Delhi District Court
State vs . Meera Kushwah & Ors. on 31 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SHRI KULDEEP NARAYAN, ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE/EAST/KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
State Vs. Meera Kushwah & Ors.
FIR No. 21/06
PS: New Ashok Nagar
a. ID No. of the case : 02402R0244042006
b. Date of institution : 28.03.2006
c. Name of the complainant : Sh. G. S. Kushwah
S/o Sh. M. S. Kushwah
R/o E326B, Sector27,
Noida, U.P.
d. Name of the accused. : (1). Meera Kushwah
W/o Late Balram Singh
(2). Yogender Singh Kushwah
S/o Late Balram Singh
(3). Anil Kushwah
S/o Late Balram Singh
All R/o A596,
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi.
e. Offence complained of : U/s 323/506(II)/34 IPC
or proved
f. Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
g. Order reserved on : 28.10.2013
h. Final order : Acquitted
i. Date of order : 31.10.2013
Brief Statements of the reasons for such decision:
1.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 08.12.2005 at H. No. A 596, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused simple injuries on the persons of Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwah, Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah & Smt. Sadhana and also committed offence of criminal intimidation by threatening Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwah to kill him with intent to cause alarm to him. Subsequently, on the complaint of the complainant, an FIR No.21/06 U/s 323/506(II)/34 IPC was registered and investigation was carried out.
2. After completion of investigation chargsheet was submitted and all the accused persons were summoned to face trial.
3. A prima facie case u/s 323/506(II)/34 IPC was made out against all the accused persons and charge was framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To prove its case the prosecution got examined Sh. Prem Singh (PW1), ASI Shankar Lal (PW2), Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah PW3), Smt. Mona (PW
4) & SI Dharam Pal (PW5) in all.
5. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of all the accused persons u/s 281 r/w Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded separately on 31.07.2013 wherein they denied all the allegations levelled against them and stated that no incident as alleged had ever taken place and no quarrel had taken place with Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwah, Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah and Smt. Sadhana and they were falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons preferred to lead evidence in defence and accordingly, the case was listed for defence evidence.
6. To establish the defence, the accused persons got examined only Sh. Siddhnath Mishra as DW1. Thereafter, the matter was listed for final arguments.
7. I heard arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
8. To bring home the aforesaid charges against the accused persons, prosecution got examined Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3), Sh. Prem Singh (PW1) and Smt. Mona (PW4). A conjoint reading of testimony all the aforesaid witnesses reveal that the same is not consistent with the prosecution version, for instance, Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) who is the complainant in the present case, stated that on 08.12.05, he along with his wife namely Smt. Sadhna had reached at house No. A596 and 597, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi to collect the rent where accused Sh. Anil Kushwaha, Sh. Yogender Kushwaha and their mother namely Smt. Meera met and on raising demand of rent all the three accused persons started beating both of them and also threatened to kill them. In his cross examination, Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) stated that they had reached at the aforesaid address at about 10.00 a.m. He also disclosed the name of one Sh. Ramdular Yadav as the renter (tenant) in the aforesaid house, though he could not disclose the name of other tenants.
9. On the other hand, Sh. Prem Singh (PW1) stated that in the year 2005, he used to reside at house No. A596, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi as a tenant and used to pay rent @ Rs.700/ to the landlord namely Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwaha. He further stated that on 08.12.2005 Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) had come to his house along with his wife to collect the rent. The accused persons who also used to reside at the aforesaid address and were also present at that time, claimed their ownership by showing the documents and subsequently accused Anil started abusing Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) and thereafter Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW
3) and his wife left the house.
10. Initially, Sh. Prem Singh (PW1) could not depose anything about the incident of beatings by the accused persons to Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW
3) or his wife. However, on cross examination by Ld. APP for the State, he stated that when the altercation took place, all the accused persons extended beatings to Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) and his wife and also threatened them to kill them. Sh. Prem Singh (PW1) was also cross examined by counsel for the accused persons wherein he admittedly could not produce any document with respect to his tenancy at House No. A596 and 597, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi. He also did not depose that the aforesaid tenancy was oral one or any written document was executed. He denied the suggestion that he deposed at the instance of Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwaha.
11. Further, Smt. Mona (PW4) categorically stated that she never resided in house No. A596 and 597, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi nor she could disclose the name of owner of aforesaid house. She also could not depose about any incident which might have taken place on 08.12.05 at the aforesaid address. She categorically stated that she was not acquainted with Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwaha and his son Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwaha (PW3) nor she knew the accused persons. Smt. Mona (PW4) was also cross examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein she denied the suggestion that she was residing at House No. A596 and 597, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi in the year 2005 at monthly rent of Rs.700/. She also denied about the alleged incident taking place in her presence. Though she admitted that the document Mark X bears her signatures at point A, she was not informed by her mother why she was obtaining her signatures on the aforesaid document Mark X. The document Mark X is a statement recorded by SI Dharam Pal. Smt. Mona (PW4), on her further cross examination by counsel for the accused stated that when her mother obtained her signatures at document Mark X, it was totally blank. She showed her ignorance how document Mark X reached into the hands of SI Dharam Pal while she had handed over the same to her mother only.
12. In view of the conflicting stand taken by Sh. Prem Singh (PW1), Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah PW3) & Smt. Mona (PW4) with regard to alleged incident of altercation taking place between the complainant and the accused persons and particularly in view of the fact that neither Sh. Prem Singh Kushwah (PW1) nor Smt. Mona (PW4) could depose in their respective examination in chief about the fact of extension of beating and threats by all the accused persons to the complainant, a reasonable doubt has arisen in their respective testimonies.
13. Moreover, wife of Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah PW3), Smt. Sadhna who was also shown to be present at the spot on the relevant date and time, was neither cited nor examined as a witness in the present case. There is no explanation in this regard furnished by the prosecution.
14. The prosecution also got examined SI Dharam Pal (PW5), Investigating Officer of the case who deposed about the registration of the FIR on the complaint Ex.PW5/A of Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwaha. He also prepared site plan Ex.PW5/B at the instance of the complainant and formally arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/C, PW5/D & PW5/E. After completion of the investigation, he had filed the chargesheet in the Court.
15. In his cross examination SI Dharam Pal (PW5) admitted that while investigating, he had not prepared the list of tenants residing in the aforesaid H. No. A596 and 597, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi nor he collected any document from the tenants to show that they were residing in the aforesaid house. He further stated to have asked Smt. Mona (PW4) to give him a copy of her identity proof but she had not obliged. Admittedly, SI Dharam Pal (PW5) had not initiated any action against her on refusal to provide said document. He had also not obtained any document qua tenancy of Sh. Prem Singh (PW1). SI Dharam Pal (PW5) on further cross examination admitted that there were other houses in the neighbourhood of H. No. A596 & 597 and he had only made formal inquiries from the neighbourers without recording statements of any person.
16. The accused persons also produced Sh. Siddhnath Mishra (DW1) in their defence who stated that no quarrel had taken place in the year 2005 or afterwards between the complainant and the accused persons. The house of Sh. Siddhnath Mishra (DW1) and all the accused persons were located in the same gali and the accused persons have been residing in property bearing No. A596, New Ashok Nagar, Delhi prior to him. No substantial point could be extracted out from his testimony by the Ld. APP for the State by way of cross examination.
17. ASI Shankar Lal (PW2) merely proved the factum of registration of FIR Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement Ex.PW2/B on the rukka.
18. In view of the aforediscussed facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that testimonies of Sh. Prem Singh (PW1), Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah PW3) & Smt. Mona (PW4) are not corroborating the stand taken by the prosecution. The original complainant Sh. Gopal Singh Kushwaha could not be examined as he had expired during the trial. There is no explanation why Smt. Sadhna wife of Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah (PW3) was not produced or made a witness by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer conducted a lopsided investigation and did not bother to collect all the relevant documentary evidence to support the prosecution version. On the whole, a reasonable doubt has arisen in the entire prosecution story with regard to the alleged occurrence of extension of beatings and threats by the accused persons to the complainant.
19. Ours is an adversarial system of trial wherein the prosecution is duty bound to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The law is settled, if there is any doubt in the prosecution story, the accused persons are entitled to be given a benefit thereof.
20. In the aforesaid discussed facts and circumstances, a reasonable doubt has arisen in the entire prosecution story, partly due to the conflicting stand taken by Sh. Prem Singh (PW1), Sh. Mahender Singh Kushwah PW3) & Smt. Mona (PW4) and partly by the botched investigation done by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, I extend the benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquit them.
21. Hence, all the accused persons namely Smt. Meera Kushwah, Sh. Yogender Singh Kushwah and Sh. Anil Kushwah are acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 323/506(II)/34 IPC. File be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court on 31.10.2013.
(KULDEEP NARAYAN) ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, EAST/KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.