Delhi District Court
State vs . Amit Arora & Ors. on 2 August, 2014
State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. SACHIN SANGWAN: METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE-05/CENTRAL: DELHI
STATE VS. AMIT ARORA & ORS.
FIR No. 145/01
P. S. : Kamla Market
Date of institution of case : 30.05.2001
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 30.07.2014
Date of judgment : 02.08.2014
JUDGMENT :
a) Date of offence : 08.04.2001 b) Offence complained of : U/s 323/341/427/506/34 IPC c) Name of complainant : Sh. Parmod Kumar d) Name of accused no. 1, his parentage : Amit Arora local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Rajender Arora R/o:- 111-5, Aram Bagh, Pahar Ganj, Delhi. Name of accused no. 2, his parentage : Upender Sharma local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Nirankar Nath Sharma R/o:- E-25, Tagore Road, Kamla Market, Delhi. Name of accused no. 3, his parentage : Mukesh Kanojia local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Chotte Lal R/o:- Jhuggi, Dhobi Ghat No. 7, Minto Road, Delhi FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 1 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors. Name of accused no. 4, his parentage : Vicky local & permanent residence S/o Sh. Prem Chand R/o:- Jhuggi, Dhobi Ghat No. 7, Minto Road, Delhi e) Plea of accused : Plead not guilty f) Final order : Acquitted BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.04.2001 at about 10.30 p.m. at DDU Marg near Minto Road Chowk, all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained Sh. Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar while they were going in their Maruti Van bearing no. DL 2CL 3425 and caused hurt to them and committed mischief by causing damage to the said Maruti Van by breaking its glass which was valued for more than Rs. 50/- and also threatened the complainant Pramod Kumar Gupta and his cousin brother Sudhir Kumar with injury to their person, reputation and property and thereby they had committed offence punishable U/s 323/341/427/506/34 IPC.
2. Accordingly, on 26.10.2012 Charge U/s 323/341/427/506/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and has claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined 11 FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 2 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
witnesses.
A. Ct. Vinod was examined as PW1. He deposed that on 08.04.2001, on receipt of DD No. 52B, he along with ASI Rajbir Singh reached at DDU Marg where SHO was already present and SHO handed over four persons to ASI Rajbir Singh, whose names were revealed as Amit, Upender, Vicky and Mukesh. He deposed that IO prepared rukka at the instance of complainant Parmod, got registered the present case FIR through him. IO seized the Maruti Van bearing no. DL2C3425 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A and the broken glass of the Maruti Van was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that all the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/F and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/G to Ex.PW1/J. B. Sh. Pramod Kumar was examined as PW2. He deposed that on 08.04.2001 at about 10.30 p.m. he was going along with his cousin brother Sudhir Kumar to his resident and they crossed the Minto Road Chowk red light and reached at DDU Marg where four persons suddenly came in front of their Maruti Van and stopped their way. When they asked the accused persons "what is the matter?" , the accused persons started giving beatings to him and also smashed the glass of the van. He deposed that he immediately rescued himself from the accused persons and went to call the police, after parking his van at the spot. He deposed that when he was away from the van and was calling the police, he saw that all the accused persons had started beating his cousin Sudhir Kumar. Thereafter, police came at the spot and the accused persons again caught him and accused Amit Arora gave a fist blow below his lips, due to which he sustained injuries and accused persons also threatened to kill FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 3 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
them. In the meantime, police officials also called the local police, who came along with SHO. He deposed that he gave his statement Ex.PW2/A to the local police. He deposed that police seized the Maruti Van vide memo Ex.PW1/A. He deposed that all the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/G to Ex.PW1/J. C. Sh. Sudhir Kumar was examined as PW3. He deposed that on 08.04.2001 at about 10.15 p.m. he along with his cousin brother Pramod Kumar crossed Minto Road Chowk red light and reached at DDU Marg, where four accused persons came in front of their Maruti van and stopped their way. When they asked the accused persons ''what is the matter''?, the accused persons without giving any reply started giving beatings to his cousin brother Pramod Kumar and also smashed the glass of the van with their fist. He deposed that his cousin brother immediately got down from the van and went to call police and during that period, accused persons started giving fist blows to him. Thereafter, his cousin came at the spot along with two police officials but accused persons caught hold Pramod Kumar and again gave fist blows to his person, due to which he sustained injuries. Accused persons also threatened to kill both of them. He further deposed that local Police also came at the spot and complainant Pramod Kumar lodged his complaint with them and local police took him and Pramod to LNJP Hospital for medical examination. He deposed that police seized the Maruti Van vide memo Ex.PW1/A and the broken glass vide memo Ex.PW1/B. He deposed that all the accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex.PW1/B to Ex.PW1/E and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/G to Ex.PW1/J. FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 4 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
D. Ct. Gajender Singh was examined as PW4. He deposed that on 08.04.2001 at about 10.30 p.m. one person came from the side of DDU Road and told him that "four persons had stopped his vehicle (maruti van) and have assaulted him". He deposed that he along with Ct. Ram Dayal reached at the spot and saw that four persons were quarrelling with Pramod Kumar and Sudhir Kumar. When they tried to apprehend those persons, they also misbehaved with them. Public persons also gathered at the spot. He borrowed a mobile phone from a public person and called the PCR. After some time, SHO along with staff also reached at the spot. He further deposed that those four persons were apprehended, IO inspected the site and seized the maruti van vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, the broken glass of the maruti van was also seized vide memo Ex.PW1/B. The present case FIR was registered through Ct. Vinod. All the accused persons were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/C to Ex.PW1/F and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/G to Ex.PW1/J. E. Dr. Sanjay Kumar was examined as PW5. He deposed that 09.04.2001, injured Pramod and Sudhir were brought to hospital by Ct. Vinod and they were medically examined by Dr.Manab under his guidance and their reports Ex.PW5/A and Ex.PW5/B were prepared. This witness also identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. Manab on the reports of injured persons.
F. HC Mahesh Kumar was examined as PW6. He deposed that in the intervening night of 08/09.04.2001, on the basis of rukka, sent by ASI Rabir Singh through Ct. Vinod Kumar at about 12.10 a.m., he recorded FIR of the present case vide Ex.PW6/A and made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex.PW6/B. He deposed that on FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 5 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
that night DD No. 52B (Ex.PW6/D) was also recorded but its original record has been destroyed vide order dated 08.06.2012 (Ex. PW6/C).
G. Ct. Ram Dayal was examined as PW7. He deposed that in the intervening night 08/09.04.2001, at about 10.30 p.m. he was present at Minto Road Chowk along with his motorcycle and picket staff Ct. Gajender was standing near him. At that time, one boy/person came to them running from the side of DDU Marg and told them that some boys had stopped his van and had assaulted him. He deposed that he alongwith Ct. Gajender went to the spot and saw that four persons were beating the boy sitting in the Maruti Van. The left side window pane of the aforesaid van was broken and when they prohibited the aforesaid persons/boys to do so, they started misbehaving with them and a crowd gathered there. Then, Ct. Gajender made call from a mobile phone taken from a public person. SHO along with staff and PCR Van came at the spot and all the aforesaid four persons/boys were apprehended at the identification of Pramod Kumar. The aforesaid boys disclosed their names on enquiry as Amit Arora, Upender Sharma, Vicky and Mukesh. He deposed that IO prepared the rukka and got the present case FIR registered through Ct. Vinod Kumar. Aforesaid Maruti Van bearing No. DL 2CL 3425 was taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A, broken pieces of window pans were taken into police possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/B. Accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted vide personal search memo Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1H, Ex.PW1/I & Ex.PW1/J. H. SI Rajbir was examined as PW8. He deposed that on 08.04.2001, information was received regarding fighting and the same was reduced FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 6 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
into writing vide DD No. 52 B (copy of the same is Ex.PW6/D) and it was marked to him. Accordingly, he along with Ct.Vinod Kumar went to the spot of incident i.e. DDU Marg, near Minto Road Chowk at about 11.00 p.m., where SHO along with the PCR staff, Complainant Pramod Kumar and PCR vehicle was already present. On the spot, one Maruti Van bearing no. DL 2CL 3425 was standing and four persons were apprehended by the police persons. He recorded the statement of complainant vide Ex.PW2/A and prepared the rukka Ex.PW8/A and got registered the present case FIR through Ct. Vinod. He deposed that he prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/B. The vehicle involved in the incident i.e. Maruti Van bearing no. DL 2CL 3425 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. The broken pieces of glasses of the left side window pane were collected and reduced into pulanda and sealed with the seal of RSD and the same were seized vide seizure memo already Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, complainant Pramod and Sudhir were medically examined at JPN Hospital. He further deposed that accused Amit,Upender Sharma, Vicky and Mukesh were arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F, Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D and Ex.PW1/E respectively and their personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/J, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I respectively. He deposed that he collected the bill from the complainant with respect to the repair of the window panes and the same was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/B. I. Sh. Balbir Singh was examined as PW9. He deposed that he is the registered owner of the Maruti Van bearing Registration No. DL 2CL 3425 and he received the same on superdari vide superdarinama Ex.PW9/A. J. ASI Ranbir was examined as PW10. He deposed that on FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 7 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
09.04.2001 he was posted as MHC (M) at PS Kamla Market Nabi Karim. On that day, ASI Rajbir Singh deposited one Maruti Van bearing no. DL 2CL 3425 and broken glass of the Maruti Van and articles of jamatalashi of accused persons in the malkhana. He made entry in register no. 19 in this regard vide serial no. 2209/01 vide Ex.PW10/A. Later on the case property i.e. the said car and jamatalashi were released on superdari by the order of the Court.
4. Thereafter, prosecution closed its evidence and the incriminating circumstances were explained to the accused. In his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. accused Mukesh has submitted that he and his brother Vicky after having meals were going outside their home. Crowd had gathered on the road. He inquired and they got to know that Amit have met with some accident. When they went ahead they saw that police was getting Amit in to a police vehicle. Police came and ask them whether they know Amit and Upender. They told the police that they are their neighbors. Police asked them to sit in the police vehicle. Thereafter, police took all four of them to the hospital. Thereafter, they were taken to the police station. Police asked Amit to pay for the damage of the vehicle. Amit told them that he was injured so police shall register case against other party. However, police locked all of them in the police station.
In his examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Vicky has submitted that he and his brother Mukesh were going outside their home after having meal. At around 10.30/11.00 pm they saw that public had gathered at the aforesaid place. They got to know from the public that Upender and Amit have met with some accident. They went ahead and saw that Upender and Amit were injured. Thereafter, police came and crowed started dispersing. They were standing on the side. The police got Amit and FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 8 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
Upender in their vehicle. Two policemen came to them and asked if they know Amit and Upender. They told the police that they are their neighbors. They also took them in their Jeep and took all of them to the hospital. Amit and Upender were treated in the hospital. Thereafter, police brought all of them to the police station. Thereafter police locked them in the police station.
In his examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Amit Arora has submitted he was crossing the road with his uncle Upender Sharma. The road was just in front of his house at that time. There was a traffic signal therein. Suddenly a maruti van came and turned and hit him. He fell down. His head hit on the road. He lost consciousness thereafter. When he regained his consciousness after some minutes the public and the neighbors had gathered. He saw that his uncle Upender had also received injuries. Some body out of the public called the police. Thereafter police took them to hospital. As per him around 300/400 people had gathered on the spot.
In his examination U/s 313 Cr. P.C. accused Upender Sharma has submitted that he and Amit were crossing the road. The said maruti van came in high speed. The said maruti van hit himself and Amit. Thereafter the van hit the footpath and stopped. Amit became unconscious and water was sprayed on his face. Public gathered on the spot. They both were injured but they did not commit the aforesaid offences.
5. In their defence, accused persons have examined two witness:-
A. Sh. Ram Kumar was examined as DW1. He deposed that in April, 2001, he used to go to ghat no.7, Minto Road as he had work of laundry there. He deposed that on 09.04.2001 at about 10/10:30pm, he was moving about having dinner FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 9 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
and he heard noise of an accident. When he reached at the spot of accident about after 250/300 people have gathered there. He saw Amit Arora in a semi conscious state. Water was sprinkled on his face and he gained consciousness. A white coloured van was standing there. Thereafter, police came on the spot and asked the crowd to disburse. He also moved aside. Accused Mukesh and Vicky were also present at the spot. Police asked the persons, present therein as to whether they know Amit Arora. Mukesh and Vicky replied to the police that they knew Amit Arora as he lives in their block. Police asked Mukesh and Vicky to accompany them so that they can depose. Police took them in their vehicle and he went to his home. He deposed that in the next afternoon, he came to know that Mukesh and Vicky have been put behind the bars.
B. Sh. Ayush Jain was examined as DW2. He deposed that on 08.04.2001 at about 10.00-10.30 pm, he was present at one Paan Shop near Minto Road Chowk. He saw that one white coloured Maruti Van came from the side of Cannaught Place towards Minto Road, loud music was being played in the car, the driver of the car suddenly applied brake. He heard the sound of tyre skid and the car struck against Amit Arora who fell on the road and received injuries. Crowd of about 200-300 people gathered. One person, who was along with Amit Arora at that time, also received injuries in the said accident. There were two persons in the said car.
Police also reached at the spot.
DECISION OF THE CASE AND REASONS THEREOF
6. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts. The reasons for aforesaid conclusion FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 10 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
are as follows:
A. The main witnesses in the case is PW2 Pramod Kumar and PW3 Sudhir Kumar. They are the eye witnesses/alleged victims of the case. However, their testimonies are inconsistent. Rather they have taken a complete U-turn during their cross examination. During his cross examination, PW2 has deposed that ''When I reached place of incident with my brother i.e. DDU Marg we found that mob of around 200 to 300 persons was present there. My car was stopped by the mob and we came out of the same. I saw that accused Vicky, Upender, Amit and Mukesh were already injured. The mob had grappled with us. Pramod made a call to police at 100 number.
Police came to the spot within 10 to 15 minutes of making the call. When police came to the spot, mob was present there, however, on seeing the police most of the people had left the spot. Police had apprehended the accused persons. Vol. as they were having injuries. It is correct to suggest that we had suffered injuries due to the grappling with the mob and accused persons had not beaten us''. Even PW3 has taken a complete U-turn in his cross examination by the defence counsel. During his cross examination PW3 has deposed that 'When I reached place of incident with my brother i.e. DDU Marg we found that mob of around 200 to 300 persons was present there. My car was stopped by the mob and we came out of the same. I saw that accused Vicky, Upender, Amit and Mukesh were already injured. The mob had grappled with us. Pramod made a call to police at 100 number. Police came to the spot within 10 to 15 minutes of making the call. When police came to the spot, mob was present there, however, on seeing the police most of the people had left the spot. Police had apprehended the accused persons. Vol. as they were having injuries. It is correct to suggest that we had suffered injuries due to the grappling with the mob and accused FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 11 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
persons had not beaten us.'' Thus none of the victim have supported the case of the prosecution during their cross examination.
B. Ld. APP has submitted that the said witnesses have turned hostile being won over by the accused persons. It is correct that both the witnesses during their re-examination had admitted that they had put their signatures on their examination in chief after reading the contents of the same. However, PW2 when asked to clarify as to which of the two versions given by him is correct stated that he deposed in his examination in chief on the basis of police statement, therefore, he could not tell the true facts of the case. PW3 on other hand, has not given any explanation as to why he has given different version during his cross examination. Rather, during his re-examination, he admitted the correctness of his examination in chief. Nonetheless, the credibility of both the witnesses stands diminished due to their flip-flop stand. Accordingly, Court has to consider the other facts of the case to conclude as to which statement of the witnesses is a correct one. After considering the other facts of the case the Court has come to the conclusion that the case of prosecution does not represent the true facts of the alleged incident. The reason for said conclusion is discussed in succeeding paras.
C. It is the defence of accused persons that accused Upender and Amit were hit by the Maruti Van driven by the complainant persons and, thereafter, the public gathered at the spot. As per them the police officials asked them to pay the damage caused to the vehicle and they refused the same and, thereafter, they were implicated in the present case. During the arguments, it was noticed that there was no medical examination report of either of the accused persons on record. When the police FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 12 of 14 State Vs. Amit Arora & ors.
file was called it was found that the medical examination report of accused Upender and Amit was tagged in the same. Same was taken on judicial record. The medical examination report of Upender Sharma (now Ex.A1 and Ex.A2) show that he had received external injuries i.e. (1.) bruise over right lower leg with limp, can not walk properly (2.) CLW over nose. Thus, injuries were present on the body of accused Upender. Further surgery notes on said medical record mention alleged history of assault and mentions that stiches were required over the CLW (contused lacerated wound). Surprisingly, in Ex.A1 the history of patient is mentioned as being beaten under police custody. Moreover, in the MLC of Amit also (now Ex.A3 and Ex.A4) external injuries have been mentioned i.e. (1.)CLW over nose (2.) CLW over forehead. In the surgery notes, the history has been mentioned as that of RTA (road traffic accident). Further, it has been mentioned that wound over the nose was stitched. These MLCs shows certain important facts. Firstly, the MLCs of the accused persons were withheld from being produced in the Court by the police. Secondly, the nature of injuries and history thereof show that there was indeed some accident with accused Amit. Thirdly, the MLCs reveal that accused Upender made allegations of beating by police to the concerned Doctors. Most importantly, it is pertinent to note here that in contradiction to the injuries on the accused persons the injuries on the bodies of complainant were much less serious. In the MLC of complainant Parmod Kumar Ex.PW5/A only a single injury has been mentioned that too a mild abrasion on lower lip. Similarly, in the MLC Ex.PW5/B of alleged victim Sudhir only one injury has been mentioned that too scratch mark above left eyebrow. Now, it is surprising that as per case of prosecution four accused persons caused beatings to two complainant persons, however, graver injuries were present on the bodies of two accused persons and only simple scratches/abrasions were found on the body of complainant persons.
FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 13 of 14These physical facts are hard to explain. Further, no motive has appeared by which the accused persons were prompted to cause beatings to the complainant persons. Thus, it appears that the police came up with a half baked story of the complainant party and never brought the complete facts of the case before the Court. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it does appear that probably defence raised by accused persons is a true one. It appears that initially some accident was caused by the Maruti Van being driven by the complainant persons and, thereafter, the public gathered on the spot and the vehicle of the complainant was damaged. The defence witness DW1 Ram Kumar and DW2 Ayush Jain have deposed that crowd of about 300 have gathered there. They have also deposed regarding the causing of accident by the vehicle and Amit Arora being injured in the same. Even, PW2 and PW3 have also deposed regarding the presence of big crowd. Even PW7 has deposed that public persons gathered at the spot. Therefore, considering the totality of circumstances, it is highly doubtful as to whether the case of prosecution represent the true state of facts that occurred on the date of incident.
Thus, considering the inconsistent testimonies of complainant persons, withholding of medical record of accused persons, nature of injuries of the accused persons vis-a-vis complainant persons, serious doubts have cropped up in the case of prosecution. Accordingly, giving the benefit of doubt all the accused persons are acquitted from the offences charged against them.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (SACHIN SANGWAN)
TODAY ON 2nd August, 2014 MM-05 (CENTRAL), DELHI
FIR No. 145/01 Page No. 14 of 14