs and she sustained injuries in her head. Thereafter, his father informed the PCR. PCR came and took him, his father and his mother to the JPC hospital, where they were treated and their MLCs were prepared.
Since, PW-2, Danvir, did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from his previous statement, on material facts, he was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
This witness, during cross-examination by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, deposed that it was correct that there was some dispute and differences between his father and all uncles for SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 5/14 division of a plot of about 50 yards. He further admitted that, police inquired from him, about the present case, but, he did not remember as to whether his statement was recorded by the police or not. He further deposed that he could not depose as to whether the incident happened, on 29.09.2016, but, it is correct that, it happened in year 2016. He further denied that, on that day, when his father was standing on the balcony of second floor, both the accused persons came at the ground floor and started abusing his mother and in retaliation his mother also abused them. He further denied that, upon this, accused Satpal picked up a stone piece (silli) lying there and hit it in the head of his mother, due to which, she sustained injury in her head. He further denied that, when his father objected to the same, accused persons threw his father, by lifting him up, and, banging against the first floor, due to which he had sustained injury in his hip and head. He further denied that, thereafter, both the accused persons had beaten him and he also sustained injury. He further deposed that he was not confirm as to whether his mother had informed the PCR on that day or not. He further denied that his father had settled the matter with the accused persons, who are his real brothers, and, due to which, he was deposing falsely, in order to save them. He further denied that he was deliberately not deposing the truth.
PW-3 Sonia, deposed that, it was around one month prior to Diwali, in the year of 2016. She further deposed that, on that day, she was present, at her house, and, at about 11.00 PM, she heard noises of some hot talks going on between her father-in-law and both the SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 6/14 accused persons. She further deposed that, at that time, the electricity of the area was off and, due to darkness, her father-in-law, who was present, on the second floor, slipped from the stairs, while coming down and sustained injury in his head and hip. She further deposed that, on seeing this, her mother-in-law rushed towards her father-in-law and, in that process, she also fell upon the stairs and her head hit the edge of the stairs and she sustained injuries in her head. She further deposed that somebody informed the PC and PCR came and took her husband, her father-in-law and her mother-in-law to the JPC hospital where they were treated and their MLCs were prepared.
Since, PW-3, Sonia, did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from her previous statement, on material facts, she was cross-examined by ld. Addl. PP for the State.
This witness, during cross-examination, by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, deposed that it was correct that there was some dispute and differences between her father-in-law and all uncles- in-law for the division of a plot of about 50 yards. She further deposed that it was correct that police inquired from her, about the present case, but, she did not remember as to whether her statement was recorded by the police or not. She further deposed that she did not remember as to whether the incident happened, on 29.09.2016, but, she further stated that it was correct that, incident happened, in the year 2016. She denied that, on that day, when her father-in-law was standing on the balcony of second floor, both the accused persons came at the ground SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 7/14 floor and started abusing her mother-in-law, Sugna, and, in retaliation her mother-in-law also abused them. She further denied that, upon this, accused Satpal picked up a stone piece (silli) lying there and hit it in the head of her mother-in-law, due to which, she sustained injury, in her head. She denied that when her father-in-law objected to the same, accused persons threw her father-in-law by lifting him up and banging against the first floor, due to which, he had sustained injury in his hip and head. She denied that, thereafter, both the accused persons had beaten her husband and he also sustained injury. She further deposed that she was not confirmed as to whether her mother-in-law had informed the PCR, on that day or not. She further denied that, her father-in-law has settled the matter with the accused persons, who are his real brothers, and, due to which, she was deposing falsely, in order to save them. She further denied that, she was deliberately not deposing the truth, before the court.
5. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed, as material prosecution witnesses, i.e PW-1 Gaje Singh, PW-2 Danvir and PW-3 Sonia, did not support the case of the prosecution, and, PW Sugna @ Suman Devi had already expired, on 26.04.2021, during the course of trial. As such, no fruitful purpose would have been served by examining remaining prosecution witnesses and, in view thereof, prosecution evidence was closed. Since, nothing incriminating had come on record against the accused persons, their statements under section 313 Cr.PC, were dispensed with.
SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 8/14
6. I have heard ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and ld. counsel for the accused persons and have carefully perused the record file and have gone through the material placed on record.
7. It is contended by ld. counsel for the accused persons that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, as material prosecution witnesses, namely, PW-1 Gaje Singh, PW-2 Danvir and PW-3 Sonia, in their respective examinationinchief, have specifically deposed that, the accused persons have not committed any crime with them. In these circumstances, it is argued by ld. counsel for the accused persons that, since, material prosecution witnesses, including, the PW1/complainant, had not deposed anything incriminating against the accused persons, they are entitled to be acquitted, in the present case.
8. Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, has contended that, from the evidence, which has come on record, it is amply clear that, the incident, in which complainant, Gaje Singh, and, other injured persons, suffered injuries, were infact, caused by accused persons. It is further argued, by ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, that the contradictions, pointed out by ld. counsel for the accused persons, are minor contradictions and, therefore, same are not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 9/14
9. Section 307 IPC is reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference:
"Whoever, does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned."
10. Section 323 IPC is reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference:
"Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both".
11. In the present case, PW1, Gaje Singh, has specifically deposed, in his examinationinchief, that he had suffered injuries, on his hip and head, due to falling from stairs. PW1 further deposed that, on seeing this, his wife Sugna @ Suman Devi rushed towards him and, in that process, she also fell upon the stairs and her head hit the SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 10/14 corner/edge of the stairs and she sustained injuries in her head. PW2, Danvir, has specifically deposed, in his examinationinchief, that the incident with his father had occurred, as his father had slipped from the stairs. PW2 further deposed that, on seeing this, his mother rushed towards his father, and, in that process, she also fell down from the stairs and her head hit the corner of the stairs and she sustained injuries in her head. PW3, Sonia, has also deposed that her fatherinlaw had slipped from the stairs, due to which he sustained injuries. She further deposed that, on seeing this, her motherinlaw rushed towards her fatherinlaw and, in that process, she also fell upon the stairs and her head hit the edge of the stairs and sustained injuries. PW Sugna @ Suman Devi has already expired, on 26.04.2021, during the course of trial.
12. Thus, it is clear from the record file, that prosecution has not been able to prove it's case, beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. In the given facts and circumstances, and, considering the contradictions, apparent in the evidence of the PW-1 Gaje Singh, PW-2 Danvir and PW-3 Sonia, there is nothing on record against accused persons to convict them, in the present case.
13. It is well settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused persons, beyond reasonable SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 11/14 doubt. The law on the subject has been delineated succinctly stated by the Apex Court in case titled as Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat and Anr., AIR 2012, Supreme Court 37, wherein, it is held as under:
"It is settled legal preposition that, while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration, whether the contradictions/omission/improvements/embellishments etc., had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters, without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made the court to reject the evidence, in its entirety. The court, after going through the entire evidence must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses.
14. In Harish Chandra V Rex, 1950 ALJ 220, it has been held that:
"In criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Mere preponderance of probability could not do. In criminal cases, the burden of proof, even, in the sense of establishing a case is always on the prosecution. The prosecution has to stand on its own legs. It has to prove the guilt of the accused on its own evidence. The weakness of the defence will not help the prosecution."
SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 12/14
15. In Wingly V State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 15, it has been held by the Supreme Court that:
"If the prosecution evidence, as a whole, is unreliable and cannot be accepted, as correct for specific reasons, the silence of the accused can be of no avail to the prosecution, for such conduct of silence can never be permitted to become a substitute for the proof by the prosecution.
16. I have perused the record file and, after perusal thereof, I am of the considered opinion that, there is not sufficient incriminating evidence/material, against accused persons. The evidence of PW1/complainant, Gaje Singh and other material prosecution witnesses i.e PW-2 Danvir and PW-3 Sonia, does not inspire confidence of this court, due to the contradictions, in their testimonies, as to the occurrence of incident, as well as the presence of accused persons. There is nothing on the record file to show that the accused persons, were the aggressors and allegedly caused injuries, on the person of PW1/complainant, Gaje Singh, and other injured persons. It is well settled proposition of criminal law that the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, by clear, clinching and unambiguous evidence.
SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 13/14
17. Hence, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made herein above, in my opinion, the prosecution has not been able to prove its case, to the effect that, it was the accused persons, who had caused injuries, on the persons of PW1/ complainant, Gaje Singh and other injured persons. Accordingly, accused persons, are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 307/323/34 IPC.
18. File be consigned to the Record Room, after compliance of the conditions of bail bond under section 437A Cr.P.C. ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23rd APRIL, 2022 (RAMESH KUMAR) PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No.225/2021 STATE vs. Satpal Singh & Ors. FIR No.329/16 14/14