Delhi District Court
State vs . Sanjeev @ Sanju on 29 May, 2019
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEETI SURI MISHRA: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE02
(CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
State Vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju
FIR No. 333/10
U/s: 452/324 IPC
P.S. Timar Pur
CNR No. DLCT020008582011
J U D G M E N T
Unique Identification No. : 294849/16 Date of Institution : 31.10.2011 Date on which case reserved for judgment : 20.05.2019. Date of judgment : 29.05.2019 Name of the complainant : Rupesh Date of the commission of offence : 11.03.2010 Name of accused : Sanjeev @ Sanju, S/o Sh. Jagpal, R/o. C36, Gali no.6, Wazirabad, Delhi. Offence complained of : U/s 452/324 IPC Offence charged of : U/s 452/324 IPC Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty Final order : Acquitted FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 2
1. Succinctly put, the concise facts of the case as per prosecution are that on 11.03.2010, at Gali no.6, Wazirabad Village, Timarpur, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS. Timarpur, the accused Sanjeev @ Sanju trespassed into the house of complainant Rupesh S/o. Satpal after making preparations to commit offence of hurt and assault and also voluntarily caused simple injuries to him with the help of sticks / dandas. The prosecution has alleged commission of offences punishable u/s 452 and Section 324 IPC.
2. It is the case of prosecution and as per chargesheet on 30.12.2010, FIR in the present case was registered on the directions of the court u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. After registration of the FIR, investigation was conducted by the police officials and chargesheet was filed in the court u/s 323/452/506 IPC. Subsequently, the court took cognizance of the offences and the copy of the challan was supplied to the accused in compliance with the provision under Section 207 Cr.P.C.
3. On the basis of the contents of the chargesheet and after hearing both the parties, charge was framed u/s 452 and 324 IPC. The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined a total of six (6) witnesses. The gist of their testimonies is as under:
PW1 Rupesh deposed that he is a TSR driver by profession and on 11.03.2010, he was living at Wazirabad, Gali no.6, Delhi. He stated that on that day, he was in his house only when at about 8.30 pm, accused Sanjeev @ Sanju (correctly identified by the witness in court) came to his house and an altercation took place between him and the accused. He stated that the accused started abusing FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 3 him regarding the fact that the complainant used to beat his wife and stated that he asked the accused to mind his own business but he started abusing him and also gave beatings to him with a three feet lathi which he was carrying. He stated that accused hit him on his left leg and then he made complaint on 13.03.2010 to the SHO PS. Timarpur but the police officials did not take any action. He stated that he along with his tenant Sh. Tiger went to the Aruna Asaf Ali hospital where he was medically examined and after 1520 days, although he does not remember the exact date, the accused along with four other persons came again, entered his house forcefully and started beating him. Witness stated that he raised hue and cry and then, the accused persons fled away from the spot. He stated that he made a call at 100 number and police came to his house. He stated that after some days he got the photographs of his body/person clicked where the beating marks were shown. He identified the five photographs from the file which were proved as EX.P1(Colly).
PW2 HC Suresh Kumar deposed that on 30.12.2010, he was posted as Head constable and worked as duty officer from 4 pm to 12 midnight and on that day, when he received the copy of the court order and on the basis of which he registered the FIR proved as EX.PW2/A. PW3 ASI Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 30.12.2010, he was posted as Head constable, when on that day, on the direction of Hon'ble Court on the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.c which was filed by complainant, he prepared rukka EX.PW3/A and handed over the same to duty officer for registration of FIR. He stated that the DO then handed him over the copy of FIR and original rukka for investigation. He stated that he went to the spot i.e. Gali no.6, Wazirabad, examined the spot but could not find the complainant and then he went to the house of complainant's mother at Kasturba Nagar, Shahadra. He stated that he recorded the statements of mother of complainant namely Shanti, daughter of complainant namely Muskan and FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 4 the brotherinlaw of complainant namely Chander. He stated that on 26.07.2011, he prepared site plan at the instance of complainant proved as EX.PW1/A, searched for him but could not find him and thereafter he came to know that the accused had already taken anticipatory bail on 31.08.2011. Witness identified the accused in court and stated that he thereafter, arrested him and conducted his personal search. Witness proved the same as EX.PW1/B and EX.PW1/C. He further stated that in the meantime, complainant along with his daughter came at the PS, he recorded the disclosure statement of accused EX.PW1/D and further stated that he took the accused alongwith the complainant and as pointed out by the accused, he prepared the pointing out memo of the place of incident as EX.PW1/E. He stated that he collected the MLC of complainant from Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and then after completion of investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
PW4 Smt. Shanti Devi deposed that in the year 2010, her son Rupesh was living in Gali no.6, Wazirabad along with his wife and four children and she was residing at 27/128, Kasturba Road, Shahdara with her son Rajeshwar and occasionally, used to go to the house of her son namely Rupesh. She stated that the accused present in the court namely Sanjeev used to go to the house of Rupesh and the accused was aware about the quarrel between Rupesh and his wife. She stated that accused took advantage of the situation and took away the wife of Rupesh and a day before he took the wife of Rupesh, accused came to the house of Rupesh and gave him beatings with lathi due to which he got injuries on his right leg and was taken to the hospital. She stated that thereafter, they filed complaint against Sanju but the police officials did not take any action at that time but later on, complaint was lodged at PS. Timarpur and the police officials recorded his statement.
PW5 Ms. Muskan deposed that on 11.03.2010, she along with her mother, father, two brothers and one sister were living at Gali no.6, Wazirabad when FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 5 accused Sanju who had friendly relations with her father used to usually come to their house. She stated that on 11.03.2010, accused Sanju came to their house and started abusing his father and also gave him beatings with lathi due to which his right leg got fractured. She stated that thereafter, they called the police, police reached at the spot. She stated that they filed complaint against Sanju and police officials then took her father to the hospital. She stated that police officials also asked her about the incident and recorded her statement on the day of incident. She further stated that one day, police official called her and her father to the police station Timarpur and after reaching there, they asked her about the incident and also asked her about the person who had given beatings to her father. She stated that she thereafter, pointed out towards the accused Sanju stating that he had given beatings to her father on 11.03.2010 in her presence. She further stated that thereafter, they recorded her statement and also took her signatures on the arrest memo and personal search memo and he was arrested in their presence. Witness identified the accused in the court.
PW6 Dr. Preeti Prabhakar deposed that she is a senior Medical officer in Aruna Asaf Ali hospital and has been working there since 2002. She stated that she has been deputed by Incharge MRD Department of their hospital to depose on behalf of Dr. Sanjay and Dr. Ravinder. She stated that she has worked with the aforesaid doctors and became familiar with their handwriting and signatures while working with them. She stated that now the aforesaid doctors have left the hospital and their present whereabouts are not known. Witness identified the signatures of Dr. Ravinder on the MLC no.525/10 of complainant. She also identified the signature of Dr. Sanjay on the same MLC as above.
5. On completion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating facts and evidence were put to the accused and he was afforded an opportunity to explain the FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 6 incriminating evidence against him and his statement was recorded without oath. Accused refused to lead defence evidence.
6. Thereafter, matter was fixed for hearing of final arguments. Final arguments were heard and the record of the case was perused thoroughly. The case of the prosecution is that on 11.03.2010, at Gali no.6, Wazirabad Village, Timarpur, Delhi, within jurisdiction of PS. Timarpur, the accused Sanjeev @ Sanju trespassed into the house of complainant Rupesh S/o. Satpal after making preparation to commit offence of hurt and assault and also voluntarily caused simple injuries to him with the help of sticks / dandas.
7. In light of the allegations made by the complainant, the accused was charged u/s 452/324 IPC. Both the provisions are reproduced as under for the sake of convenience:
Section 452. Housetrespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.Whoever commits housetrespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by mans of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of nay animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 7 term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
8. For establishing the allegations of criminal trespass after making preparation to commit offences of hurt and assault and of voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant, the prosecution has led evidence of primarily three witnesses, they being PW1 the complainant himself, PW4 the mother of complainant and PW5 the daughter of complainant. I have carefully examined the testimonies of all the three material witnesses and have observed material discrepancies in their testimonies with regard to the manner in which the whole incident unfolded according to them and also with regard to the nature of injury sustained by the complainant. It is material to point out that where on one hand PW1 deposed to have sustained injury on his left leg, PW4 and PW5 claimed that he sustained a fracture on his right leg. Besides this, it is the claim of both PW4 and PW5 that after the assault the complainant sustained a fracture on his right leg whereas according to the MLC proved as EX.PW6/A, the nature of injury has been stated to be simple instead of grievous and the doctor concerned did not record the opinion of fracture. Regard must also be had to the fact that PW1 clearly stated in his examination in chief that on the day of incident, only the accused came to his house and thereafter, a quarrel ensued between both of them. However, as per PW5, on the day of incident the accused was accompanied by 34 persons, which is materially conflicting with the deposition of PW1. Other than this, PW4 in his cross examination stated that on the day of incident, the accused had put a pistol on her head and gave beatings to both her and her son, but, the testimony of PW1 and PW5 is evidently deficient and reticent on these facts. If the accused would have actually threatened the complainant and his family with a pistol, then other witnesses would have also deposed in sync with the testimony of PW4. It is further essential to note that even though the date of incident has been deposed to be 11.03.2010, but the MLC was got prepared on 13.03.2010 i.e. after two days of the incident which raises a doubt FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju 8 on the genuineness of the complaint made by the complainant. Hence, from a meticulous appreciation of the testimonies of all the three material witnesses of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that their testimonies are neither trustworthy nor believable and keeping in view the glaring inconsistencies and variations in their testimonies, the accused Sanjeev @ Sanju is acquitted from the present case for the offences punishable u/s 452/324 IPC.
9. Bail bond in compliance of Section 437 A Cr.P.C was directed to be furnished.
Digitally signed by NEETI NEETI SURI
SURI MISHRA
Date: 2019.06.06
MISHRA 19:38:34 +0530
Pronounced in open court (NEETI SURI MISHRA)
on 29.05.2019 MM02 (Central): Tis Hazari Courts
Courts:Delhi:/29.05.2019
(This Judgment contains 8 pages and
all pages are signed by me)
FIR No .333/10, State vs. Sanjeev @ Sanju