Delhi District Court
State vs . Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu & Anr. on 26 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE03 : (SOUTH EAST) DELHI
STATE Vs. Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu & Anr.
FIR No: 09 of 2008
P. S. Jaitpur
Date of Institution of Case : 05.05.2009
Date on which case reserved : 22.08.2015
for Judgment
Date of Judgment : 26.10.2015
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 04.10.2008 b) Offence complained of : 325/34 IPC c) Name of complainant : Sh. Suresh Kumar d) Name of accused, : (1) Jayander @ Santu their parentage and residence s/o Shri Prabhas Singh, (2) Manish Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Sanehi Singh Both R/o 28/8, Shiv Puri, Meethapur, Extension, Badarpur, New Delhi. e) Plea of accused : Not guilty f) Final order : Convicted for offence u/s. 325/34 IPC FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 1 of 17 Counsels for the Parties: Sh. Arun Kumar Singh, Ld. APP for the State.
Ms. Rashmi Jain, Ld. Counsel for both accused BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR DECISION:
The case of prosecution in brief is that on 04.10.2008, at about 8.30 am at Shivpuri, Meethapur Extension, Gali No. 8, New Delhi, accused Jayander @ Santu and Manish Kumar Singh assaulted Suresh Kumar with iron rod and caused grievous injury to him and threatened to kill him. Complainant Sh. Suresh Kumar lodged a complaint regarding the incident. Accordingly FIR no. 09 of 2008 under section 325/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called 'IPC') was registered at Jaitpur.
2. After the completion of the investigation, charge sheet for offence u/s 325/506/34 IPC was filed against accused Jayander Kumar Singh and Manish Kumar Singh. Cognizance of the offence was taken. Copy of charge sheet was supplied to the accused. After hearing the parties, charge for the offence u/s 325/506/34 IPC was framed against both accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 2 of 17
3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its case.
4. PW1 Shri Suresh Kumar is the complainant/injured in this case. PW1 has deposed that on 04.10.2008 at about 8.30 am, some quarrel took place between Kusum Devi and his sister in law Deepa on the pretext of disposal of garbage. His bhabhi Deepa came inside her house. Thereafter, Kusum Devi started abusing his child. When his bhabhi went, Kusum Devi started giving beatings to his bhabi Deepa by jhadu. She also called her children and instigated them to beat Deepa. In the meantime, his wife Rita Devi also went out, younger son of Kusum Devi named Sailender and two daughters named Pammi and Sonu gave beatings to his wife and she sustained injuries on her stomach and her hand. When he heard noise and he came out of his house, Santu and Bunty came and hit him with iron rod. Santu called someone to bring katta and threatened to kill him. He fell down on the ground and was injured badly. Those persons went away from the spot. Someone informed PCR. Police came at the spot and shifted him to hospital. Police recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 3 of 17
5. PW2 Smt. Deepa is alleged witness of the incident. PW2 has deposed that on 04.10.2008 at about 8.30 am, some heated conversation took place between her and her neighbour Kusum Devi. She came inside her house. Thereafter, her nephew aged 1 year went outside the house for playing but Kusum Devi started abusing the child. She came out of house and asked Kusum Devi as to why she was abusing the child. On this, Kusum Devi gave her beatings with jhadu and called her children Pammi Devi and Sailender to beat her. In the meantime, her sister in law (devrani) Rita Devi also came out but said persons also gave beatings to her devrani and she sustained injuries on her stomach and hand. When she raised an alarm, her brother in law/complainant Suresh came out. Santu and Bunty also reached at the spot and gave beatings to Suresh by iron rods. Santu called someone to bring katta so that he would be able to kill Suresh. Suresh fell down on the ground and blood was oozing from his body. Those persons went away from the spot and someone informed PCR who removed Suresh to hospital.
6. PW3 Rita Devi is the wife of complainant/injured and also an alleged eye witness of the incident. PW3 has deposed that on FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 4 of 17 04.10.2008 at about 8.30 am, her jethani Deepa had some heated arguments with Kusum Devi (neighbour). She heard that some quarrel took place between cleaning and brooming of gali. Kusum Devi was abusing. Her jethani went outside the house and asked her as to why she was abusing. In the meantime, Kusum Devi started beating her jethani with broom. She heard noise and came outside the house. Shailender, Pammi and Sonu started beating her. One of them was carrying a saria. She was hit with saria. She sustained injury in her hand and stomach. She fell down and became unconscious. Her husband came outside house. She does not know what happened after that. PW3 has further deposed that when she gained consciousness, she saw that her husband came outside the house. Bunty and Shantu started beating her husband. Shantu called one unknown person and asked him to bring a katta to kill him. Her husband had sustained injury on eye and little finger.
7. PW4 HC Rampal is a formal witness who had received the rukka and copy of FIR and went to the spot to hand over the same to the IO of the case.
FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 5 of 17
8. PW5 HC Rajesh Kumar is the official who joined proceedings with the IO during the arrest of accused.
9. PW6 SI Rajiv Ranjan is the IO of this case.
10. PW7 Dr. Sashikant is the doctor who proved the MLC of Suresh as Ex.PW7/A
11. PW8 HC Shiv Charan is the DD writer who produced original DD no. 13 A dated 04.10.2008. The DD entry is Ex.PW8A and true copy of the same filed with the charge sheet is Ex.PW8/B. He has also proved DD no. 10A as Ex.PW8/C.
12. PW9 HC Dharamvir Singh is formal witness /duty officer who registered the present FIR. The copy of FIR is Ex.PW9/A and endorsement on rukka is Ex.PW9/B.
13. PE was closed vide order dated 07.04.2015.
14. After PE, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C and their statement was recorded separately, wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence against them. Accused have examined two witnesses in their defence. DE was closed vide order dt. 10.07.2015. Therefore, the matter was fixed for final arguments.
15. Final arguments were addressed on behalf of Ld. Defence FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 6 of 17 Counsel and Ld. APP for the State.
16. Ld. APP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Complainant and other prosecution witnesses have proved that the accused had voluntarily caused injury to the complainant by beating him. It is also argued on behalf of State that the testimony of prosecution witnesses leaves no doubt that the accused had committed the offences with which they have been charged.
17. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts. Ld. Counsel has also argued that there are contradictions in the testimony of eye witnesses which makes their testimony unreliable. Therefore, benefit of doubt may be given to accused and they may be acquitted.
18. I have considered the submission of Ld. APP for the State and Ld. Defence Counsel and perused the entire material on record.
19. The accused has been charged with offence u/s 325/506/34 IPC. 325 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 7 of 17 hurt.
20. The perusal of testimony of prosecution witnesses would show that complainant/injured Suresh Kumar and his wife Smt. Reeta and his sister in law Smt. Deepa are the eye witnesses of the incident.
21. Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that there are many contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which creates doubt over the evidence. It is also argued that the witnesses during their examination have admitted that there was enmity between both the families and they had a motive to falsely implicate the accused persons. It is also argued that the witnesses during their evidence have admitted that the accused were not involved in the quarrel and thus the prosecution witnesses have themselves proved that there was no involvement of the accused persons in the alleged quarrel.
22. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel and have gone through the material on record.
23. The complainant during his examination as PW1 has stated "It is correct that the quarrel took place initially on the conversation of two ladies. It is correct that Pummy and Sonu were FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 8 of 17 not present when quarrel started....It is correct that when quarrel started I was reading newspaper".
24. The cross examination of PW1 Suresh Kumar does show that he has admitted that the quarrel started between two ladies only. However, during cross examination he has nowhere admitted the fact that accused Jayander or Manish were not involved in the incident of beating. He has specifically stated during his deposition before the Court that accused Shantu and Bunty had beaten him.
25. Similarly, PW2 Smt. Deepa had stated during cross examination "It is correct that quarrel took place between me and Kusum Devi over cleaning of gali.... It is correct that there was no involvement in that quarrel of Sonu and Santu. It is correct that quarrel took place between me and Kusum Devi."
26. Witness Smt. Deepa Devi during cross examination has been asked question over the initial quarrel which took place between Deepa and Kusum Devi over cleaning of gali. The suggestions put to the witness has been regarding that quarrel only and she has answered in respect of quarrel between ladies and not regarding the incident of beating given to Suresh Kumar by the FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 9 of 17 accused persons.
27. During cross examination, PW Deepa has categorically denied "It is wrong to suggest that the accused have not given any beating on that day." She has voluntarily stated, "The quarrel firstly took place over cleaning of gali. After the quarrel, I came inside the house. Thereafter, my nephew went outside and Kusum Devi started abusing him. When I came out of the house and objected she started beating with broom and she called Santu, Banty and Shailender, Pammy and Sonu. They all started beating me. My sister in law (devrani) came out of house. She was also beaten by Shailender and Pammy. My devar also came out, Santu and Banti started beating him." Witness Deepa during cross examination has categorically stated that accused had beaten her devar /complainant Suresh in the incident.
28. Similarly, PW3 Rita Devi has been cross examined and she has stated "It is correct that when the quarrel took place between Kusum Devi and Deepa, I was not present at the spot." She has voluntarily stated that she came out later after hearing the noise.
29. There are no material contradictions in the testimony of the FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 10 of 17 eye witnesses. Complainant Suresh has categorically stated that when he heard noise, he came out of the house and Santu and Banti came to him and hit him with iron rod. PW2 Deepa has also stated that when she raised alarm, her brother in law Suresh came out but Santu and Banti reached at the spot and gave beating to Suresh with iron rods. PW3 Rita Devi has also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 Suresh and PW2 Deepa and has stated that when she gained consciousness, she saw that her husband came outside of the house, Banti and Santu started beating her husband.
30. Minor contradictions appearing in the testimony of witnesses does not make their testimony completely unreliable. The witnesses have categorically stated that accused Santu and Banti had given beating to Suresh Kumar with iron rod. Though, no iron rod has been recovered during the investigation. However, the fact that Suresh had sustained injury is proved by PW7 Dr. Shashi Kant. He has proved the MLC of Suresh as Ex.PW7/B. He has stated that as per the MLC, Suresh has sustained grievous injury.
31. Second argument advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel is that accused Jayender and Manish were not present at the spot at the FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 11 of 17 time of alleged incident. It is also argued that defence witnesses have proved that the accused were not present at the spot and they were not involved in the quarrel.
32. I have considered the submissions and perused the testimony of defence witnesses and entire material on record. I am afraid that this arguments advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel also does not have any weight. DW1 Kusum has deposed that she does not remember the date, however it was Saturday at about 9.00 am, she came outside after brooming and was cleaning the floor outside the house with water, on which Deepa came and started abusing her. She also started abusing her. Deepa suddenly came and held her hair and pushed her towards the ground. She started beating her. In the meantime, Rita also came and they both started beating her. Public persons gathered at the spot. Both Deepa and Rita were over her and beating her. She somehow saved herself and went inside. Nothing else happened on that day in her presence. She has also stated that her husband and her son Jayender Singh had left for their duty. Manish was not present in her house at that time.
33. DW1 is the mother of accused Jayander Kumar Singh. She FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 12 of 17 is an interested witness and has a motive to save her son Jayander and relative Manish. The mother of accused has stated that she was allegedly beaten by PW3 Rita and PW2 Deepa. She has stated that they both had put him on the ground and gave beating and at the time of incident she was alone in the house. However, no MLC of DW1 Smt. Kusum has been placed on record by the witness to show that she has sustained any injury during the alleged quarrel. No complaint has been lodged with the PS or any other official regarding the alleged incident.
34. DW2 Smt. Sushila Devi has deposed that on that day, she was going to take milk. She saw quarrel taking place between Kusum and her neighbour. She went running and saw that Kusum was on the ground and neighbouring ladies were beating her. Police was about to come. She did not see the sons of Kusum at the spot. When police was about to come, she left the spot.
35. DW2 has admitted during cross examination that she had remained at the spot only for some time and left the spot while the incident was continuing. As per the statement of DW2 Sushila, when she left the spot, the incident was continuing. She has also not seen Kusum Devi running to her house to save herself. DW2 FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 13 of 17 appears to be a witness of only of part of the incident. She had not seen the complete quarrel whether accused came to the spot or whether Suresh Kumar came to the spot or not.
36. The defence witnesses during their deposition before the court had tried to put a case that Deepa and Rita had beaten Kusum Devi on that day. However during cross examination of any of the prosecution witnesses, no suggestion has been given that Deepa and Rita had beaten Kusum Devi on that day. Neither in the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused have stated that on the day Smt. Kusum Devi was beaten by Deepa and Rita. Accused Jayander has not examined any staff of his office or any office colleague to prove that he was present in the office at the time of alleged incident.
37. During cross examination of PW Deepa one suggestion has been given that "It is correct that at the time of incident Banti and Santu were inside their house." The suggestion given by Ld. Defence Counsel to the witness is an admission of accused that the Banti and Santu were present in their house and not at the office.
38. Ld. Counsel has failed to explain as to why no suggestion FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 14 of 17 has been given to any of the witness qua the allegation that Rita and Deepa had beaten Kusum Devi at the time of incident nor the same has been stated by any of the accused during the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC. A new story has been put forward during defence evidence which is not even prima facie proved by the defence witnesses.
39. I do not find any material contradiction in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Complainant Suresh Kumar as well as witnesses Deepa and Rita have categorically stated that both accused had beaten Suresh.
40. There is no reason for complainant/injured to implicate the accused falsely. Although the accused have claimed that they have been implicated falsely by the complainant, however no suggestion is given by Ld. Defence counsel during crossexamination of witnesses, suggesting as to what could have been the possible motive for those witnesses to falsely implicate the accused.
41. It is difficult to believe that injured would falsely implicate accused and would save the real culprit for no rhyme or reason. Neither complainant/injured nor any other prosecution witnesses FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 15 of 17 gains anything by implicating the accused.
42. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubts that accused Jayander and Manish have voluntarily caused grievous injury to complainant Suresh.
43. Now coming to offence under section 506 IPC. Ingredients of offence of ''criminal intimidation'' is defined in Section 503 IPC.
44. The complainant in his deposition before the Court has stated that Shantu called someone to bring katta and threatened to kill him.
45. It is settled position of law that the gist of the offence under Section 506 IPC is that the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. Mere vague allegation will not satisfy the essential ingredients of Section 506 IPC. The law is settled that mere empty threats do not constitute the offence punishable under Section 506. The allegations of the complainant are only that the accused called one unknown person to bring katta so that they could kill complainant Suresh. There is no mention that the said threats caused alarm to the complainant. Hence, offence FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu PS Jaitpur Page No. 16 of 17 punishable u/s 506 IPC is not made out against any of the accused. The witnesses examined by the prosecution have also not deposed that any such threats caused alarm to the complainant. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove case for offence under section 506 IPC against the accused persons.
46. In view of discussion here in above, I hold that accused Jayander and Manish are guilty for offences punishable U/sec. 325/34 IPC. Accordingly, accused Jayander and Manish are convicted for offences punishable U/sec. 325/34 IPC. Let the convicts be separately heard on the quantum of sentence. Copy of judgment be given Dasti.
Pronounced in the open Court (Neha)
today on 26th October, 2015 MM03 (South East)
Saket, New Delhi
FIR No. 09 of 2008 State Vs.Jayander Kumar Singh @ Santu
PS Jaitpur Page No. 17 of 17