Delhi District Court
Harbhajan Singh vs Didar Singh & ... on 23 September, 2010
:1:
THE COURT OF SHRI SANJAY KUMAR,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE - I,
DISTRICT NORTH WEST, ROOM NO. 308,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
SC NO. 223/2008
PS : TILAK NAGAR.
U/S. 452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC
HARBHAJAN SINGH
S/O. S. SOHAN SINGH
R/O. 279, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018. ....COMPLAINANT.
VERSUS
1. DIDAR SINGH S/O. SHER SINGH
R/O. 278, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
2. AMARJEET SINGH @ BHOLA
S/O. DIDAR SINGH
R/O. 278, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
3. RANJIT KAUR S/O. DIDAR SINGH
R/O. 278, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
4. SHANTI DEVI C/O. DIDAR SINGH
R/O. 278, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
5. GURMEJ SINGH
R/O. 277, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
6. JEET SINGH S/O. GURMEJ SINGH
R/O. 277, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC
:2:
7. GIAN KAUR W/O GURMEJ SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)
R/O. 277, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
8. RATTAN SINGH
R/O. 329, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
9. MANGA S/O. RATAN SINGH
R/O. 329, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
10. JASPAL SINGH (PO)
R/O. 277, CHAND NAGAR, TILAK NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110018.
Date of Institution : 06.11.2007
Date of receipt of case in this Court : 13.12.2008
Arguments heard On : 21.09.2010
Order Announced On : 23.09.2010
SH. P.K. VERMA, APP FOR THE STATE.
SHRI BALDEV RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED
PERSONS.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08
HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC
:3:
JUDGMENT
1. In brief the facts are that complainant Harbhajan Singh (since deceased) filed a complaint case before learned CMM on 16.11.1990. In the complaint he alleged that accused persons namely Didar Singh, Amarjeet Singh @ Bhola, Ranjit Kaur, Shanti Devi, Gurmej Singh, Jeet Singh, Gian Kaur, Ratan Singh, Manga and Jaspal Singh went to take illegal possession of an open ground in front of house of the complainant and they were once arrested on 25.10.1990 and also paid fines in the court of Shri N.P. Kaushi, learned MM, Delhi. On 24.10.1990 at about 5 p.m. complainant parked Maruti Van bearing registration number DDD-2577 (Chocolate colour) in front of house and shop in the open ground. At that time accused persons namely Didar Singh, Amarjeet Singh @ Bhola, Ranjit Kaur, Shanti Devi, Gurmej Singh, Jeet Singh, Gian Kaur, Ratan Singh, Manga and Jaspal Singh alongwith 4-5 other persons totaling number 14-15 came into his shop and pulled him COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :4: outside the shop and gave beating. Then he started bleeding. The accused persons were having lathies, sariyas, sanitary pipes and hockeys and started beating complainant.
2. He further alleged that accused Didar Singh was having a knife and inflicted 3 inch wound on the left shoulder of the complainant. Accused Ranjit Kaur hit the complainant on the left and right legs with a hockey. Accused Ratan Singh, Jeet Singh and all other accused persons hit the complainant all over the body including head and injury started bleeding. He further alleged that within a minute from inside the house the wife of the complainant Amarjeet Kaur, his son Ranjit Singh came to save him and just before that Gurmeet Singh and Kashmir Kaur also arrived from Gurudwara and tried to save him. They all also received beatings. Amarjeet Kaur received swollen injury on right arm, Kashmir Kaur's right arm was fractured, teeth of Ranjit Singh broken. Gurmeet Singh also received grievous injuries of broken COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :5: middle finger was fractured. The injuries were plastered as well.
3. It is further alleged that accused Ranjit Kaur snatched away 3 ½ tola golden chain of Kashmir Kaur and accused Jeet Singh snatched away the wrist watch (automatic Allwyn make) of Gurmeet Singh. All accused persons had given beatings to the complainant and his family for ten minutes. In the meanwhile, police officials of control room and PS reached there and saved them. ASI Amar Pal Singh of PS Tilak Nagar send the complainant and his family members on their damaged Maruti Van to DDU Hospital for their medical examination and asked them all culprits would be arrested. However, accused persons were released and no report of complainant was written. Complainant and his family members were asked to sign some papers in the PS, which were partially written. It is further alleged on the next day by the complainant that he found maruti van was damaged and for which repair he spent COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :6: about Rs.1000/-. All the day long the complainant tried to lodge the complaint but could not succeed. Therefore, he sent the complaint on 26.10.1990 to DCP(West), SHO PS-Tilak Nagar and ACP Tilak Nagar but nothing happened. On 9.11.1990 DCP (West) and ACP were holding inquiry from the complainant at that time SHO, S.S. Rathi was there. The SHO was taken the task then he immediately lodged the FIR. The DD No.44B dated 9.11.1990 was noted down but no FIR was lodged against all the accused persons. In fact, SHO S.S. Rathi, ASI Amar Pal Singh letting of the real culprits and making false complaint against the complainant. Therefore, present complaint filed U/S- 147/148/149/452/324/325/323/427/492/394/395/397/ 34 IPC.
4. Learned MM recorded pre-summoning evidence vide order dated 7.2.2001. accused persons were summoned for trial of offences punishable under Section 452/323/324/325/427/397 IPC.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :7:
5. Vide order dated 20.10.2007 the present complaint case committed to the Court of Sessions.
6. My learned Predecessor vide order dated 09.05.2008 framed the charged against 8 accused persons namely Didar Singh, Amarjeet Singh @ Bhola, Ranjeet Kaur, Gurmej Singh, Jeet Singh, Ratan Singh, Manga and Shanti Devi @ Bhagwan Devi for trial of offences punishable under Section 147/148/149/452/324/325 read with 149/392/397/427 read with 149 IPC. All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. Complainant/Prosecution in support of present case examined PW1 Harbhajan Singh (Complainant), PW2 Pyare Singh, PW3 Kasmir Kaur, PW4 Gurmeet Singh, PW5 Gurjit Singh, PW6Gurmeet Singh.
8. After completion of complainant's evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. recorded to which they pleaded innocence and wish to examine witnesses in their defence.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :8:
9. Accused persons examined DW1 Ramesh Chander, DW2 Retd. ASI Amar Pal Singh, DW3 Kirpal Singh and DW4 Sadhu Ram.
10.During proceedings accused persons Manga and Jaspal Singh were declared proclaimed offender and Gian Kaur expired. Complainant also died on 22.2.2009.
11. I have heard Ld. APP for the State as well as counsel for the accused person. I have also gone through the written submissions filed by accused and have perused the record.
12.PW1 Harbajan Singh in his examination in chief has stated that accused persons are known to him and on 24.10.1990 at about 5.00 pm when he was sitting in his shop, accused Ranjit Kaur, Manga and Ajit Singh entered in his shop and accused Ajit Singh started beating him with hockey. He started bleeding and accused took him out of his shop. Accused Didar COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :9: Singh was standing outside his shop and was having a knife with which he inflicted injuries on his left side of shoulder. Accused Ranjit Kaur gave beatings to him on his legs with hockey and when his wife came out of the house after hearing the noise accused persons attacked her also and broke her arm. He has further deposed that when his son Ranjit Singh came out he was also attacked on his face and his jaw was broken. Meanwhile his eldest son Gurmeet Singh along with his wife arrived from Bangla Sahib Gurudwara and while he was parking his scooter accused Rattan Singh gave beating to him and broke his middle finger of his right hand with hockey and snatched his wrist watch. Accused Ranjit Kaur gave beatings to his daughter in law Kashmir Kaur and broke her right hand and snatched her gold chain of 3.5 tola. All the accused persons attacked his maruti car no. DDD- 2577 with sariya, hockey and pipes. All the injured were taken to hospital by the police. Since our complaint was not registered, we approached the DCP at Rajouri Garden and made a complaint Ex.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :10: PW1/A. Accused persons were booked u/s 107/151 CrPC and they were fined Rs. 100/-. The injured got themselves photographed which are Ex. PW1/B1 to B16 and the negatives of same are Ex. PW1/C1 to C16. As no FIR was registered, the injured filed a complaint case in the court.
13.During cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused except by counsel for accused Mangal, PW1 has stated that he had neither given any statement in any court regarding this case nor gave any statement to the police. During cross examination this witness has stated that he did not remember how many police officials were there but they were all in uniforms. He has further stated that he visited the office of SP on 09.11.90 where SHO Rathi was present and SHO took him to PS and there they remained in PS for about 15-20 minutes. This witness has then stated in cross examination that they remained at DDU hospital 4-5 am on 25.10.90 after the incident of this case. PW1 has then stated in cross COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :11: examination that he did not appear before the court of ACP regarding any kalendra u/s 107/151 CrPC permission to the incident of this case but he had mentioned all the facts in the report written by him to DCP dt. 26.10.90. He has further stated in his cross examination that he does not remember if he stated in Ex. PW1/DA i.e. report dt. 09.11.90 that he had parked his van in the park opposite his house in his report dt. 26.10.90. He has further stated that he had told the police that total number of assailants were 14-15-16. Witness was confronted with Ex. PW1/DA where it was not so recorded. PW1 has further deposed that in his statement Ex. PW1/A he had stated about his son Gurmeet Singh and his wife Kashmir Kaur's arrival from Gurudwara. PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. During cross examination this witness has deposed that he had stated in his statement Ex. PW1/A that accused Ranjit Kaur had hit his wife Amarjit Kaur with Hockey stick. Witness was again confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :12: it is not so recorded. He has further stated in cross examination that he had not stated to police vide statement Ex. PW1/DA that accused Jeet Singh had snatched his wrist watch from his hand. PW1 was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/DA where it is so recorded. PW1 has stated in his cross examination that he does not remember the name of Head Constable who recorded his statement on 09.11.90 and perhaps he had signed signed his statement dt. 09.11.90 at PS.
14.PW1 has further deposed in cross examination that he got his report Ex. PW1/A dt. 26.10.90 typed from typist at Tis Hazari but he does not know his name. He has further stated in cross examination that neither his statement nor any statement of his family members was recorded by police on 24.10.90 and he is not aware as to who had called the police on the spot on 24.10.90. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that no incident had taken place on 24.10.90 and he has falsely fabricated the incident COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :13: on 26.10.90. PW1 has stated that all the accused person are known to him as they are of the same locality. He however has denied the suggestion of Ld. Counsel for accused that accused Shanti Devi @ Bhagwan Devi was having duty hours of 1 pm to 6 pm and she was on duty at the time of incident, as she was working as peon in a school at that time. He has further stated that his damaged car was not seized by police. PW1 has then stated in cross examination that he had not told the court on 14.09.92 that accused persons wanted to take illegal possession of one public land in front of his house and they had been arrested once and had paid fine of Rs. 500/- in the court of Ld. MM. He was confronted with his statement from portion A to A of Ex. PW1/DB where it is so recorded. He has further stated that he identifies his statement Ex. PW1/DB after seeing his signatures at point X and Y, otherwise, he has stated that he does not know the contents of the statement. PW1 has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that he got his plot initially of 150 sq. yds COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :14: and later on he had illegally occupied and constructed on another 150 sq. yds on public land which was to be kept as public park. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that he is a chronic litigent or that he is in the habit of making false complaint against the local residents or that he had illegally encroached upon the vacant plot adjacent to his existing plot.
15.During cross examination by counsel for accused Manga, PW1 has deposed that on the day of incident it was Delhi bandh. PW1 has stated in his cross examination that all the accused persons including accused Manga had entered his shot and attacked him. He was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/A where it is not so recorded. He has denied the suggestion of the counsel for accused that he has falsely implicated accused persons or he is having business of illegal and public encroachment.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :15:
16.PW2 Pyare Singh has deposed that on the day of incident while he was passing from the front of the house of accused, he saw 4-5 persons injured condition. He has stated he came to know the names of injured persons later on. In his cross examination by Ld. Counsel for accused, PW2 has stated that he had not given his statement to the police or court regarding the incident. He has further stated in cross examination that he was going to his daughter's house who lives near Sheetla Mandir which is at a distance of about 2-3 galies from the spot. He has stated that police had already reached the spot when he came there and they were asking the injured as to who had caused injuries to them. PW2 has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that he was not present at the spot on the day of incident or that he is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant or his son Gurmeet Singh.
17.PW3 Kashmir Kaur has deposed that she had gone to Gurudwara Bangla Sahib with her husband on 24.10.90 and when they came back at about 5.00 pm COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :16: she saw that 10-15 persons were dragging her father in law Harbhajan Singh, who was bleeding from his hand and his father in law was being given beating by the accused persons along with some other persons, who were armed with pipes, hockeys, sariya and lathies. When she and her husband tried to stop the accused persons from beating her father in law, accused persons gave beatings to her and her husband. She got her arm fractured due to beating given with hockey by accused Ranjit Kaur who also snatched her gold chain. PW2 has further deposed that accused Rattan Singh and Manga hit her husband due to which right hand middle finger of her husband got fractured. She has then stated that her mother in law, who has now expired, Ms. Amarjeet Kaur was also beating by accused persons. Apart from this her devar Ranjeet Singh was also beaten by accused persons. PW2 has then stated that all the injured were taken to hospital by the police and given treatment.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :17:
18.During cross examination by counsel for accused, this witness has deposed that she had given a statement regarding the incident in the court but she is not sure if the date of that statement was 06.05.92. She has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that she had deposed falsely as the complainant was her father in law. PW2 has then stated in cross examination that she does not remember whether she stated on 06.05.92 that the accused persons were dragging her father in law or that her father in law was bleeding from his hand. She was confronted with her statement where it is not so recorded. She has then stated that she might have told the police that she received fracture on her hand due beating given by accused Ranjeet Kaur by hockey. She was again confronted with her statement Ex. PW3/DA where is it is recorded that injury received with a hockey. She was again confronted with her statement Ex PW3/DA where it is not recorded that her husband was it with hockey by accused Manga on 06.05.92. She has stated in cross examination that large crowd COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :18: had gathered there and police reached the spot 15- 20-30 minutes after the beating was given to the complainants. PW2 has then stated that all the injured were then taken to hospital and from hospital they were taken to PS where police officials only enquired from her father in law but nothing was asked or reduced into writing from other family members. PW2 has admitted it as correct that she had not stated in her statement dt. 30.05.08 that Amarjeet Kaur was also beaten by accused Shanti with sariya and hockey. PW2 has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that her father in law was encroaching upon public land outside their house and this resulted into the present incident. She has denied that her husband, father in law and devar were arrested on 24.10.90 u/s 93/97 D.P. Act. She has denied the suggestion that she has deposed falsely being interested witness.
19.PW4 Gurmeet Singh is the son of complainant and he has deposed that on the day of incident when he came back from Gurudwara with his wife Kashmir COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :19: Kaur at about 5.00 pm, he saw 10-12 persons dragging his father PW1 Harbhajan Singh from his shop, who was bleeding from his head and all accused persons along with Gian Kaur, Shanti Devi, Jaspal Singh and Gurmej Sngh were beating his father. He has then deposed that when he, his wife and mother intervened and tried to save complainant,they all were given beating by the accused persons. PW4 has deposed that accused Didar Singh gave knife injury on the left shoulder of his father and accused Rattan Singh and Gurmej hit him on his head and he sustained injury on his right hand middle finger. Her mother Amarjeet Kaur sustained fracture due to beating given by accused Ranjeet Kaur, Shanti Devi and Gian Kaur. All the injured were taken to hospital and were given treatment till 5.00 am and then he and his father were taken to PS where police did not record their statements and were asked to wait till arrival of medical report from hospital. He has further stated that thereafter he went to DCP's office at Rajouri COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :20: Garden on 26.10.90 and lodged the complaint Ex. PW1/A made by his father. He then took his father at 8.00 pm to DCP's office where his father met the DCP and SHO. On 09.11.90 on the instructions of DCP, SHO PS Tilak Nagar recorded his father's formal statement but no FIR was registered and as the police did not register any FIR they filed the present complaint before the court.
20.PW4 Gurmeet Singh during cross examination by counsel for accused has stated that his statements dt. 30.05.08 and 06.05.92 are complete statements regarding the incident. He was confronted with his statement dt. 06.05.92 Ex. PW4/DA where it is not recorded that on 06.05.92 he took his father to DCP office and had a meeting with DCP when SHO was also there. PW4 was further confronted with his statement Ex. PW4/DA where it is not recorded that on 09.11.90 he and his father met the DCP when the SHO was also there and DCP instructed the SHO to take down the FIR but despite that only formal COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :21: statement of complainant was recorded and no FIR was registered. He has further stated that he is not aware who called the police or who all came from the side of accused at the spot at the time of incident. He was further confronted with statement Ex. PW4/DA where it is only recorded that he was beaten by Didar Singh, Gurmej Singh, Jeet Singh, Rattan Singh and Mange with hockeys and sariyas. PW4 has admitted it as correct that he had not stated in his complaint dt. 30.05.08 that their maruti van No. DDD-2577 was also damaged by accused Didar Singh and that he has not stated in statement dt. 30.05.08 that Ranjit Kaur accused snatched golden chain weighin 3.5 tolas from his wife Kashmir Kaur. He has denied the suggestion that his brother, father and he himself were arrested on the intervening night of 24/25.10.90 by police u/s 92/97 D.P. Act or that they were released on bail. He has further denied that his family was abusing or creating nuisance in the area on 24.10.90.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :22:
21.PW4 Gurmeet Singh has then stated in cross examination that outside H. No. 329 Chand Nagar, some encroachment was done by accused Rattan Singh and Didar Singh from 1988 or thereafter. He has denied the suggestion that he did not deliver the report to the office of DCP on 26.10.90 or at the time of incident on 24.10.90 accused Shanti Devi @ Bhagwan Devi was on duty in the school from 1 pm to 6 pm where she was employed or that he did not sustain any injury on his hand or that he has deposed falsely being son of complainant. He was confronted with statement Ex. PW4/DA where it is recorded that ASI Amarpal Singh got some blank papers signed from them and made a false case against them as well as accused persons u/s 92/97 D.P. Act from where they were acquitted and accused were fined Rs. 500/-. He has denied that he has deposed falsely being son of complainant.
22.PW5 Gurjit Singh has stated that he was doing business in the name of Raja Photo service and he had taken photographs Ex. PW5/B1 to PW5/B17 of the COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :23: incident. Negatives of these photographs are Ex. PW5/B. He has stated that he issued receipt Ex. PW5/A of photographs in the name of complainant Harbhajan Singh.
23.In his cross examination PW5 has stated that he was called by son of complainant to take photos in the morning hours and had delivered photos to Harbhajan Singh. He has then stated that complainant is not related to him at all. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for accused that he is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant.
24.PW6 Gurmeet Singh is the witness who is neighbour of complainant as well as accused. He has deposed that in October, 90 he was present at his work shop and at about 5.30 pm he saw accused persons being part of persons numbering about 11-12 attacked the complainant with hockey, lathi, sariya etc., and he got injuries on his head. He further stated that in the meanwhile when son and daughter in law of COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :24: complainant namely Gurmeet Singh and Ms. Kashmir Kaur came to rescue the complainant they were also attacked. He has further deposed that maruti van of complainant was also damaged by accused persons with sariya etc. Shortly thereafter, police arrived at the spot and took injured persons to hospital.
25.In his cross examination PW6 has stated that about 10-12 or 15 persons came and started beating the complainant on the day of incident from a distance of about 60 feet. He has further stated in cross examination that police reached the spot at about 5/5.30 pm and were all in uniforms and remained at spot for about 08 days after the incident. He has then stated in cross examination that he closed his work shop at about 8.30 pm and remained at the spot and left for home at 9.00 pm approximately. PW6 then stated that about 50-60 people gathered at the spot. He has then stated in cross examination that accused Jita is known to him for the last 30 years and he had also filed a complaint case against accused Jita COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :25: because Jita had given beating to him. He has denied the suggestion of the counsel for accused that complainant of this case is witness in the case against Jita filed by filed or that he had made statement because complainant is witness in this case. PW6 has admitted it as correct that son of complainant had given evidence in the case filed by him against Jita and that elder brother of complainant namely Gurbachan Singh is his bua's husband. PW6 has denied that he has deposed falsely.
26.Accused persons on the other have also examined four witnesses. DW1 Ramesh Chander is the Principal in M. C. Model School, Chand Nagar, B Block, New Delhi in second shift which starts from 1.00 pm to 6.00 pm. He has proved Ex. DW1/A i.e. photocopy of attendance register pertaining to month of October, 1990. In his cross examination by Ld. APP for state and by counsel for complainant, DW1 has submitted that he has not seen accused Bhagwan Devi as he has been posted in the school in 2003 and that he COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :26: never heard the name of Shanti Devi and so he cannot say whether Bhagwan Devi is alias of Shanti Devi or not. He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that departure time of Bhagwan Devi is not mentioned in the attendance register. He has further denied that some employees in the school also leave school by 5 pm, 5.15 pm or 5.30 pm.
27.DW2 Amar Pal Singh (Retd.) SI in his examination in chief has stated that in October, 1990 he was posted as ASI at PS Tilak Nagar and on that day after receiving a DD when he reached Chand Nagar he found exchange of hot words between two parties followed by minor scuffle between the parties. SHO PS Tilak Nagar also reached there and on his instructions injured were ordered to be examined and thereafter DW2 booked them in kalandara U/s 92/93 D. P. Act and immediately released them on bail. He has further deposed that on 25.10.90 another call was received from Chand Nagar and on the instructions of SHO parties were booked u/s 107/150 COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :27: CrPC and sent the kalandara to ACP, Moti Nagar. I filed the report Ex. DW2/A duly forwarded by SHO in the court of Ld. MM on 30.01.91.
28.In his cross examination by counsel for complainant DW2 has deposed that he cannot say whether all the complaints regarding the incident dt. 24.10.90 were assigned to him by SHO/ACP/DCP. He has further stated he cannot remember if Ex. PW1/DA was written in PS in his presence or that he had filed or not filed the statement of Didar Singh alongwith his report Ex. DW2/A. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for complainant that he has filed a false report Ex. DW2/A in collusion with accused persons. DW2 has stated that he had sent only the injured persons for medical assistance. He has also denied the suggestion of counsel for complainant that he has deposed falsely at the instance of accused persons.
29.Next witness examined by accused in their defence is DW3 Kirpal Singh. This defence witness in his examination in chief has stated that complainant is COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :28: indulged in filing false and frivolous complainants and in his support has also filed a certified copy of judgment passed in which he was acquitted and where complainant of this case was also the complainant.
30.In his cross examination by counsel for complainant DW3 has stated that he cannot say whether on 26.02.05 court of Ld. ASJ had decided two cases. He has denied the suggestion of counsel for complainant that he was convicted in the second case which was filed against him in PS Tilak Nagar or that the other case was against him as he had quarrelled with complainant of this case or that he was released on probation of good conduct. DW3 has then denied that he has deposed falsely.
31.DW4 was the Head Clerk of House Tax Deptt. Of MCD and brought the summoned file of property tax of H. No. 279, Chand Nagar, New Delhi 18 and per the said record complainant of this case is recorded owner of COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :29: the said property. He has placed on record attested true copy of sale deed Ex. DW4/A executed between Sh. Rattan Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh in favour of Harbhajan Singh s/o Sh. Sohan Singh. This witness has stated that he has not prepared any inspection report about the property in question but the inspection report dt. 01.04.90 is prepared by his colleague which is on record. Copy of the said report is Ex. DW4/B. In cross examination by Ld. APP for state and counsel for complainant, DW4 has stated that he had brought only assessment file and so he cannot say as to whether property tax till 2008 has been paid or not. He has also placed on record Ex. DW4/X i.e. the original house tax receipt of their department in respect of the above property.
32.Prosecution in order to prove the charge has to establish that accused persons formed a unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like knife, lathis, sariyas, hockey, pipes etc. and there by they criminally trespassed into the shop of complainant COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :30: having number 279, Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar and caused grievous and simple injuries to Harbhajan Singh, Kashmir Kaur, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjit Kaur with deadly weapons. The unlawful assembly of accused persons snatched gold chain of Kashmir Kaur, wrist watch of Gurmeet Singh and damaged Maruti Van number DDD-2577.
33.The prosecution examined hereinabove discussed all prosecution witnesses. The present case is based upon the complaint filed by PW1 Harbhajan Singh. Thereafter the trial court recorded pre-summoning evidence of complainant. The accused persons were summoned and case was committed to the court of sessions.
34.The star witness of prosecution is PW1 Harbhajan Singh. He has narrated the incident dt. 24.10.90 and stated that accused Ranjit Kaur, Manga and Ajit Singh entered his shop armed with hockey and Ajit Singh attacked him. Accused Didar Singh was standing COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :31: outside his shop but he he was having knife in his hand and he also attacked him on his left shoulder. Accused Ranjit Kaur gave hockey beating at his leg. The complainant failed to corroborate these facts that the medical record. In the cross examination he admits that police came at around 5.30 pm on 24.10.90. He was also taken to DDU hospital. Thereafter they were taken to police station along with his other family members.
35.PW2 is an independent witness Pyara Singh, whose testimony reflects that he was passing on the day of incident from the front side of the house of the injured persona and he saw them in injured condition. He failed to explain that how these injured persons received injuries. In the cross examination he admits that the police officials came to the spot after the incident and asked the injured persons how they sustained injuries. In his presence, no inquiry was made by the police. PW2 has not supported the complainant version about the incident.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :32:
36.PW3 Kashmir Kaur is the daughter in law of complainant. According to her testimony 10-15 persons dragged Harbhajan Singh from his shop who was bleeding. She named Shanti Devi, Gyan Singh, Jaspal Singh and Gurmez Singh. She has not named accused Didar Singh having knife in his hand and standing outside. She did not support PW1 with regard to the fact that Ranjit Kaur, Manga and Ajit Singh entered the shop of PW1 and attacked him with hockey. She concentrated on Ranjit Kaur who gave hockey beating to her due which she received fracture and her gold chain was also snatched by her. No medical record for proving the fracture and injuries of grievous nature has been examined. No hockey has been produced in court as weapon of offence. PW3 further testified that her husband was also beaten by Rattan Singh with pipe where as PW1 deposed that Rattan Singh gave beating with hockey and snatched his wrist watch. PW3 testified that Manga hit her husband with hockey. These statements are contradictory to each other.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :33:
37.PW4 Gurmeet Singh, husband of PW3 and son of PW1 testified that when he reached along with his wife PW3, his mother Amarjeet Kaur also intervened to save his father but PW1 is silent on this aspect who testified that accused persons attacked him and broke his right arm. He has not named any accused person specifically. PW4 named Gurmez Singh, Ranjit Kaur and Jeet Singh attacked him and accused Jeet Singh snatched his watch and accused Rattan Singh and Gurmez Singh hit him on the head. This aspect of PW4 is neither supported by PW1 nor by PW3. There is no medical record to prove the said injuries. He further proved the complaint made to DCP Ex. PW1/A. He admits that SHO and DCP conducted proceedings on his complaint. He admits that DCP directed the SHO to register the FIR. He was also confronted with his earlier statement Ex. PW4/DA where he made great improvement to his earlier made statement while appearing in witness box.
COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :34:
38. PW5 Gurjeet Singh is the photographer who proved photographs Ex. PW5/B (Colly). In his cross examination he admits that all the photographs were taken at the instruction of complainant Harbhajan Singh and he supplied the developed copy only to complainant. He was also confronted with his earlier where he did not mention about Ex. PW5/B2 to B7. The testimony of PW5 is also not supporting the facts testified by the injured persons which shows only the injuries. The fact of disbelieving is also there as there were 33 photographs developed by him but all the photographs were not produced and none of the photographs show any of the accused person at the time of alleged rioting.
39. PW6 another eye witness Gurmeet Singh appearing in the witness box. He testified that accused persons attacked complainant and his family members. He has stated that Maruti Van was also damaged. He has not named and specified any role to any person. In the cross examination he was confronted with his COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :35: earlier statement Ex. PW6/DA. He admits that he had filed a criminal complaint case against accused Jeet Singh in which Harbhajan Singh is one of the witnesses. This witness is interested witness because complainant is also appearing in the complaint case filed by him. Therefore, his testimony has no credibility.
40.On the other hand the accused persons examined DW2 Amarpal Singh (retd.) ASI who attended the call on 24.10.90 to prove that after receiving the call about quarrel kalandra u/s 92/93 D.P. Act was framed. Thereafter again on 25.10.90 a call was received about quarrel and again a kalandra 107/150 D. P. Act was booked. He further proved the he forwarded the complainant of Harbhajan Singh dt. 30.01.91 received from the court Ex. DW2/A. He denied the knowledge of complaint dt. 24.10.90 Ex. DW1/A. He explained that he had not written the statement of 13 witnesses as mentioned in the complaint. He admits that statement of Didar Singh COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :36: was filed along with report Ex. DW2/A. He admits that Harbhajan Singh complainant was sent for medical examination. He did not obtain any MLC from DDU hospital as they were filed with the kalandra. DW3 Kirpal Singh is one of the accused in another complaint case filed by the complainant in which he was acquitted.
41.It is pertinent to mention here that in the complaint filed by PW1 Harbhajan Singh Ex. PW1/D, the incident stated is that accused persons wanted to take illegal possession of open land in front of his house and were arrested on 25.10.90 but these facts were not deposed by him when he appeared in witness box as PW1. These allegations are not testified by any member of his family who appeared as witnesses in this case namely PW3 Kashmir Kaur and PW4 Gurmit Singh or the eye witness namely PW2 Pyara Singh. Similarly in the complaint Ex. PW1/D complainant alleged that in total 14-15 persons came into his shop and while the alleged incident was going on his wife Amarjeet Kaur (since deceased), son Ranjit COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :37: Singh came there from the house and another son Gurmit Singh and his wife Kashmir Kaur arrived on scooter from Gurudwara to save him. There is no allegation about the fact which are stated when he appeared in witness box. There is no allegation in the complaint that accused Rattan Singh gave beating and snatched wrist watch of his son. In the complaint he alleged that accused Jeet Singh snatched the wrist watch of his son. However, his son PW4 Gurmit Singh in witness box made tremendous improvement by adding name of Bhola, Gurvinder Singh and Rattan Singh. Further he also improved that he along with his father went to police station and to the DCP office whereas complaint Ex. PW1/D is silent on this aspect that PW4 Gurmit Singh also went to the DCP office along with his father. Another important fact is that PW3 Kashmir Kaur did not support PW1 that he was attacked with knife by Didar Singh. She is not even naming Didar Singh being involved in the incident. Her testimony demolishes the fact stated by her husband PW4 Gurmit Singh. According to her accused Manga hit her husband and not accused Jeet Singh. Another important aspect that the other son of COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :38: complainant namely Ranjit Singh failed to appear in the witness box. All the witnesses deposed the facts which established that there is a material improvement in the testimony and which is fatal to them and not in consonance with the original complaint in which incident was narrated.
42.On the basis of testimony of prosecution witnesses and above discussion and observation, I am of the view that prosecution has failed to establish that accused persons formed unlawful assembly on 24.10.90 at 5.00 pm at H. No. 279 Chand Nagar, Tilak Nagar and that they were armed with deadly weapons like hockey, sariya, lathi, iron rods, pipes etc with an object to cause grievous injuries and simple injuries on the person of Harbhajan Singh, Kashmir Kaur, Gurmeet Singh and Amarjit Kaur or they trespassed in the shop of Harbhajan Singh or committed any robbery. Hence the prosecution has failed to prove this case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. All the accused person COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC :39: are acquitted of the charges framed against them in this case.
43.Accused Jaspal is PO in this case. Evidence recorded in this case shall also be read against him u/s 299 CrPC as and when he is arrested.
(SANJAY KUMAR) ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-01 (NW) ROHINI COURTS: DELHI.
Announced in the open court today i.e. 23.09.2010 COMPLAINT CASE// SESSIONS CASE NO.223/08 HARBHAJAN SINGH VS DIDAR SINGH & OTHERS.//U/S.452/323/324/325/397/427/34 IPC