Delhi District Court
Fir No.259/98 Id No.02404R 0124841999 ... vs . Rani Solanki on 13 January, 2012
FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI
IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T.LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.
FIR No259/98
PS S. P. Badli
U/s. 341/323 IPC
ID No. 02404R 0124841999
13.01.2012
STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI
Date of institution : 11.06.1999
Date of Commission of Offence : 21.04.1998
Name of the Complainant : Sh. Balbir Singh
Name, parentage & Add. Of the
Accused : 1. Rani Solanki,w/o Sanjay Sharma
R/o QTR. No. 272, Police Colony,
Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
2. Ashok Kumar S/o Ram Kishan
R/o.G5/328,Sector16,Rohini,
Delhi.
Offence complaint of : U/s 341/323 IPC
Plea of the Accused : Pleaded Not Guilty.
Final Order : Acquitted.
Date for reserve of Order : 11.01.2012
Date of announcing of order : 13.01.2012
BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION
FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 1/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI
1. The facts of the present case as disclosed in the complaint of the complainant Sh. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Harswaroop Singh are that accused persons namely Rani Solanki, who is the wife of younger son of complainant Balbir Singh and Ashok Kumar, who is the brother of accused Rani Solanki, on the night of 21.04.1998, reached the house of complainant Balbir Singh and started asking about whereabouts of his younger son Sanjay. When the complainant showed his ignorance about his whereabouts, heated arguments took place and upon this accused Ashok brought a brick and intended to hit the complainant. Somehow the complainant Balbir Singh saved himself but that brick hit on the back of one person Jagmender and finally collided on the TV and the TV broke down. Complainant closed his doors.
2. On his complaint, FIR U/s 323/341 IPC was registered against the accused persons, investigation was carried out and challan was prepared and presented in the court after completion of the investigation. Subsequent to the filing of the challan, cognizance was taken and accused persons were summoned.
FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 2/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI
3. Thereafter, on appearance of the accused persons, the case was taken up for framing of charge. Thereafter, charge U/s 323/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons on 26.08.2000 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The matter was thereafter listed for PE.
4. In order to bring home the guilt against the accused prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses.
1. PW1 ASI Ram Kumar who was the duty officer and upon receiving of the rukka who registered the FIR.
2. PW2 K.V. Singh is Record Clerk from HRH Hospital who proved the MLC.
3. PW3 HC Dharamvir Singh who was the duty officer and upon receiving of complaint from the SHO for registration of the case registered the FIR.
4. PW4 ie., Balbir Singh is the complainant himself.
5. PW5 is MHC(M) HC Ishwar Singh who produced the case property.
6. PW6 is Jag Mahinder Singh who is the Munshi of the complainant and eye witness to the incident.
7. PW7 is SI Brij Mohan who conducted the investigations, recorded the statement of the complainant/witnesses, arrested the accused persons, seized the case property and thereafter, after completion of the investigations filed the challan in the court.
5. Statement of the accused persons namely Ashok and FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 3/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI Rani Solanki have been recorded u/s.313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have denied the allegations leveled against them. Accused Ashok has submitted that this case was filed with the sole motive and intention to put pressure on his sister so that she should not pursue her complaint u/s.354 IPC against the complainant. Complainant i.e. Balbir Singh implicated him and her sister in this false case. Accused Rani Solanki has submitted that this case was registered with the sole motive and intention to put pressure on her so that she should not pursue her complaint u/s. 354 IPC against Balbir Singh i.e. complainant in the present case. He implicated her as well as her brother Ashok in this false case.
6. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of accused persons as well as on behalf of the State and record has been meticulously perused.
7. In the instant case, first charge upon both the accused persons is u/s. 341/34 IPC. For better appreciation of facts, Sec. 340 & 341 are reproduced as hereunder: Sec.340: Wrongful confinement - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said"wrongfully to confine" that person. a) A causes Z to go FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 4/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI within a walled space, and locks Z in. A is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building, A wrongfully confines Z. Sec. 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint - Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Classification of Offence - The offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by any Magistrate.
8. Now, applying facts in law, in the instant case, complainant before the court deposed that he was not at home when both the accused came along with one Smt. Sheetal. He further deposed that these all three persons broke the lock of one car and drove away that car to accused Ashok's house in Sector16. Thereafter, upon complaint of Munshi Jagminder he reached his house at about 12 PM. When he reached there, all the three above mentioned accused persons were there and asked about the whereabouts of accused Sanjay. He called the PCR. Upon this, accused Rani Solanki said that this old man should be taught a FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 5/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI lesson by breaking his legs and bones and they started throwing bricks and stones at him but his Munshi Jagminder somehow succeeded to close the door from inside and he was saved. Though, his Munshi sustained injuries. Thereafter, he deposed that when the police arrived both the accused persons were taken to Bara Hindu Rao Hospital where they were medically examined. They remained at the hospital till 4PM. On the way to hospital they visited Ashok's house and found that the Maruti car bearing no.3059 was parked in front of Ashok's house in the street. Thereafter, PW4 ie., complainant has deposed that after lots of hardships FIR was registered.
9. I have gone through the statement of these witnesses before the police. There appears to be major improvement by the complainant before the court as compare to the complaint made before the police. Before the police, complainant had alleged that on 21.04.1998 at about 11:45 PM both the accused came to his house and asked him about the whereabouts of his son Sanjay. It has not been mentioned that he was not at home at that time. It has also not been mentioned that one another person (namely Solanki) was with them. It has also not been mentioned that one another person was with them. It has also not been mentioned that these persons restrained the complainant or the other person ie., Jagminder Singh to prevent from moving or proceeding in any direction. He himself stated before the police that heated arguments took place there.
FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 6/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI From these circumstance, it is apparent that the purpose of entering into the house of the complainant was just to know about the whereabouts of younger son of complainant but circumstances so became during these enquiries that heated arguments took place.
10. PW6, who was present along with the complainant had deposed before the police that the Maruti car was parked in front of the house of the complainant. Accused Rani Solanki broke the lock of the car and ran away . However no such statement has been stated before the police. He has deposed before the police that accused Ashok broke the TV kept near the table. He also picked up the brick and threw it towards complainant Balbir Singh . The brick hit complainant Balbir Singh and he also received injuries. Thereafter, he shut the door. He further deposed that during this incident accused Rani also accompanied accused Ashok and they acted together. Accused Ashok also threw brick on Balbir Singh. The brick hit him on his waist and thumb. Nowhere, upon the basis of deposition, it is proved that complainant and Jagminder were restrained in a manner from proceeding beyond certain limits.
11. On the other hand, PW6 and PW4 themselves have deposed that when the accused threw bricks PW6 closed the door and then the accused persons left. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, offence u/s.341 IPC is not proved.
12. Further, both the accused have been charged with the offence u/s. 323 IPC. For better appreciation of facts Section FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 7/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 323 has been reproduced as here under:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, which runs as follows: "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt - Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both"
13.As discussed above, PW4 had initially complained before the police that accused Rani Solanki and Ashok Kumar came to his house. Heated arguments took place and upon this fact, accused Ashok brought a brick to which he intended to hit upon the complainant. No where, it has been stated before the police that accused Rani Solanki also hit with bricks. Before the court, PW4 deposed that they started throwing bricks and stones and PW6 also deposed on the same lines. However, there is major contradiction of statement of these witnesses, as compare to the deposition made before the court. It appears that both the witnesses have tried to improve upon the case of the prosecution. Hence, I am not inclined to accept these improvements firstly, because of the reason that the statement made before the police was instantaneous. There are very FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 8/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI less chances of manipulation, at the first instance, when the complaint was made to the police. Secondly, on the MLC of Jagmender Singh there is mentioning of one abraison on the body of PW6 Jagmender Singh only, not on PW4. If, I go by the version of the complainant i.e., PW4 and PW6, both the accused threw bricks and stones upon them in that case there should have been more abrasions and not only on the part of Jagmender but also on the part of complainant also. The injury was simple in nature. MLC has been proved. Therefore, it is proved that accused Ashok had caused simple injury to Jagminder Singh. This fact is corroborated also by the statement of PW4 and PW6 made before the police. However, as far as role of accused Rani Solanki is concerned, prosecution has failed to prove that she had common intention to hit the complainant or Jagmender Singh. From the circumstances, mentioned in the complaint made before the police, it is clear that motive of accused Rani Solanki and accused Ashok's visit to the complainant's house was about enquiries of whereabouts of one person Sanjay, who is the son of the complainant. All of sudden during the course of heated arguments accused Ashok hit the brick. From these circumstances, it can not FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 9/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI be safely concluded that accused Rani Solanki had common intention to hit or she was aware that accused Ashok Kumar would hit the complainant or Jagmender Singh. Hence, in view of the above discussion, accused Rani Solanki is acquitted and accused Ashok Kumar is convicted of the offence u/s.323 IPC. Accused shall be heard on the point of sentence separately. Announced in the open court today on 13.01.2012.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 10/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI IN THE COURT OF MS. RACHNA T.LAKHANPAL, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: ROHINI, DELHI.FIR No259/98
PS S. P. Badli U/s. 341/323 IPC 17.01.2012 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE: Present: Ld. APP for State.
Accused in person with counsel.
Complainant with counsel.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Submissions of Ld. Counsel for the convict heard. Looking into the nature of allegations and the offence, it has been vehemently argued for the convict Ashok Kumar that he has no past criminal antecedents and therefore, leniency has been prayed. It has been further submitted that the convict Ashok Kunar is an old man. Accused submits that he is the sole earning member of the family, doing private job and is having three children.
The court has carefully gone through the material facts for consideration of the quantum of sentence of the convict.
The court has also given due regard to the fact that the convict has no other criminal conviction or antecedents reported. The convict Ashok Kumar has no past criminal antecedents. The present case was also a family dispute. I am of the view that the convict here in must have learnt from her past mistake and want to join the society to display good behaviour and be a better asset for the society as a whole. Giving the due regard to the facts and circumstances observed by FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 11/10............ FIR No.259/98 ID No.02404R 0124841999 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 2 this court, the court considers it appropriate to invoke the provisions U/s 360 (1) Cr.P.C in the present case. In the interest of justice and expediency, the convict/offender be released on probation of good behavior and conduct for a period of one year whereby he shall be required to keep peace and be of good behavior. Convict Ashok is released on his entering into a personal bond/probation bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/. The convict shall be liable to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period for a failure to observe the conditions of the probation. During the probation period, in case the convict wishes to leave the jurisdiction of this court, he shall give a prior intimation to this court regarding the dates and period, when the convict wishes to visit any place outside the jurisdiction of this court. Ordered accordingly.
Probation bond of the convict furnished and accepted. Copy of judgment and order be given free of cost to accused. Announced in the open court today on 17.01.2012.
(RACHNA T. LAKHANPAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT/ROHINI/DELHI.
FIR No. 259/98 STATE VS. RANI SOLANKI 12/10............