Delhi District Court
State vs Mohender Singh on 31 March, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. R. KIRAN NATH
ASJ 01, SOUTH DELHI, SAKET COURTS
S. C. No. 243/09
Unique Case ID No. 02403R0080702009
State
Vs.
1. Mohender Singh
S/o Parya Lal
R/o Village Rajokri
New Delhi
2. Smt. Kamlesh
W/o Mohender Singh
R/o Village Rajokri
New Delhi
FIR No. : 337/07
P.S. : Vasant Kunj
U/S : 341/307/506/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 23.03.2009
Date of judgment : 31.03.2012
J U D G M E N T:
1. Both the accused have been charged with and have faced trial for having committed the offence under sections 341/307/506/34 IPC.
2. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on receipt of DD no. FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj 33 A, ASI Hawa Singh and Ct. Surender Singh reached at village Rajokri where they came to know that injured had been removed to the hospital. Thereafter, they went to Safdarjung hospital and found injured admitted there who was declared unfit for statement. IO/ ASI Hawa Singh recorded the statement of Pradeep who was present there who stated that he used to visit Rajokri as his mother used to live there; that he had purchased a plot of 300 sq. yards from his maternal uncle Narayan Singh ; that thereafter on 24.05.2007 he along with his cousin brother Manjeet had gone to the said plot to construct the boundary wall ; that at about 5.30 pm when labours had left after work, accused Mohender Singh along with his wife Kamlesh (accused) came there and started abusing them saying that said plot belonged to them; that thereafter, accused Kamlesh started throwing stones and bricks on them and accused Mohender gave knife blow to Manjeet on his abdomen due to which Manjeet fell down; that he manged to save himself and thereafter both the accused ran away from there. He also stated that this incident of stabbing was also seen by his maternal uncle Sh. Narain Singh who did not come near due to fear of knife; that Narain Singh called the police at no. 100 and he (Pradeep) and his mama took Manjeet in a private car to the Safdarjung hospital. On this statement FIR under section 341/307/506/34 IPC was got registered in the PS. Accused Mohender FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj and Kamlesh were arrested. One day PC remand of accused. After completion of the investigations charge sheet was filed in the court
3. On the basis of the allegations, charge was framed against both accused u/s 341/307/506/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses.
5. PW 1 is Dr. Lalit Mohan, who proved the MLC of injured Manjeet as Ex. PW 1/A prepared by Dr. Muzafar.
6. PW 2 is Narain Singh who was present at Village Rajokari at a distance of 100150 sq yards from the spot; that he heard noise and came to know that victim Manjeet was stabbed by someone; that he along with other persons took the injured to the Safdarjung hospital and called the police at no. 100. However, he was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP for State.
7. PW 3 is HC Suresh Kumar, duty officer who proved the copy of FIR as Ex. PW 3/A and endorsement made on the rukka as Ex. PW 3/B. He also proved the DD no. 33A as Ex PW 3/C.
8. PW 4 is HC Surender Kumar who joined the investigation along with the IO/ ASI Hawa Singh on receipt of DD no. 33 and went to village Rajokri, where they came to know that injured had been shifted to the Safdarjung hospital. Thereafter, they went to FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj Safdarjung hospital and collected the MLC of injured who was declared unfit for statement. In his presence, IO recorded the statement of one Pradeep who was present in the hospital, prepared the rukka, got the FIR registered, prepared the site plan. Witness also proved the arrest memo of accused as Ex. PW 4/A, personal search memo as Ex. PW 4/B. The blood stained clothes of the injured handed over by the doctor to the IO, was seized by the IO vide memo Ex. PW 4/C He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Mohender as Ex. PW 4/C. He further testified that he also joined the investigation on 05.07.2007 along with the IO and accused Kamlesh was arrested in his presence. He proved the arrest memo as Ex. PW 4/E ad personal search memo Ex. PW 4/F.
9. PW 5 is W/ ASI Asha Rani in whose presence accused Kamlesh was arrested and her personal search was conducted.
10. PW 6 is Retd. DHG Ct. Rajender to whom duty officer handed over DD no. 33 A on 24.05.2007, which he handed over to the IO.
11. PW 7 is Manjeet Singh, injured himself, whose statement would discussed at length at appropriate stage.
12. PW 8 is Dr. S. K. Bajaj who proved the Xray report prepared by Dr. Saurabh Bora as Ex. PW 8/A and stated that as per record, no bony injury was found on the patient Manjeet.
13. PW 9 is ASI Hawa Singh, IO of the case who deposed on the FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj lines of prosecution case. He testified that in receipt of DD no. 33 A he along with Ct. Surender reached village Rajokri, where they came to know that injured had been shifted to the Safdarjung hospital. Thereafter, they went to Safdarjung hospital and collected the MLC of injured who was declared unfit for statement. IO recorded the statement of one Pradeep who was present in the hospital, prepared the rukka, made endorsement Ex. PW 9/A, got the FIR registered, prepared the site plan Ex. PW 9/B. He correctly identifed the clothes of injured as Ex. P1 collectively and application moved by him for recording of statement of injured as Ex. PW 9/C and 9/D.
14. PW 10 is Pradeep the complainant whose statement would discussed at length at appropriate stage.
15. In their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by the court, all the incriminating evidence was put to both the accused which they denied and stated that they were innocent and falsely implicated in this case. Accused Mohender stated that he was cobhumidhar of land of Khasra No. 514 Village Rajokri; that Pradeep with the connivance of Narayan Singh and Shiv Raj tried to take forcible possession of his plot and there was a quarrel. They informed police and he and Pradeep were taken to PS Vasant Kunj and arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, fictitious documents of GPA etc. were prepared on 14.05.2007 by Pradeep and Narayan Singh. Pradeep, FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj Narayan Singh and Shiv Raj hired Manjeet for killing him and taking forcible and wrongful possession of the plot; that on 15.05.2007 at about 10.00 am Pradeep, Manjeet and Naryan Singh fabricated false story. Manjeet inflicted a knife injury in his abdomen in a secluded place near barafkhana and made a false call to the police; that they went to hospital without waiting for the police; that Pradeep made a false statement and in order to pressurize him Pradeep named his wife also; that his wife had gone to her parents house at village Kakrola to see her ailing bhabhi; that there was no blood, no implements of digging, no dug foundation, no building material at the spot; that he was called from his house and falsely implicated in the present case. He also testified that after his release from jail, Manjeet telephoned him to give money for not deposing against him. That ultimately on 11.10.2008 Manjeet along with Ram Pal of Rajokri came to his house in the morning for demanding money. Members of his family, Natthu and Naresh were also present at his house. On his questioning Manjeet admitted that he had not seen him prior to 11.10.2007 and he was hired by Pradeep, Narayan Singh and Shivraj. He asked him as to who inflicted knife blow to him, he admitted that he self inflicted the knife blow; that one Naresh was having a secret eye phone and recorded and videographed at the spot, which he had placed before the court and confronted Manjeet also. Manjeet had a deal of Rs. 9 FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj lacs with Pradeep, Narayan Singh and Shiv Raj. He was paid Rs. 3 lac in advance and out of balance Rs. 1.5 lacs was also paid to him. He again came to his house for demanding money on 02.08.2009. PCR was called and he was taken to the police station but later on he was allowed to go.
16. Accused Kamlesh also stated to the same effect that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case; that she had gone to her parents house at village Kakrola to see her ailing bhabhi and when she returned home, she came to know that her husband (Mohender).
17. Accused chose to lead evidence in their defence and produced 3 witnesses in their defence.
18. DW 1 Sh. Lakhmi Chand the father of accused Kamlesh, who stated that on 22.05.2007 his daughter in law Smt. Ram Kala was ill so he went to the house of accused at Rajokri and took his daughter Kamlesh to his village Kakrola.
19. DW 2 is Sh. Naresh Kumar, who knew both the accused as they were resident of village Rajokri. He testified that on 11.10.2008, Mohender Singh told him that the person namely Manjeet who had got him implicated in false case of stabbing was calling him on telephone several times and demanding money from him. He also stated that he told accused Mohender that he was having Spy Pen FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj (Camera Pen) and shall record everything so he should not worry about the visit of Manjeet in his house. Thereafter, he brought said spy pen and they sat in the verandah in the house of Mohender Singh. At about 10.10.15 am, Manjeet and Ram Pal came to the house of Mohender Singh and all of them sat in the varanda. One Natthuram and members of family of accused Mohender Singh were also present there.
20. During conversation, Manjeet admitted that he had not seen Mohender Singh before that day. Manjeet told that he himself inflicted knife blow in his stomach at the asking of Pradeep, Swaraj and Narayan Singh. They had settled Rs. 9 lacs for getting vacating a plot which was in possession of Mohender Singh. Manjeet further told that he had already received Rs. 4.5 lacs from them and the balance amount Manjeet wanted to take from Mohender Singh for telling truth in the court that the accused were innocent. Manjeet admitted that he had already been in jail in a murder case at Gurgaon and was involved in theft cases also. Manjeet further told that it was very easy for him to repeat such incidents. He recorded the entire talks and proceeding happening by his spy pen and thereafter, made a CD of the same. He also made Hindi transcription of talks recorded in the CD and handed over the transcription and CD to Mohender Singh for producing in the court. Witness also brought the said spy FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj pen, which was used by him for recording the said proceeding on that day. Said CD was played in the court and shown to the witness and he identify the transcription and CD which are correct as recorded by him.
21. DW 3 is Sh. Ram Pal Yadav who stated that on 24.05.2007 in the evening accused Mohender Singh was present at his house, one boy namely Hablu came to his house and told that Mohender Singh was called by the police and he was informed that Mohender Singh had been arrested in a case of stabbing. Thereafter he contacted Manjeet Singh at Rohtak and he told him that he had falsely implicated Mohender Singh and his wife at the asking of Shivraj, Narayan Singh and Pradeep as they had promised to pay Rs. 9 lacs. He also stated that he told him that he should not have implicated Mohender Singh and his wife in false case. He also told him that if Mohender Singh pays him money he would tell the truth in the court. Thereafter, he along with Manjeet Singh went to he house of Mohender Singh where Naresh, Nathhu and other members of the family were present. That during conversation Manjeet Singh told that he had implicated Mohender Singh and his wife at the instance of Shivraj, Narayan singh and Pradeep as they had agreed to pay him Rs. 9 lacs and Rs. 4.5 lacs had already been paid to him. Manjeet further told that he had himself inflicted knife blows in his stomach because FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj they wanted to take possession of his plot. CD Ex. PW 7/DB was played in the court and shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified Manjeet, Nathu, Naresh, accused Mohender and his family members in the CD.
22. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and counsel for the accused persons and gone through the records carefully.
23. It is the stand of the accused that no such incident had taken place and that they have been falsely implicated in this case only to grab the property and that the said vacant land was infact the land belonging to accused person.
24. The injured Manjeet in th is case has been examined as PW 7. The author of the FIR Pradeep as PW 10 and another eye witness of the incident namely Narayan Singh as PW 2.
25. The star witness in this case is PW 7 Manjeet Singh, the injured himself. He testified that about three years ago he along with his cousin Pradeep had came to Delhi at Rajokari in order to construct boundary wall of his plot and when they were working in the plot, accused Mohender and Kamlesh started abusing them, Accused Mohender gave a knife blow on his stomach while accused Kamlesh caught hold of him. He further testified that he lost senses due to the bleeding.
26. PW 10 Pradeep is the complainant, who testified that he had FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj purchased a plot of 300 sq yards from his maternal uncle Sh. Naraain Singh; that on 24.05.2007 he along with his uncle Narain Singh and Manjeet were doing the work of digging for the purpose of boundary wall; that on that day, labours had gone after work at about 5.30 pm and only three of them were present ; that accused Mohender came there with a knife and he also called his wife Kamlesh and that they were saying that said plot belonged to them; thereafter, accused Kamlesh started throwing stones and bricks on them; that accused Kamlesh caught hold of Manjeet while accused Mohender stabbed in the abdomen of Manjeet due to which Manjeet fell down; that he informed the police on 100 number, however, police did not come at the spot immediately and they themselves took Manjeet Singh to Safdarjung hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex. PW 10/A (on which FIR was registered). Accused was arrested on the same day and place of occurrence was shown by him to the police.
27. It may be noted at the outset that witness Manjeet had not taken the name of Narain Singh being present at the spot on that date and time with them. Narain Singh has been examined as PW 2 and has stated that he was present in village Rajokri at a distance of 100150 sq yards from the spot when he heard the noise and came to know that victim Manjeet was stabbed by some one; that he went to the spot and saw victim lying on the vacant plot. On making inquires, he was FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj informed that injury was caused by accused Mohender and then he taken the injured to the hospital and also made call to the police at number 100.
28. Even though, this witness was declared hostile by the Ld. Addl. PP for State, he reiterated that police had not recorded his statement; that he informed the police that he sold the plot to Pradeep. He denied that both the accused were present at the spot or were abusing and were ready to fight or that he had stated to the police that accused Mohender and Kamlesh had stopped Manjeet and Pradeep and accused Mohender had a knife in his and gave knife blow to Manjeet and his wife stated to Pradeep that now it was his turn and victim Manjeet fell down with knife injury. Witness was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 2/A but he denied the same. He categorically stated that he had not seen the incident or that he was frightened with the knife in the hand of Mohender.
29. We are now left with the statement of injured PW 7 Manjeet and PW 10 Pradeep. The injured PW 7 has been extensively cross examined which continued for three dates (about one hour each). It is seen that witness was confronted with the statement Ex. PW 7/DA made by him to the police. Though, the witness has stated that accused Kamlesh caught hold of him while accused Mohender had stabbed him. However, in his statement Ex. PW 7/DA, it has not FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj been so recorded. Similarly, though he states in the court that he lost senses due to the said injuries, he had not said so in the statement Ex. PW 7/DA.
30. In the cross examination PW 7 had admitted that he did not know number of plot where he had gone; that there were houses around that plot on either side and the back and in front but he did not know the name of the owners of those houses. He categorically stated that door of one of the houses was opening in that plot. He did not know who was the owner of that house whose door opened in that plot. ( it is the stand of the accused that this land belonged to him and complainant was eying the same.) It is also the stand of the accused that it was a concocted story and no such incident took place and that complainant and injured were not known to each other.
31. There are several contradictions in the statement of PW 7 and PW 10. In the cross examination, injured PW 7 has stated only he and Pradeep were working on the said plot on that day i.e. there were nobody except these two persons who had gone for construction on the plot that day. Whereas PW 10 had stated that he had taken labourers to dig the foundation of the plot and that labourers worked the whole day after which, this incident had taken place.
32. The prosecution case so put up, sounds impossible, if the accused persons were to come there to stop the construction work by FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj the complainant party, they would have not allowed the complainant to carry on constructions for whole day and then come in the evening time to stop the constructions (when their house was just there). Accused were claiming their rights over the said land and then they would have come in the morning or during the day itself to stop them from raising any construction there but that has not been done
33. It is also argued by the counsel for accused that this incident is shown to have taken place after 5.00 pm only to show that there was no labour as no such incident had taken place.
34. Doubt is raised here itself, as there is contradictions in the statement of the injured on this point, i.e. while complainant stated laboures were present there while injured stated that only two of them had gone to dig the foundation. The incident had taken place at about 5.30 pm whereas in the cross examination injured has stated that they had just started digging foundation when quarrel took place.
35. At this stage, it is relevant to note the statement of PW 9 ASI Hawa Singh. He had testified that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW 9/B. The said site plan only shows the location of the plot and does not show that anything was lying at the plot i.e. there is no evidence to show that infact constructions was being carried out at the spot by anyone. IO in his cross examination has stated that no blood, bricks for building material were found at the spot. Hence, the stand of the FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj complainant that they had come there to raise construction at the spot, itself becomes doubtful at this stage. IO did not find anything at the spot which could make him feel that there was any construction going on at the spot or any constructions work was done for the whole day on that day.
36. It is also the stand of the accused that it was the complainant who was trying to take forcible possession of the said land which belonged to them. To prove the point, Ld, counsel for accused has also confronted the witness (injured) in his cross examination that on 15.05.2007 when the complainant was trying to take forcible possession of the plot of the accused, he was arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. which fact was accepted by the injured. It also shows that he was his ignorant that on 07.05.2007 also, complainant had made an attempt at the behest of Naraain Singh to take forcible possession of the plot of the accused.
37. Complainant PW 10 when cross examined on this aspect, stated that he had purchased the plot of 300 sq yards for 20 lacs in the year 2007 from Narain Singh for which he had given Rs. 1 lac in advance. He however, stated that he did not know if the said land was agricultural land. He had not even checked whether the said land was in the name of Narain Singh. He admitted that the said land was situated at Khasra no. 514. However, he did not know whether the FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj said land at Khasra No. 514 was registered in favour of Naraina Singh or that accused Mohender Singh was cobhumidar of Khasra no. 514 Village Rajokri. As regards 07.05.2007, he did not remember if he had gone to the spot for taking forcible possession. He admitted having been arrested under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. along with the accused Mohender Singh.
38. Thus, it transpires from the cross examinations of these two witnesses i.e. PW 7 and PW 10 that there was a dispute between the complainant party and the accused regarding this plot of land. The alibi of the complainant that he and injured along with Narain Singh and the labours had gone there for construction, appears doubtful in view of the discussions made earlier (about no construction material lying there at the spot nor any construction having been raised over there).
39. It may also be seen that complainant had stated that accused Kamlesh caught hold of Manjeet and accused Mohender Singh stabbed Manjeet. It has come on record that injured had bleed profusely on being so stabbed. However, it has also come on record that no blood was found at the spot by any of the witnesses. Thus, injured having been stabbed at the said spot also appears doubtful.
40. All the statement made by the complainant (PW 10) in the cross examination rather denied by the IO and the injured i.e. complainant FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj stated that there was a truck loaded with bricks while IO as well as injured had denied of any such truck or bricks being there at the spot. No construction material or bricks were found at the spot which could have been used to make a wall. Hence the presence of injured and complainant at spot itself become doubtful, specially when, after making call to PCR, injured got him admitted in the hospital himself.
41. PW 10 has stated when Manjeet received knife blow, he was bleeding profusely and he and Narain Singh lifted Manjeet but their clothes did not get blood stains nor these clothes were seized by the IO. IO has stated that there was no blood found on the ground at the spot. It appears doubtful whether any such incident had taken place at the said spot.
42. It was also the stand of the accused that Narain Singh, Shivraj and Pradeep had hired Manjeet to get the plot vacated and that accused Kamlesh was not there at all hence she could not be arrested from home when accused Mohender was arrested. It is also the stand of the accused that this was a fabricated case only to pressurize the complainant to give possession of the plot. It is further the case of the accused that this was self inflicted injuries caused by the injured himself; that the injured had past record of criminal activities and remained in jail earlier also.
43. For this purpose, accused had collected the evidence and FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj produced the same on record i.e. injured Manjeet along with Ram Pal had gone to the house of accused Mohender where other family members were also present. One of the person namely Naresh Kumar had brought spy pen camera and video recorded the conversations between the injured and Mohender with the spy pen camera.
44. Accused has placed on record the CD of the said recording made through the Spy pen camera on that day which has been proved by DW 2 Sh. Naresh Kumar as having been made by him. He also deposed he made Hindi transcription of the talks recorded in the CD and handed over the transcription and CD to Mohender Singh for producing in the Court. He had seen the transcription Ex. PW 7/DX and CD Ex. PW 7/DB and deposed that same were correct as recorded by him. Said CD was played in the court on two occasions. CD is Ex. PW 7/DB and transcription of the same is Ex. PW 7/DX. CD was played in the presence of injured Manjeet. He admitted that he had gone to the house of accused Mohender after the incident i.e. o 11.10.2008 in the morning along with Ram Pal and that members of the family of the accused Mohender were also present in the house; that they sat on the cot lying in the verandah. Injured had admitted his visit to the house of accused Mohender.
45. Injured himself depicted/ visible in the said DVD. Transcription is Ex. PW 7/DX. Portions were marked from A to K in the said FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj transcription. Witness admitted the conversations including the portion Mark A and Mark B. It would be relevant to reproduce the portion Mark A to K from the transcription Ex. PW 7/D. The questions put to the witness and answers are reproduced as under: Mark A to A Manjeet : Narain brought me.
.............
Mark B to B Manjeet: You will get a shock if I will tell the truth Mark C to C Manjeet: I myself inflicted it.
Mark D to D Manjeet: I met these persons PradeepPradeep who said that he had a plot which had been occupied and Swaraj asked to either stab that person or myself.
Mark E to E Mohender: had he given some money to you, how much he gave? They had taken Rs. 19 lacs, what you got? Manjeet: They have given me 19 not 24. I had talks with them in 9 lacs.
Mohender: Okay, it was done in 9 lacs.
Mark F to F FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj Manjeet: Rs. 3.5 lacs were given at once.
Mohender: Okay, Rs. 3.5 lacs were given at once. Manjeet: Rs. 1 lac was given again.
Mark G to G Manjeet : It was done in 7 lacs, out of which Rs. 4 lac was his shareyou give Rs. 2 lac, I will do his work. Mark H to H Manjeet: If I told in front of an advocate, then will you agree ? Mohender: I am ready for compromise... I will give money there.
Mark I to I Manjeet: they are giving me Rs. 8 lac and asking to get him sentenced.
Manjeet: quarrel took place and I had taken 10 in the compromise.
Manjeet: I will kill anyone just given me money. Mark J to J Mohender: Don't you know that I am innocent....? Manjeet: Absolutely.
Mark K to K Mohender : Do you know me... I have seen you first time and FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj you have also never seen me.
Manjeet: I do not know you, Ramapl told me that you are Mohender.
46. Thus, it can be seen that injured has admitted that he had gone to the house of accused Mohender with some other person. He has admitted the conversations with the accused Mohender about the incident. DVD shows that he admitted that injuries were self inflicted. That aside, as already discussed there is no evidence which shows the probability of the prosecution case having taken place as alleged. It appears that no such incident took place on the said date, time and place as alleged by the complainant/ injured.
47. In these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecutrix has failed to establish its case against both accused that on 24.05.2007 at about 5.30 pm accused Mohender Singh along with his wife Kamlesh (accused) came at the spot, started abusing the complainant and Manjeet and thereafter, accused Kamlesh started throwing stones and bricks on them and accused Mohender gave knife blow to Manjeet on his abdomen. Both the accused are thus, acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
Announced on
31st March 2012 (R. Kiran Nath)
ASJ01/South New Delhi.
FIR No. : 337/07, PS Vasant Kunj