Delhi District Court
State vs Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani And Ors on 29 November, 2024
IN THE COURT OF MS. RENU BHATNAGAR
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KKD COURTS DELHI
CNR No.DLSH01-004381-2022
SC No.236/22
FIR No.365/13
PS : Vivek Vihar
U/s: 323/308/341/34 IPC
STATE Versus 1. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani
S/o Sh. Riyasat Ahmed
R/o H.No.30,
Masjid Wali Gali,
Near Ramlila Ground,
Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.
2. Chand
S/o Sh. Riyasat Ahmed
R/o H.No.30,
Masjid Wali Gali,
Near Ramlila Ground,
Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.
3. Safar Khan
S/o Sh. Riyasat Ahmed
R/o H.No.30,
Masjid Wali Gali,
Near Ramlila Ground,
Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi.
Date of Institution : 12.10.2021
Date of Arguments : 26.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 29.11.2024
Digitally
Final Decision : Acquitted
signed by
RENU
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29
16:06:50
+0530
SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 1 of 29
JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution has filed the present charge sheet under Section 308/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. In brief the facts of the prosecution's case, as appearing in the charge-sheet, are that on 30.09.2013 a PCR Call/DD No-69-B was marked to SI Shankarlal for investigation, who thereafter went to the place of incident i.e. Ramlila Maidan, Lane No.2, Mukesh Nagar, where patrolling Beat HC Ashok Kumar met who told him that the victims had been shifted to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital for treatment by CATS ambulance. Thereafter, IO/SI Shankarlal alongwith HC Ashok Kumar reached at Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Delhi, where IO obtained MLCs of victims Dhanraj, Rahul and Saraswati. IO searched the victims/injured but he could not find them in the hospital and therefore he alongwith HC Ashok Kumar returned to the police station. Thereafter, Complainant/victim/injured Dhanraj came in the police station and met IO/SI Shankarlal, who recorded his statement, wherein he stated that he lives with his family at House No.9-A, Gali No.2, Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi and works as a building contractor. That today on 30.09.2013, at about 8:00 pm, when he returned home from work, accused Ramzani S/o Riyasat was standing with his brothers namely Chand and Safar in front of his house in the street. They started abusing him on seeing him. When his son Rahul protested, all three accused persons caught Rahul and started kicking and punching him. When complainant refused Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR to do the same, all of them started abusing and beating him BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:06:57 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 2 of 29 also. Complainant further stated that when he started running towards his house, accused Chand and Safar stopped him, and accused Ramzani picked up a brick and hit the same on his head, whereas accused Chand picked up a stone and hit the same on his right leg, due to which his right leg got hurt. Meanwhile, his wife Saraswati came out of the house and tried to save them, but they also beaten her and ran away from there. His son called at 100 number, whereafter ambulance reached there and took all of them from the spot to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital for treatment. After getting treatment there, he came to the police station. IO/SI Shankarlal recorded his statement wherein he prayed for taking legal action against the accused persons. Thereafter, IO/SI Shankarlal gave the complaint of the complainant to Duty Officer for registering case, and he himself along with the complainant Dhanraj left for the spot where he prepared site plan at the instance of the complainant.
3. Thereafter, during investigation, on 01.10.2013 all three accused persons namely Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani, Safar Khan and Chand were arrested by IO/SI Shankarlal on the identification of the complainant Dhanraj. IO/SI Shankarlal produced all three accused before the concerned court from where they were sent to judicial custody. Thereafter, IO made efforts to obtain final opinion of the concerned doctor on the MLCs of the injured regarding nature of injuries, and also recorded statements of relevant witnesses. Further investigation of the case was handed over to SI/Sanjeev Digitally signed by RENU Kumar, who during investigation recorded statement of RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:07:05 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 3 of 29 relevant witnesses, prepared challan and on completion of investigation filed chargesheet before the court of concerned Metropolitan Magistrate for trial of the offences punishable under Section 308/323/341/34 IPC, who took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused persons.
4. The copies of the charge-sheet and annexed documents were supplied to the accused persons in compliance of provision of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, referred to as 'Code') by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Subsequently, accused Safar Khan died and proceedings against him were abated by Ld. MM vide order dated 09.06.2022 and case was committed to Court of Sessions since one of the offence under Section 308 IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
Charge:-
5. The Charge for offences punishable under Section 308/323/341/34 IPC was framed against contesting two accused persons namely Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani and Chand, vide order dated 21.07.2022. Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence:-
6. To substantiate its allegations against the accused, prosecution examined following witnesses:-
Material/Public Witnesses Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:07:15 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 4 of 29
7. PW-1 Sh. Dhanraj is the complainant / injured / author of the present FIR whereas PW-4 Ms. Saraswati and PW-7 Sh.
Rahul are public witnesses. All three witnesses are material witnesses. Their testimony shall be dealt with at the later stage of the judgment.
8. PW-9 Retd. SI Shankar Lal is the 1st IO of the case who has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was posted as SI in PS Vivek Vihar. On that day on receipt of DD No.69-B, he reached at the spot at Ramleela Maidan, Gali No.2, Mukesh Nagar, Delhi, where Beat Constable / HC Ashok Kumar met him, who was on patrolling duty. On inquiry, HC Ashok Kumar informed him that injured persons were taken to Hedgewar Hospital through CATS Ambulance. He deposed that at the spot no person met them. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Ashok Kumar reached at Hedgewar Hospital where he obtained MLC of victims Dhanraj, Rahul and Saraswati. No injured was found present in the hospital, so he alongwith HC Ashok returned back to the PS. Injured Dhanraj met them in the PS. He inquired the injured and recorded his statement Ex.PW-1/A. He made endorsement on tehrir Ex.PW-9/A and produced the said tehrir before the Duty Officer for registration of case. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant Dhanraj reached at the spot where he at the instance of the complainant prepared site plan Ex.PW-1/B. In the meantime HC Ashok returned back to the spot and handed over copy of the FIR and original tehrir to him. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Ashok and complainant Dhanraj made efforts to search the Digitally signed by assailants but they were not traceable till that time.
RENU
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29
16:07:22
+0530
SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 5 of 29
9. He further deposed that on 01.10.2013, he was informed by complainant Dhanraj that all the assailants were present at their houses. Thereafter, he alongwith HC Ashok reached at the house of complainant Dhanraj, who also joined the investigation with them. Thereafter, he alongwith complainant Dhanraj and HC Ashok reached at House No.30, Masjid Wali Gali, near Ramlila Ground, Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi, of accused Rajjak, Chand and Safar Khan, where they all were found present. After inquiry and on the identification of complainant Dhanraj, he arrested accused Rajjak Ahmad @ Ramjani, Chand and Safar Khan and prepared their arrest memos Ex.PW-1/C, Ex.PW-1/D, and Ex.PW-9/B and also conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-1/E, Ex.PW-1/F and Ex.PW-9/C. Thereafter, all the accused persons were taken to the hospital and lodged in the lock-up after their medical. He further deposed that during investigation, he deposited the MLCs of the victims in the concerned hospital for getting opinion about the nature of the injuries. He recorded statements of all the relevant witnesses. Thereafter, he was transferred to another PS and deposited the case file with MHCR.
Formal Witnesses
10. PW-3 SI Rajender Kumar has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was posted at PS Vivek Vihar as HC and was on duty from 04:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 08:17 pm, one information regarding an incident of quarrel at Ram Lila Digitally signed by Ground, Vivek Vihar, Mukesh Nagar was received in the RENU Police Station. The said information was recorded in the PS RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:07:30 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 6 of 29 vide DD No. 69B. The said DD was assigned to SI Shankar Lal. He proved the attested copy of DD as Ex. PW3/A. He further deposed that at about 11:20 pm, SI Shanker Lal handed over to him one rukka for registration of FIR. On the basis of that rukka he got registered the FIR No.365/13 through computer operator. He proved the FIR as Ex. PW3/B. He further deposed that after registration of the FIR, he made endorsement on the original rukka Ex. PW3/C, and handed over copy of the FIR and original rukka to HC Ashok Kumar to deliver it to IO/SI Shanker Lal. He further deposed that he had also issued certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, which is Ex. PW-3/D.
11. PW-5 HC Ashvai Kumar Narwal has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was posted as DD Writer in PS Vivek Vihar and his duty hours were from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day at about 20:17 hours wireless operator informed him about a quarrel at Ramlila Ground, Vivek Vihar, Mukesh Nagar. The said information was received by W/Constable Ruby from PCR. He recorded the said information vide DD No.69-B, dated 30.09.2013, which is Ex.PW-3/A. After recording the same, he handed over the said DD to SI Shanker Lal, who left from PS to the spot for necessary action.
12. PW-6 W/HC Ruby Malik has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was posted as Constable in CPCR. On that day at about 20:14 hours, she received an information through mobile number 8505866765 from Hiral Lal regarding quarrel at Digitally signed by House No.30, Ramlila Ground, Mukesh Nagar, Vivek Vihar.
RENU
She immediately transferred the said call to the
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29
16:07:39
+0530
SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 7 of 29
communication for sending the same to the relevant police station for necessary action. She proved the copy of CPCR Form as Ex.PW-6/A (OSR).
13. PW-10 Inspector Sanjeev Kumar has deposed that in the year 2016, he was posted as SI in PS Vivek Vihar. In the month of September, 2016 the case file was marked to him for further investigation. During investigation, he collected the MLCs of victims from the concerned police official from record and made inquiry with complainant about his further treatment and its paper, but complainant failed to produce any document about his further treatment. Thereafter, he prepared the chargesheet and filed the same in the court.
14. PW-11 Retd. SI Ashok Kumar (the then HC) has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was posted as HC at PS Vivek Vihar. On that day at about 8:00 pm when he was on patrolling in his beat and was near Ramlila Ground, someone informed him that a quarrel was going on in Gali No.2, Mukesh Nagar. Thereafter, he reached there and saw that CATS ambulance was taking the injured to the hospital. He came to know that the assailants had fled away from the spot. In the meantime, SI Shankar Lal came at the spot and made inquiries. Thereafter, he alongwith SI Shankarlal left the spot for Hedgewar Hospital. Injured was not found in Hedgewar Hospital. IO/SI Shankar Lal collected MLC of injured and then they returned to police station. One person namely Dhanraj, the injured of the present case, met them in the police station. IO recorded Digitally the statement of Dhanraj, prepared rukka and handover the signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR same to Duty Officer for registration of FIR and left for the BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:07:47 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 8 of 29 spot. Duty Officer handover him the original tehrir and copy of FIR, which he took to the spot and handover the same to the IO. IO was making inquiry at the spot, in the meantime he (IO) received a phone call about the presence of the accused persons in their house. IO also recorded the statement of wife and son of Dhanraj at the spot. Thereafter, he alongwith IO and Dhanraj reached at Masjid Wali Gali, where at the instance of Dhanraj, IO apprehended accused Ramzani and two other persons, whose name he did not remember. IO arrested all the three accused persons vide arrest memos Ex.PW-1/C, Ex.PW-1/D and Ex.PW-9/B, and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW-1/E, Ex.PW-1/F and Ex.PW-9/C. Thereafter, they alongwith the accused persons returned to the police station. Accused persons were medically examined. Then, IO recorded his statement.
Medical Witness
15. PW-2 Dr. Reetesh Ranjan has deposed that on 30.09.2023, he was posted in Hedgewar Hospital. On that day he medically examined Rahul, S/o Dhanraj, who was brought to the hospital by CATS with alleged history of assault. On medical examination, he found that injured had sustained abrasion over left forearm and tenderness over left side of the chest. After medical examination, he referred the injured to SR, Surgery and Medicine. He also prepared MLC No. 3387/13 of injured Rahul as Ex.PW-2/A, which bears his signatures at point A. He further deposed that on the same day, injured Digitally signed by Saraswati, W/o Dhanraj was also brought to the hospital vide RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date: MLC NO. 3388/13. He deposed that he had to medically 2024.11.29 16:07:54 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 9 of 29 examine her but she left the hospital without information. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW2/B. He further deposed that on the same day at about 09:00 pm, injured Dhanraj, S/o Sh. Ninku was also brought to the hospital by CATS with alleged history of assault. He was medically examined by him vide MLC no. 3386/13. On examination he found lacerated wound over left temporal scalp and lacerated wound measuring about 4 cm on right fifth toe. The smell of alcohol was positive having blood alcohol concentration 117 mg%. He proved the MLC as Ex. PW2/C.
16. PW-8 Dr. Reetesh Ranjan again appeared on behalf of Dr. Navneet, who had examined injured Dhanraj and Rahul. He deposed that Dr. Navneet was working with him as SR in the Department of Surgery, so he can identify his handwriting and signatures. He further deposed that as per the record, the patients were brought to the casualty by CATS Ambulance with alleged history of assault. The patients were examined by him and then they were referred to Dr. Navneet for further management. He identified the notings of Dr. Navneet from point X to X1 on MLCs Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/C and also identified his signatures at points A. Statement of accused.
17. Statement of both the accused persons under Section 313 Cr. PC was recorded wherein both accused have denied all the allegations and have deposed that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant in Digitally signed by RENU connivance with the police. They both stated that no such RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:01 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 10 of 29 +0530 quarrel as alleged ever took place.
18. The accused have examined DW-1 Sh. Rahees Ahmed, whose testimony will be discussed in later part of my judgment.
Arguments of Ld. Chief Public Prosecutor:-
19. It is argued by Ld. Chief for State that the prosecution has examined three public witnesses who are the complainant/injured and eye witnesses and they all are consistent on the point that the accused persons had given beatings to PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7. It is stated that the third accused Safar Khan has expired in this case. The meeting of minds of all three accused persons was before hand which can be seen from the way they attacked on the victim. They had the common intention to commit the offence. Even if the complainant/PW-1 was drunk, the accused had no right to beat him. The defence taken by the accused persons that the injuries received by the victim/PW-1 were due to a fall is not probable. No suggestion was given by the accused persons to the concerned doctor that the injuries could have been caused by a fall. All the accused persons are known to the injured and his family. The FIR is named. It is stated that the accused persons are liable to be convicted in view of the consistent testimony of all three witnesses. The minor deficiencies do not shake their credit hence, the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
Digitally signed by Arguments of Ld. Defence Counsel:-
RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:08 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 11 of 29
20. It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that there are so many inconsistencies in the statements of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 regarding who called the police after the incident. The case of the prosecution is that PW-7, son of the complainant/injured, had called the police, whereas the PCR Form Ex.PW-6/A filed with the chargesheet reveals that the name of the informant was Hira Lal Paswan. It is stated that admittedly the injured/PW-1 was under the influence of alcohol which fact is tried to be concealed by the injured/PW-1, PW-4 i.e. wife of PW-1 and PW-7, son of the complainant/injured/PW-1, but the MLC of the injured proves that he was drunk. No reason of quarrel or abusing was given. No inquiry was conducted regarding the brick nor any brick was found on the spot. IO has also stated that he did not find anything on the scene of crime. The injured admits that he was unconscious. He has not named that his son was also there, and infact, the beatings started with his son first of all, which is the case of the prosecution. PW-1 nowhere narrates the incident in the manner it is being reported by the police. PW-4 is hostile qua the presence of PW-7, thus shattering the testimony of PW-7, who claims to be present on the spot. There are also discrepancies in the site plan Ex.PW-1/B which nowhere reflects the place of the crime nor IO could state the same. There is also discrepancy in the statement of PW-11 on the point of time of arrest of the accused persons. PW-1 could not tell the mobile number of his son/PW-7 from whom he had called the PCR. There is also a discrepancy in the statement of public Digitally witnesses regarding recording of their statements. PW-1 is not signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR supporting the prosecution on the point that he accompanied BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:16 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 12 of 29 the police at the time of arrest of the accused persons. No medical document of any other hospital is produced. It is an admitted fact that they had previous enmity. All three accused persons had left the hospital without any information, which also goes against them. PW-4 could not tell the place of incident. Moreover, the place of incident as told by her, does not match with the place stated by PW-1. There is also discrepancy on the date and time of lodging of FIR. PW-9 says that PW-1 came in the hospital and met him. No document of taking treatment from any other hospital is produced by any of the public witnesses. There is also a discrepancy in the statement of PW-1 about the information received regarding the presence of the accused persons. The accused had produced a defence witness who is neighbourer of the complainant/PW-1 Dhanraj and proved that complainant/PW-1 Dhanraj was under the influence of liquor on the day of incident. He narrated the incident as to how complainant/PW-1 got injuries. It is stated that seeing the various discrepancies the witnesses are not reliable. It is stated that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the accused persons are liable to be acquitted in this case.
21. I have heard the submissions of both the sides and have perused the record.
Conclusion
22. Before appreciating the facts of the case, it is essential to know the ingredients of the Sections 308, 341, 323 and 34 of Digitally signed by RENU IPC for which the accused persons have been charged, which RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:24 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 13 of 29 provides as under:-
"S.308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide.-- 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 culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both".
"S.341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.-- Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both".
"S.323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.-- 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".
"S. 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.-- When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".
23. During the course of the proceedings of this case, one of the accused namely Safar Khan had expired on 09.06.2022 and the proceedings stood abated against him.
24. To prove its case the most material witnesses examined by the prosecution are PW-1 Dhanraj, who is the complainant and eye witness of the case, PW-4 is his wife Saraswati and PW-7 is his son Rahul.
25. FIR in this case was registered on the complaint lodged by PW-1 Dhanraj, which is proved as Ex.PW-1/A, wherein it is Digitally signed by RENU reported by PW-1 that on 30.09.2013 at around 8:00 pm he RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:31 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 14 of 29 was returning to his house from his job. In the street, in front of his house, accused Ramjani and his brothers Chand and Safar were standing, who started abusing him which was being objected by his son Rahul/PW-7, whereupon all the accused persons had caught hold of his son/PW-7 Rahul and started beating him with fists and leg blows, to which PW-1 objected, then all the three accused persons started beating him and giving abuses. When PW-1 tried to run away towards his house, accused Chand and Safar stopped him and accused Ramjani hit a brick on his head, whereas accused Chand had hit a stone on his right leg, due to which he got injuries in the fingers of his right leg. In the meantime, his wife/PW-4 came out of the house and tried to save them, upon which all the accused also beaten her up and ran away. His son made a call at 100 number. Then they were taken to Hedgewar Hospital in the ambulance. After getting treatment in the hospital, they came to the police station where his statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded and the FIR was registered.
26. Before referring to the statement of witnesses, it is necessary to point out that the court while evaluating facts of the case is supposed to form opinion about the credibility of the witness examined in the case. The judge has to form his own estimate of the evidence produced before him and to articulate an opinion about the credibility of the witness. For the purpose of assessing the credibility, the court has to consider the evidence of a witness to find out as to how he has fared in the cross-examination and what impression is created Digitally signed by by his evidence, taken in context of other facts of the case.
RENU
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date: Law recognizes following ways in which the evidence of a
2024.11.29
16:08:38
+0530
SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 15 of 29
witness can be termed unreliable:
a) the witness statement is inherently improbable or contrary to the course of nature,
b) his deposition contains mutually contradictory or inconsistent passage,
c) he is found to be bitter enemy of the opposite party,
d) he is found not to be a man of veracity,
e) he is found to have been bribed or accepted any other corrupt inducement to give evidence and,
f) his demeanor, while under examination, is found abnormal and unsatisfactory.
27. PW-1 when appeared in the court had not given the version of the incident in the manner it happened as per the prosecution case. He has deposed in his examination in chief that on 30.09.2013 at about 07:30 pm, he was going towards his house after performing his duty. At about 07:30 pm, he reached near the corner of Gali and started entering in the Gali. Three persons namely, Ramjani, Chand and Safar (expired) were in the Gali. They all started quarreling with him and also used abusing language against him. He retaliated and on his retaliation the accused persons present in the court alongwith accused Safar grappled with him. Ramjani picked up a brick from the road and gave injury on his head, and Chand picked up a brick/stone from the road and gave injury on his foot. After receiving injury, he became unconscious. Public gathered there. Thereafter, his family made a call at 100 number. He was taken to the hospital. His statement Ex.PW-1/A was recorded by the police in the Hedgawar Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR Hospital. He further deposed that Site plan Ex. PW-1/B, arrest BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:44 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 16 of 29 memo of Razak Ahmed @ Ramjani Ex. PW-1/C and arrest Memo of Chand Ex. PW-1/D, bear his signatures at point A. He further deposed that personal search memo of Ramjani Ex. PW-1/E and personal search memo of Chand Ex.PW-1/F, all bear his signatures at point A.
28. Hence, the above deposition of PW-1 reveals that he nowhere named that PW-7 his son Rahul was present there when he was being abused by accused persons or that PW-7/his son objected to accused persons for giving abuses to PW-1, on which accused persons had allegedly beaten him up. In his entire deposition before the court, he nowhere named that infact the beating first started with PW-7 and lateron when he intervened he was beaten up and given injuries by means of brick and stone. Further, he has not even named that his wife came from inside the house and tried to save them, in which she was also beaten up by the accused persons. Hence, PW-1 clearly omitted to mention the material aspects of the incident which makes his testimony doubtful. He has not corroborated the prosecution story regarding the presence of PW-4 and PW-7 on the spot or quarrel with PW-7 or getting injury by PW-7 and PW-4. He is the author of FIR and by skipping to mention the names of PW-7 and PW-4 being available on the place of incident, he creates doubt on prosecution story as well as on the statement of PW-7 and PW-4.
29. In this regard, it is also pertinent to mention that even PW-4 Saraswati has not narrated the incident in the manner in which it is being mentioned in the complaint of PW-1. She Digitally signed by RENU also did not mention that PW-7 Rahul was there already, rather RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:08:51 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 17 of 29 in her cross-examination she has deposed that when she heard the noise of quarrel in the gali, her son Rahul was present in the house with her and he followed her to the spot. Her deposition in her examination-in-chief is that on 30.09.2013 at about 8:00 pm, she was present inside her house. On hearing the noise of quarrel in the gali outside her house, she came out and saw the accused persons, present in the court today, including their brother Safar (now deceased) who lives in rear street of her house, beating her husband. She rushed to the spot and tried to save her husband. Accused Ramjani hit a piece of brick on the head of her husband. She was also beaten by the accused persons with kick and fist blows. She asked her son Rahul to inform the police and he made a call to the police. Police arrived at the spot and took her, her husband and son to Dr. Hedgewar Hospital. Police made inquiry from her and she narrated the facts to the police. She was put a leading question by Ld. Cheif PP about her injured son Rahul, to which she replied that her son Rahul was not beaten by the accused persons.
30. Neither PW-1, father of PW-7 Rahul, nor PW-4, mother of PW-7, has stated about the presence of PW-7 on the spot when the quarrel started. As per version of PW-4, she reached the spot after hearing noises in gali and found accused persons beating her husband and when she tried to save her husband, she was also beaten up by accused. She nowhere speaks about the beatings given to PW-7 or his presence during the incident. Her examination-in-chief is silent on this aspect. Her Digitally signed by deposition in court is also not corroborating the manner and RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date: serial of incident as per prosecution story. Both PW-1 and 2024.11.29 16:08:57 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 18 of 29 PW-4 are not corroborating the factum of quarrel with PW-7 and his presence on the spot when incident had happened.
31. On the other hand, PW-7 has narrated the incident as per the prosecution's case. He has deposed that on 30.09.2013, he was residing at H.No.9A, Gali Masjid Wali, Mukesh Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi with his family and working as a labourer. On that day at about 8:00 pm, his father returned back to home from his duty. He was present inside the house, at that time accused persons namely Ramjani, Chand and Safar (expired) were abusing his father in front of his house in the gali. He was informed by someone regarding the above-said incident. So, he immediately reached at the said place and objected and asked about abusing, to which all the accused persons caught hold him and started beating him with legs and fist blows. His father Dhanraj objected upon his beating by the accused persons, to which the accused persons started beating his father with legs and fists blows. When his father tried to rescue himself, at that time accused Ramjani took out a brick and hit on the head of his father. At that time his father was caught hold by accused Chand and Safar. His mother Saraswati came there for rescue of his father, then accused persons started beating his mother with legs and fists and then all the accused persons ran away from the spot. He immediately called the police at 100 number. Police as well as ambulance reached at the spot and took him as well as his father and mother to Hedgewar Hospital. Thereafter, in the hospital their MLCs were prepared by the doctor. Then, police inquired him and Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR recorded his statement in this regard. BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:03 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 19 of 29
32. As per the statement of PW-7 he was informed by someone regarding the incident of giving abuses by the accused persons to his father in front of his house in the gali. However, the said 'someone' is not named as a witness in this case though he should have been made a witness in this case being independent witness. No other independent witness has been made a witness in this case by the prosecution.
33. As per the defence of the accused persons, at the time of incident PW-1 was heavily drunk and there was scuffle between PW-1, his wife PW-4 Sarswati and his son PW-7 Rahul, and he fell down during the said scuffle, as a result he sustained injuries. All three PWs i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 were specifically asked whether PW-1 was drunk on the day of incident or not? PW-1 stated that he does not recollect whether he was under the influence of liquor or not, whereas PW-4 deposed that her husband consumes alcohol occasionally, and PW-7 has deposed that his father was not drunk at the time of incident. The testimony of all three witnesses on the point of the fact that PW-1 was under the influence of liquor or not, is contradicted by the MLC of PW-1 Ex.PW-2/C which is proved by PW-2 Dr. Reetesh Ranjan who has deposed that the smell of alcohol was positive having blood alcohol concentration 117 mg%. This MLC goes to prove one aspect of the defence of the accused persons that at the time of incident, PW-1 was drunk. The denial of the fact by the witnesses that PW-1 was not drunk on the day of incident, is shattered by his MLC Ex.PW-2/C and thus make their testimony unreliable. All the Digitally three witnesses have given contradictory statement or evasive signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
statement in contradiction to the MLC. The concealment of 2024.11.29 16:09:08 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 20 of 29 this fact or giving evasive reply of his being drunk at the time of incident, makes their statement doubtful.
34. The accused persons had stated that they are falsely implicated in this case due to previous dispute between their family and family of complainant/PW-1 prior to the incident.
Though, PW-4 and PW-7 have not admitted this factum of previous enmity, but PW-1 in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that there had been some disputes between his family and the family of the accused persons prior to the incident. On this point also the testimony of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 are inconsistent. The concealment on their part goes to their discredit.
35. As per the MLCs of all the three PWs, the opinion regarding nature of injuries could not be given because they were not found in casualty and had left the hospital. PW-1 had admitted that he had undergone treatment in a private hospital for the injuries suffered in the incident, but no medical document was provided to the police. PW-4 also stated that she got treatment from a private doctor namely Dr. Deep who had given her medicines without prescription, but Dr. Deep is not made a witness in this case. Why PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 had left the hospital without informing anyone, is not explained anywhere by them. PW-7 has deposed in his cross-examination that he had not undergone any sort of medical treatment after the first aid taken from the Hedgewar Hospital, whereas his father had undergone some treatment from Hedgewar Hospital. This statement is contrary to the record of MLC, Digitally signed by RENU which recorded there absence from the hospital due to which RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:14 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 21 of 29 the nature of injuries could not be opined by the doctor.
36. As per the version of PW-4 they remained in the hospital for the whole night and thereafter came back to their house. PW-4 has also stated that she never visited the police station nor her statement has ever been recorded by the police, which is also against the prosecution story.
37. On the other hand PW-1 has stated that after receiving injuries he became unconscious, public gathered there and he was taken to hospital where his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital, which complaint was marked as Ex.PW-1/A. This statement of PW-1, is contrary to the statement of PW-4. PW-7 has stated that his statement was recorded after the MLCs were prepared by the doctor. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital as well in the police station.
38. PW-1 could not say whether his statement was recorded in the hospital or in the police station. He has deposed that his statement was recorded by the police once on the day of incident, but the same is also against the prosecution story wherein supplementary statement was recorded by the IO.
39. There is also contradiction in the statement of PW-1 on the point of arrest of accused persons. PW-1 stated that police never contacted him after meeting him in the hospital and that the accused persons were arrested on the next day of the incident and thereafter he came to know about their arrest in this case. If that is the position, then how the arrest memos of Digitally signed by the accused persons bear the signatures of PW-1. The RENU RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
statement of PW-1 is also against the statement of PW-9 and 2024.11.29 16:09:20 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 22 of 29 PW-11 who have deposed that on 01.10.2013 on receiving the information from the complainant/PW-1 Dhanraj that the accused are present in their house, they went to the house of the accused alongwith the complainant/PW-1. Even the testimony of PW-9 and PW-11 do not corroborate the statement of each other because as per PW-11 he received the phone call about the presence of the accused persons in their house. He has not stated that he was informed by the complainant, as is deposed by PW-9. Further PW-1 has categorically denied to have accompanied the police at the time of arrest of the accused persons. As per the statement of PW-11, IO received the information about the presence of the accused persons at their house at about 12:15 am and they reached at the house of the accused persons in next 3-4 minutes, but the arrest memos of all three accused persons show the time of their arrest as follows: accused Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani "Date 01-10-13 at 8 pm", accused Chand "Date 01-10-13 at 9 pm" and accused Safar Khan "Date 01-10-13 at 8:30 pm". When the accused persons were apprehended in the morning, why their arrest memos give the arrest timings of evening. The same creates doubt on the authenticity of the arrest memos.
40. As per the statement of PW-11, the injured/PW-1 Dhanraj met them in the police station when they returned to the police station from the hospital, as they were not found in the hospital on that day. In the police station he recorded his statement, prepared rukka on which the FIR was registered. On the other Digitally signed by hand, PW-4 has stated that from the hospital they came back to RENU BHATNAGAR RENU BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 their house and he never visited the police station. PW-1 has 16:09:26 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 23 of 29 pleaded ignorance about the place where his statement was recorded by the police, whether in the hospital or at the police station. This is also contradiction in the statement of the police officials as well as the public witnesses.
41. PW-9 in his cross-examination has deposed that on reaching the spot, HC Ashok met him who informed that injured were taken to the hospital. He also deposed that he tried to enquire about the incident at the spot but he found nothing about happening of the incident. As per the deposition of PW-1, public had gathered on the spot, but PW-9 did not find anybody on the spot. No independent witness was tried to be searched or made a witness. PW-9 has even deposed that he visited at 11:30 pm again at the spot with the complainant and even on his second visit no public person regarding the incident was found present there.
42. The police had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-1/B wherein it is mentioned that Mark A is the place where the accused persons had beaten PW-1 and his family members. However, the said Mark A is nowhere shown in the site plan. PW-4 when asked about the place of incident, has only deposed that there was a distance of about 5-6 houses between the place of incident and her house. She could not tell the name of the resident in front of whose house the quarrel took place. As per the statement of PW-1 when he started entering the gali, the accused who were present in the corner of the gali, started quarreling. Hence he himself is not specific about the place of incident nor the site plan discloses the exact place where the Digitally incident had happened.
signed by
RENU
RENU BHATNAGAR
BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29
16:09:32
+0530
SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 24 of 29
43. PW-1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he does not know the person namely Hira Lal Paswan, who as per the prosecution was the informant at 100 number.
44. PW-1 has deposed that accused persons were arrested on the next day of the incident, but the lodging of FIR also becomes doubtful in view of the testimony of PW-9 and PW-11. No recovery of the stone or brick was effected in this case by the police.
45. PW-7 also deposed that he informed the police after the incident, which is contrary to the PCR Form and is against the record.
46. No reason is disclosed by PW-1/injured, PW-4 or PW-7 as to why the accused persons started giving abuses to the injured/PW-1, out of blue without any reason.
47. The accused in their defence produced DW-1 who has deposed that he is residing five houses away from the house of PW-1 Dhanraj. On 03.09.2013 at about 7:45-8:00 pm he saw his neighbourer Dhanraj who was heavily drunk at that time and was not able to walk properly. His wife and son were not allowing him to enter into their house and so due to khinchatani, Dhanraj fell down on the road. Then he want to his house which is five house away from the house of said Dhanraj.
48. The accused have also taken the stand that at the time of incident, complainant was drunk and the same defence was being put to all the witnesses. Though PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 Digitally signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR tried to conceal the factum of PW-1 having been drunk at the BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:38 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 25 of 29 time of incident, but same is proved by the MLC of complainant. The complainant as well as PW-4 and PW-7 have left the hospital without taking proper treatment.
49. The presence of Rahul on the spot at the time of incident also becomes doubtful in view of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4, who have not corroborated the testimony of PW-7 as well as the prosecution story. PW-4 has even deposed that PW-7 Rahul was not beaten up by the accused, which is also against the statement of PW-7 and against the prosecution story.
50. PW-7 though deposed on the lines of prosecution story, but his statement was not corroborated by the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4. The previous enmity between the parties is also admitted by PW-1. Hence, there are so many discrepancies, omissions, contradictions in the statement of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-7 go to prove that the witnesses are not worthy of credit.
51. The inconsistencies, discrepancies, improvements, embellishments and contradictions coming in the testimony of the injured/complainant go to the root of the case. As held in the case of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (131) DRJ, 3SC, -:
"In our considered opinion, the 'sterling witness' should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, Digitally signed by namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial RENU RENU BHATNAGAR statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:44 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 26 of 29 natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co- relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a 'sterling witness' whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged."
52. In the adversarial system every person accused of an offence is always presumed to be innocent so that burden lies upon the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt and all ingredients of the offence with which the accused is charged are made out. In a criminal trial requirement of proof does not lie in the realms of surmises and conjectures. The doubt must be of reasonable man and the standard adopted must be a standard adopted by a reasonable and just man for coming to a conclusion considering the particular subject matter. Doubt must be actual and substantial doubts as to the Digitally guilt of accused arising from the evidence or lack of it, as signed by RENU RENU BHATNAGAR opposed to mere apprehensions. BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:50 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 27 of 29
53. In case Shivani V State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2662, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that our jurisprudential enthusiasm for presumed innocent must be moderated by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and realistic. In State of U.P V Shankar, AIR 1981 SC 897, it was observed that, "it is function of the court to separate the grain from the chaff and accept what appears to be true and reject the rest."
54. In Sujit Biswas V State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406 it was held that, "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be" true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture." In Jose V Sub Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and others, (2016) 10 SCC 519, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted"."
55. To sum up, in view of the facts & circumstances of the case and the aforesaid discussion, the court is of the view that Digitally signed by RENU the evidence of material/eye witnesses i.e. PW-1, PW-4 and RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
2024.11.29 16:09:58 +0530 SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 28 of 29 PW-7, when scrutinized in its totality, does not inspire the confidence so as to convict the accused persons. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the eye witnesses, which go to the root of their statements, make them unreliable witness and have created a reasonable doubt in the mind of the court regarding the involvement of the accused persons in the alleged offence. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, both the accused persons namely Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani and Chand are acquitted from the charge for offence punishable under Section 308/323/341/34 IPC after giving benefit of doubt to them. They are directed to furnish fresh bail bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount under Section 437-A Cr.PC. Earlier Bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by RENU ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT RENU BHATNAGAR BHATNAGAR Date:
On 29th November, 2024 2024.11.29
16:10:05
+0530
(RENU BHATNAGAR)
Principal District & Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, KKD Courts: Delhi SC No.236/22 FIR No.365/13 State vs. Rajjak Ahmed @ Ramjani & Ors Page 29 of 29