Delhi District Court
3. Title Of The Case : State vs Rajbala on 28 March, 2018
1. IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAMA GUPTA
2. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATEI (N/W)
3. ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
4.
1.Case No. : 1902/2/04 New No. R528200/16 2. Unique I.D. No. : 02401R5384312004 3. Title of the case : State Vs Rajbala FIR No. 136/03, PS Sultanpuri 4. Date of institution : 04.02.2004 5. Date of reserving Judgment : 28.02.2018 6. Date of pronouncement : 28.03.2018 11.J U D G M E N T : 12. (a) The date of commission : 13.09.03.2003 (b)The name of complainant : 14.Asha D/o Rattan Singh R/o C 2/472, S. Puri, Delhi. (c) The name of accused : 15.Raj Bala W/o Nanak Chand R/o C 2/1473, S. Puri, Delhi. (d) The offence complained of : 16.325/341 IPC (e)The plea of the accused : 17.Pleaded not guilty (f)The final order : 18.Acquitted (g)The date of such order : 19.28.03.2018 20. 21.Brief facts for the decision of the case: 22.
23.1. In the present case, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala Rajbala on 04.02.2004, for the alleged commission of offence U/s 325/341 IPC, on the allegation that on 09.02.03, at about 03.15 am, in Gali near C/472, Sultanpuri, Delhi, the accused had wrongfully restrained the complainant Asha, from proceeding in a direction, in which she has a right to proceed and thereafter, voluntarily caused grievous hurt with teeth bite on two fingers of right hand of the complainant.
24. 25.2. After filing of the charge sheet before the court on 04.02.2004, cognizance of the offence U/s 341/326 IPC was taken and summons were issued against the accused. The provision of section 207 Cr.PC. was complied on 06.08.2004.
26. 27.3. After hearing the arguments, charge was framed against the accused for the alleged commission of offence U/s 326/341 IPC, to which the accused pleaded "Not Guilty" and instead claimed trial accordingly, the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
28. 29.4. During the course of trial, prosecution had examined 06 witnesses to substantiate the accusations leveled against the accused.
30. 31.5. PW1/ Asha was the complainant, at whose instance the present FIR was registered. PW1 deposed that on 09.09.03, at about 3 pm, she was plucking the leaves of peepal tree in her gali, when her neighbour Rajbala started abusing her and raised objection. PW1 further deposed that she requested Rajbala not to abuse her and started moving towards her house but, Rajbala stopped her way, started beating her and also bite Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala her on two fingers. PW1 deposed that the police came and got her medically examined and recorded her statement Ex. PW1/A. PW1 was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
32. 33.6. PW2/ W/ Ct. Leela deposed that on 17.05.03, while posted at PS Sultan Puri, she along with IO reached at the house of the accused and arrested the accused at the instance of the complainant vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/A and she personally searched her vide memo Ex. PW2/B. PW2 further deposed that the IO also recorded her statement.
34. 35.7. PW3/Ct. Jagdish deposed that on 09.09.03, while posted as Constable at PS Sultan Puri, he along with IO ASI Raj Singh reached at C2 block, where they met the injured and got her medically examined at SGM Hospital. He further deposed that the IO prepared rukka and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and after registration, he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the IO. PW3 was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
36. 37.8. The prosecution had further examined HC Satnam also as PW3, who deposed that on 09.02.03, while posted as duty officer from 04.00 pm to 12 midnight, he received rukka sent to PS through Ct. Jagdish, by ASI Raj Singh at about 05.30 pm, and on the basis of the same, he registered the present FIR Ex. PW3/A and made endorsement Ex. PW3/B on the rukka.
38. 39.9. PW4/ Retd. ASI Raj Singh deposed that on 09.02.03, on receiving Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala DD no. 32B, he reached at the spot along with Ct. Jagdish, where the complainant/ injured met them and they got her admitted in SGM Hospital through Lady HC Raj Bala and L/Ct. Leelawati, where the injured was medically examined vide MLC no. 328/E8054. He deposed that he also recorded the statement of the complainant/ injured Asha Ex. PW1/A and on the basis of the same, he prepared rukka Ex. PW4/B and got the FIR registered. He further deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW4/C, at the instance of the complainant and the accused was not found at his house and on 17.05.2013, he along with W/Ct. Leelawati reached the house of accused along with the injured and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW2/A and personally searched through lady Constable vide memo Ex. PW2/B and she was released on police bail vide memo Ex. PW4/C. He deposed that thereafter, he recorded statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet before the court.PW4 was also cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the accused.
40. 41.10. PW5/ Dr. Baljeet Singh deposed that he has been deputed by Medical Superintendent on behalf of Dr. Virender Jain, who has left the services from the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known to the department, however, he is well conversant with the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Virender Jain. PW5 further proved the MLC no. 328/E8054 of the injured Asha as Ex. PW5/A.
42. 43.11. After examination of all the material witnesses, prosecution's evidence was closed vide order dated 17.12.2014 and on 23.04.2015, statement of the accused was recorded U/s 281 r/w 313 Cr. P.C, and the entire incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused, Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala to which she replied that she has been falsely implicated in the present case and she wish to lead defence evidence but, she failed to avail the opportunity hence, DE stands closed.
44. 45.12. Final arguments were thereafter addressed by Ld. counsel for the accused and by Ld. APP for the State. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the accused and Ld. APP for the State and have perused the records carefully.
46. 47.13. In the present matter, charge was framed against the accused for the offence U/s 326/341 IPC. As per the case of the prosecution, the complainant had suffered grievous injuries on her two fingers, with human bite. To prove the MLC, the prosecution had examined PW5, Dr. Baljeet Singh, CMO SGM hospital, who had exhibited the MLC of the injured as PW5/A, by identifying the handwriting and signatures of Dr. Virender Jain on the same. He deposed that Dr. Virender Jain had already left the hospital and his present whereabouts were not known to the department. Thus, PW5 had proved the fact that the MLC was prepared by Dr. Virender Jain on 09.02.2003. It is worthwhile to mention here that when charge was framed against the accused U/s 326 IPC, then the said order was challenged by Ld. Counsel for the accused, averring that the injuries as allegedly suffered by the complainant are not grievous and no reason has been given by the concerned doctor, so as to describe the injury as grievous but, the said petition of the accused was dismissed on the ground that, as trial was yet to commence thus, the question can be put to the concerned Doctor, as to the basis of his opinion. But, in the present natter, the said opportunity was never granted to the accused Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala because, the concerned Doctor became untraceable. Now, perusal of MLC Ex. PW5/A reveals that the injuries as described in the same are "CLW of 0.5 cm * .25 cm, on medial side of right finger and teeth mark on middle finger". Now, before proceeding further, let us understand the meaning of grievous injury, as enumerated in Section 320 IPC, which is reiterated as under:
"The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":
Firstly: Emasculation.
Secondly: Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly: Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear Fourthly: Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly: Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint Sixthly: Permanent disfiguration of the head or face Seventhly: Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth Eightly: Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits."
48.14. In the present matter admittedly, the injuries as described in MLC Ex. PW5/A, does not falls under first seven categories. Thus, this court would proceed further so as to ascertain whether, it will fall under the eight category i.e. "Whether the said injuries were dangerous to the life of the complainant or whether it had caused severe bodily pain to the complainant for 20 days or the complainant was unable to follow ordinary pursuits?"
Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala49.15. Now, prima facie, perusal of MLC Ex. PW5/A does not give any indication that the injuries were of such a nature as to endanger the life of the complainant and the said fact was also substantiated by the mere fact that during the course of her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused, the complainant/PW1 deposed that apart from the day of incident, she never went to the hospital and as per the deposition of the IO/PW5, after treatment, the injured was taken to the spot and site plan was prepared at her instance thus, the said deposition of PW5 reveals that, she was being discharged from the hospital the very same day, more particularly, within 12 hours. Further, PW1 deposed that there was pain in her fingers but, there was no bleeding. Thus, it cannot be said that the injury would have endangered the life of the complainant. Further, PW1 deposed that after the date of incident, she never got any medical treatment thus, there is no averment by the complainant that the injuries had caused severe bodily pain to her, during the space of twenty days, or she was unable to follow her ordinary pursuits." Thus, the injuries as suffered by the complainant cannot be termed as grievous, so as to attract the provision of Section 326 IPC.
50. 51.16. Thus, at the most the injuries can be said to be simple and since it was by human bite therefore, it would have attracted the provision of Section 324 IPC i.e voluntarily causing simple injuries with dangerous weapon. Now, this court would proceed further so as to ascertain as to whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In the present matter, as per the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at 3:15 p.m, on 09.02.2003, as Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala mentioned in tehreer Ex. PW1/A. Further, the DD no. 32 B Ex. PW4/A, qua the same was registered at 3:40 p.m. Perusal of Ex. PW4/A prima facie reveals that the information about the same was given by the complainant that she was being beaten by the accused. But, when the complainant/PW1 was being examined, she deposed that the alleged incident took place on 09.09.2003 at 3:00 pm. Though, the mention of date of incident as 09.09.2003 in examination in chief appears to be typographical mistake but, the testimony of PW1 is not only contradictory to the case of the prosecution but, it was also self contradictory and thus, requires corroboration by independent witness. During the course of her cross examination, PW1 deposed that the police was being called by the accused which is in contradiction to the contents of Ex.PW4/A, as per which, the police was being informed that the complainant was being beaten up by the accused. Now, if the information was given by the accused then, there would be no occasion of mention of the name of Rajbala as the accused in Ex. PW4/A. Further, during the course of her cross examination, PW1 deposed that the police came to her house at 2:30 p.m but, as per the case of the prosecution, the incident was of 3:15 p.m thus, there was no occasion for the police to visit the spot at 2:30 p.m as deposed by PW1. She further deposed that she was being taken to police station, where she remained for about 23 hours, which prima facie implies that PW1 remained at police station till 4:305:00 p.m but, as per MLC Ex. PW5/A, PW1 visited the hospital at 4:45 p.m. Further, PW1 though deposed that after the incident, she went to police station but, the IO/PW5 during the course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused deposed that from the spot, he along with the complainant and Ct. Jagdish went to SGM Hospital.
Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. RajbalaFurther, PW1 during the course of her cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused deposed that there was no bleeding from her fingers and on the date of incident, when police came, the accused was present at her house but, PW5 during the course of his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for the accused deposed that blood was oozing from the fingers of PW1 and in his examination in chief, PW5 deposed that when they went to the house of the accused, she was not found present and the house of accused was found locked. Thus, there are several contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW5 consequntly, the prosecution requires corroboration of testimony of PW1 by independent witness but, as admitted by PW1 and PW5 that no other public witness was examined by the IO, despite the fact that the area where incident took place is a residential area therefore, merely on the basis of sole testimony of PW1, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Raj Bala is acquitted of the offence U/s 324/341 IPC.
(SHAMA GUPTA) Announced in the METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE01 open court on 28.03.2018 NORTH WEST, ROHINI DELHI Page 9 of 9 FIR No. 136/03 State Vs. Rajbala