Delhi District Court
State vs . Poonam Mittal Etc. on 4 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH VAIBHAV CHAURASIA:
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-04: NORTH-WEST DISTRICT:
ROHINI DISTRICT COURTS: NEW DELHI
FIR No. 796/2007
PS Shalimar Bagh
State Vs. Poonam Mittal etc.
Date of Institution: 17/12/2009
Date of Judgment : 04.08.2023
JUDGMENT
(a) Serial Number of the case : 530812/2016
(b) Date of commission of offence : 14.12.2007
(c) Name of the complainant : Smt. Shashi Bindlish
(d) Name of Accused persons, : (1) Poonam Mittal
their parentage & residence W/o Sh. Sh. Kulbhushan Mittal
(2) Kulbhushan Mittal
S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal,
Both R/o: SU-214, Vishakha Enclave,
Pitampura, Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : Under Section 323/324/34 IPC
(f) Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final order : Acquittal
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DECISION
1) The accused persons namely Poonam Mittal W/o Sh. Kulbhushan Mittal and Kulbhushan Mittal S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal had FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 1 of 32 been sent to face trial for the commission of offences under Section 323/324/34 IPC of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') on the allegations that on 14.12.2007 at about 1:20 p.m., at H. No. SU-214, Pitumpura, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Shalimar Bagh, accused persons in furtherance of their common intention had voluntarily caused simple hurt to the person of Shashi Bindlish D/o Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal with blunt as well as sharp edged object (teeth) and caused simple hurt on the person of Smt. Sanju Singhal, W/o Rajiv Singhal.
2) After completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in Court, cognizance of the offences was taken, the abovesaid accused persons were summoned and after that, their entered appearance, copy of the chargesheet along with the documents was supplied to them in compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3) Charge was then framed against both accused persons for the commission of offences under Section 323/324/34 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4) To prove its case, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
5) PW-1 Mrs. Shashi Bindlish, W/o Sh. Rajiv Bindlish, R/o A-2/170, Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi deposed that On 14.12.2007, she alongwith her sisters namely Sanju Singhal and Santosh Singhal went FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 2 of 32 to visit their parents at their residence at SU-214, Pitampura, Delhi. The door of the said house was already open and when they tried to enter the said house, accused Kulbhushan alongwith his wife i.e. accused Poonam Mittal alongwith their two maids were standing in front of the door. As soon as they entered the house, both the accused persons alongwith their two maids started beating them and abused them in filthy language. Accused Poonam Mittal had bitten her hand with her teeth and also gave beatings to her mercilessly. Accused Poonam Mittal pushed her sister who fallen down on the floor and thereafter, accused Poonam Mittal sat on her and gave beatings and also bitten her hand with her teeth. When her sister namely Santosh Singhal tried to rescue them and made request to the accused persons to leave them but they did not pay any heed to her request and keep beating them mercilessly. Accused Poonam also pulled earring of her sister namely Sanju Singhal and due to that blood started oozing out from the ear of her sister. After beating them, accused persons himself called at 100. Police officials reached at the spot and shifted them to BJRM Hospital for medical examination. Police officials also prepared site plan at her instance. Whenever any person other than them visit her parents, accused persons used to quarrel with them. In that regard IO recorded her statement which is Ex.PW1/A bearing her signatures at point A. Both the accused persons namely Kulbhushan and Poonam were present in the Court that day(correctly identified). She was duly cross-examined by Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. During her cross-examination, she deposed that her statement was recorded by the police officials in PS Shalimar Bagh. However FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 3 of 32 she did not remember the time of recording her statement. She further deposed that no statement of any other witnesses recorded by the police in front of her. She alongwith her two sisters and her father went to the police station. At the time of incident, she and her two sisters residing with their in laws. On 14.12.2007, they all of three left her matrimonial house and reached at SU-214 Pitam Pura at same time. She did not know the exact time when they all reached at SU- 214 Pitam Pura. However it was approximately at about 12:00 PM. No other family member of her and her sisters accompanied them on 14.12.2007. she did not remember as to when her father and mother had shifted themselves at SU-214 Pitam Pura. She did not remember the how many times she visited her parents at SU-214 Pitam Pura prior to 14.12.2007. She 1 also did not remember that on 14.12.2007, whether it was first time she went to met her father and mother. She did not remember whether they visited prior to 14.12.2007 to her parents at SU-214 Pitam Pura. She admitted that some maids were working at her parents home. There is only one iron gate to enter in the premises at SU-214 Pitam Pura. She also admitted that at that time, her parents were residing at the ground floor and their kitchen were separated from accused persons. She further admitted that there was no talking terms between her and accused persons at that time. She did not know whether the accused persons were having prior knowledge about the fact that she and her sister were coming at SU-214 Pitam Pura on the said day. She did not know whether her parents were also having talking terms with accused persons or not. She further admitted that both accused persons were resided at the first floor of SU-214 FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 4 of 32 Pitam Pura at that time. There is separate staircase to reach at main gate from first floor of the SU-214 Pitam Pura. No blood which was oozing out from the ear of her sister fall on the floor of the house as well as on the clothes of her sister. There was a bleeding on her hand and it did not fall on the floor as well as on her clothes Police did not call / interrogate the two maids who were present on the spot at the time of incident in her presence. She did not remember the time when police reached at the spot. Though she did not call at 100 number to police. She also do not know who has called the police. She did not know whether the earing which was snatched from the ear of her sister was handed over the IO by her. She further stated that in her presence, statement of any witness was not recorded in the PS. Vol. She did not remember the same. Her father did not accompanied her to the PS. Her both sisters Sanju and Santosh accompanied her. She did not remember whether the police officials made any inquiry from her sisters. She did not remember as to whether police officials recorded the statement of her sisters at that time. She did not remember as to whether accused persons alongwith two maids were called in the PS or not on that day. She did not know as to whether the police officials made inquiry from the accused persons and the maids at SU-214, Pitampura on that day. On that day, from the police station, she went to her matrimonial home. She did not know on that day, as to where her sisters went from the PS. She did not meet with police officials again in respect of the present case after the day of incident. She admitted that she gave a written complaint Ex.PW1/A to the police. She had narrated entire facts in the Ex. PWI/A to the police. She did FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 5 of 32 not remember whether she stated the word that "door of the said house was already open" in her statement Ex. PWI/A. After seeing the judicial file Ex. PWI/A, the witness has read over her statement and "door of the said house was already open" is not mentioned. Vol. She had stated in her complaint Ex. PWI/A that they were standing outside means the door was open. She did not remember as to whether she had signed any documents prepared by the police. She had no relative in BRIM Hospital in year 2007. She denied that that no such incident occurred on the date of incident. She further denied that she did not visit at SU-214, Pitampura, at the relevant date and time or that the accused persons had not caused any injury to her and her sisters Sanju Singhal or that she falsely implicated the accused persons under the pressure of her parents or upon their instance as there is a property dispute between her father and the accused persons going on. She further denied that she was deposing falsely.
6) PW-2 Sanju Singhal W/o Rajiv Singhal deposed that she was residing at above said address alongwith family members. On 14.12.2007 he alongwith her sisters namely Shashi Bindelish and Santosh Singhal went to her parents house I.e SU-214,Pitam Pura Delhi. The door of house was already opened and both the accused namely Kulbhushan Mittal and Poonam Mittal alongwith their two maids were standing at the main gate of the said house. As soon as they entered into the house, both the accused persons alongwith their maids started beating and abused them. Accused Poonam Mittal had bitten her right hand with her teeth and pull her left ear-rings due to FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 6 of 32 which blood by oozing out from the ear. After hearing loud noise, her parents came out of the house and her parents rescued them from the clutches of the both accused persons and thereafter both the accused persons themselves called at 100 number. Police officials came at the spot and took them BJRM Hospital. The police officials recorded her statement. Whenever they used to visit to her parents house, both the accused persons gave beating to them. Both the accused persons present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. She further deposed that she did not say anything more. She was cross-examined by Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. During her cross-examination, she stated that her statement was recorded by the Police in the Police Station on the same day i.e. 14/12/2007. She did not know whether any statement of other witness had been recorded on that day. She had read over her statement recorded by the Police. She did not remember whether she had stated in her statement that accused Poonam Mittal had bitten her right hand. At that stage, witness has read over her statement u/s 161 or Cr.P.C. mark 'A' and stated that the said fact is not mentioned in her statement. She further stated that she did not remember the exact time when she had reached the house no. SU-214 Pitampura Delhi, however it was noon time. She along with her two sisters came together at their parents house. First, they all three sisters had gone to shopping at Pitampura and thereafter they reached at their parents house. Her parents were not aware that they would visit them on that day. Her parents were residing at Ground Floor of premises no. SU-214. Pitampura, Delhi. No other persons from her as well as her sisters' FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 7 of 32 family were accompanied on 14/12/2007. She did not remember how many times she visited her parents house prior to 14/12/2007. Prior to 14/12/2007, accused persons used to verbally abuse them. They had not filed any complaint prior to 14/12/2007 regarding the verbal abused by the accused. She did not remember whether any maid who served their parents were present in the house at that time. She did not know whether accused persons have knowledge of their visiting on 14/12/2007 at their parents house. She had not scene that whether any blood had fell down on the floor and she did not remember whether the blood fell on her clothes or not. She also not checked the blood on her clothes after reaching her house. She along with her sister Shashi Bindlish only went to the hospital with police and thereafter they reached Police Station. Her father later on direct came to the Police Station. Her father had not gone to the hospital with her. She did not know whether the statement of her father was recorded by Police. She did not know whether her sister Santosh had visited Police Station on that day. In her presence, no other public witness statement was recorded by the Police. Her mother had also not visited the Police Station on that day. They went to their respective houses direct from Police Station. She did not remember that her sister Santosh met her after the alleged incident on that day. She did not remember whether her father also left the Police Station on that day with them. She did not know that from Police Station, her father went for which place. Police had never inquired from the accused persons in her presence. She did not know whether the Police had called said two maids who were accompanied the accused persons at the time of alleged incident. FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 8 of 32 She did not whether her father was provided with Police protection. There is no one related to her who were working in BJRM Hospital in the year 2007. The earring was not seized by the Police. She did not hand over the ear rings to the police. The said ear ring (tops) having blood. She denied that no such alleged incident has been occurred on the said day, date and time. She further denied that she did not visit at SU-214, Pitampura at the relevant date and time or that accused persons had not caused any injury to her or her sister Shashi Bindlesh or that she falsely implicated the accused persons under the pressure of her parents or upon their instance as there is a property dispute between their father and the accused persons going on. She further denied that she was deposing falsely.
7) PW-3 Smt Santosh w/o Sh Jagannath Gupta deposed that she was residing on the above said address. She was a houswife. On 14/12/2007 her parents used to reside at SU- 214, Pitampura, Delhi. On that day she alongwith her sisters namely Sanju Singhal and Shashi Bindlish went to the house of her parents at Pitampura and when they entered into the house of her parents, her brother and sister in law accused Kulbhushan Mittal and Poonam Mittal who also used to reside in the house of her parents, were standing alongwith their two maids near the gate of the house, a little inside and they all four suddenly attacked them. Accused Poonam Mittal pulled the ear-ring of her sister Sanju Singhal and accused Poonam Mittal also bite at the hand of Shashi Bindlesh. Accused Kulbhushan Mittal and Poonam Mittal alongwith their two maids beat them with fists blows and kicks. FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 9 of 32 After hearing our cryings for help, her parents came outside their room and they tried to pacify the accused persons and rescued them. At that stage, witness correctly identified the accused persons who were present in the court that day. She was cross-examined by Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. During her cross- examination, she stated that her father had called her on 18.12.2007 and thereafter, her statement was recorded by the police at her father's house i.e., SU 214. Pitampura, Delhi. No other statement has been recorded by police on 18.12.2007 in her presence. She had read over the statement recorded by the police and put her signatures on the said statement. Police has not taken her for any medical after days examination on 18.12.2007. Police has not recorded statement of her mother and father in her presence on 18.12.2007. She did not know whether the accused persons were present in their house on that day. She did not know whether on that day, police officials made any inquiry from the accused persons. Her sisters Sanju and Shashi were not present on 18.12.2007 at SU-214. Her statement was recorded on 18.12.2007 is pertains to a quarrel/manhandling occurred on 14.12.2007. On 14.12.2007, they all three sister firstly met at Kohat Enclave at about 11:00 am and firstly they visit market for shopping and thereafter, they went to SU-214. They reached at about 1-1:30 pm at their parents house. She did not know whether accused persons were aware that they would visit their parents house on that day. She admitted that they randomly/suddenly reached at SU-214. She did not know how many time prior to 14.12.2007, she visited her parent's house. Price to 14.12.2007, there is no quarrel took place between FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 10 of 32 them and accused persons. She did not remember the time when her parents came to them for intervening in the quarrel. She did not remember whether any maid was there to serve her parents on that day, During her intervention in the quarrel, she also sustained fist blows on her body however, she had not received any visible injury. She did not see any blood was spread over the floor in the said incident. She did not know whether who had called the police at the time. Vol. However police had reached the spot. Both the accused and both her sisters went to the PS with police but she did not go to the police as she did not receive any injury. She did not know whether the two maids of accused were also taken to the PS by the police on that day as I was leave to her house. She did not remember whether the abovesaid two maids were taken to the police station or not. As soon as her sisters went to the PS, she immediately leave for her house. Her father visited the police station on that day but she did not remember how they visit the PS on that day. Her mother did not visit the PS on that day. On 18.12.2007, she received a call from her father and not from PS. She admitted that at that time, some dispute was going on between her parents and accused persons regarding property. They were not involved in the said dispute. She denied that no any such alleged incident had been taking place on the alleged date and time. She further denied that the accused persons had not caused any injuries to her sisters. She further denied that she had not visited SU- 214 Pitampura with her sisters on 14.12.2007. She further denied that she along her sisters falsely implicated the accused persons under the pressures of her parents or upon their instance as there is a property FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 11 of 32 dispute between their father and accused persons going on. She further denied that she was deposing falsely.
8) PW-4 Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal S/o Sh. Tara Chand, R/o House no 1/460, Tika Ram Road, Mandi, Sonepat, Haryana. (aged about- 88 years) deposed that one house situated at SU-214, Pitampura, Delhi was purchased by him around year 1985. On 14.12.2007, he used to reside at SU-214, Pitampura, Delhi at ground floor and Kulbhushan and his wife Poonam Mittal were residing on the first floor of the said house. Prior to 14.12.2007, the accused persons had expelled him from his house and thereafter, by the order of Hon'ble High Court, he again entered into the said house in September,2007 with the police protection and thereafter, he was residing in the said house. On 14.12.2007 at about 01.00 pm or 01.30 pm, his daughters namely Shashi, Santosh and Sanju came to his said house at SU-214, and when they reached at the gate of SU-214, accused Kulbhushan, his wife Poonam Mittal and their maid servants started beating his daughters. At that time, he alognwith his wife were in the room at the ground floor of the house and after hearing the noise they came out of our room and went to the gate of the house. After sometime, police officials reached at the spot and thereafter, injured were taken to hospital. He did not remember anything else about the present case. Accused Kulbhushan was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. Identity of the accused Poonam Mittal was not disputed by the Ld. Defence Counsel. Witness was cross-examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed He admitted that when FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 12 of 32 he alongwith his wife came out from the room after hearing the noise, he saw that Kulbhushan and his wife were beating and abuse his daughters and that accused Poonam bite on the hand of his daughter Shashi and beat his daughters by fists and kicks and that Sanju Singhal was beaten by kicks and fists after making her fall on the ground and that his third Santosh was also beaten by Kulbhushan, his wife and their two maid and that his daughters were beaten by the accused persons due to the on going dispute regarding the property no. SU-214 between him and his son Kulbhushan and that his daughters had nothing to did with the said dispute, in spite of that they were beaten by Kulbhushan, his wife and their two maids. He admitted that earlier he could not recollect the abovesaid facts due to lapse of long time that was around 11-12 years. He was cross-examined by Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. During his cross- examination, he stated that he did not remember as to when he purchased the property no. SU-214, Pitampura. VOL: but it was purchased from DDA in open auction, as far as he remember it was purchased in 1985. The property i.e, SU-214, Pitampura is built up as "dhai manzil". He denied that he called up his three daughters to her house by phone. Vol. They came at house to meet them casually. As soon as three daughters reached at the spot at the gate of the house the quarrel took place. he came to know about the quarrel due to the noise. No one came to them to inform them about the alleged incident. Police arrived at the spot after one to one and 1.5 hours. He did not know as to who informed the police. Further, he did not remember as to whether the police recorded his statement or not. Might be he went to FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 13 of 32 the PS regarding the present case, but he did not remember whether police had interrogated from him or not. Police visited his house, but they did no interrogate him or his wife regarding the said quarrel at that time. The averments given by him in his examination in chief from portion "One house situated at SU-214, Pitampura, Delhi was purchased by him around year 1985. On 14.12.2007, he used to reside at SU-214. Pitampura, Delhi at ground floor and Kulbhushan and his wife Poonam Minal were residing on the first floor of the said house. Prior to 14.12.2007, the accused persons had expelled him from his house and thereafter, by the order of Hon'ble High Court, he again entered into the said house in September 2007 with the police protection" was not asked from him by police official. He further stated that he was not aware whether his daughters were coming to meet him on that day. Even he did not aware whether accused persons were aware of the fact that his daughters were coming to meet him. The police protection provided to him by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding only that no one was harassed them, but there was no police official was deputed for their security. He did not remember whether any maid was working with them at that period. Neither him not his wife were interfered with the alleged quarrel. Vol. The quarrel was already taken place when they reached there. He was not accompanied his daughters to the hospital on that day. The quarrel was already taken place when he reached there. No investigation has been carried out by the police in his presence. His wife was not interrogated by the police. He denied that whatever he deposed in cross-examination by the Ld. APP for the State did not happen on that FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 14 of 32 day or he was deposing falsely.
9) PW-5 HC Jasvinder deposed that on 14.12.2007, he was posted as Constable at PP Pitampura, PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, IO/ASI Gyanvir received one DD entry no. 13 PP and thereafter, he alongwith the IO went to the spot Le, SU-214, Pitampura, Delhi, where they came to know about the quarrel between Kulbhushan, Poonam and Sanju, Shashi and all of them were present there. Thereafter, IO called W/Ct. Meenu at the spot and thereafter, IO alongwith W/Ct. Meenu took the injured persons to hospital and he stayed at the spot. After sometime, IO alongwith W/Ct. Meenu and the injured persons Sanju and Shashi came back to the spot from the hospital. Thereafter, IO asked the injured Shashi to give her statement, however, she told to the IO that firstly she would talk to the senior officers and thereafter would give her statement. Thereafter, he alongwith IO, W/Ct. Meenu, injured Shashi and Sanju went to PP Pitampura and there told her whole story to the SHO, PS Shalimar Bagh, who had also arrived at the PP Pitampura in the meantime and thereafter, she gave her written statement to the IO. Thereafter, IO prepared the tehrir and handed over the same to him for registration of FIR and accordingly, he went to PS Shalimar Bagh and after the registration of the FIR he went back to PP Pitampura and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to IO. Accused Kulbhushan was present in the Court that day and correctly identified by the witness. Identity of accused Poonam Mittal was not disputed by the ld. Defence counsel. He was cross-examined by Sh. Vineet Jain, Ld. counsel for both the accused persons. During his FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 15 of 32 cross-examination, he stated that he reached at the spot at about 1.30 pm alongwith ASI Gyanveer who was the IO of the present case. When they reached at the spot, the quarrel had already taken place. They received 100 number call regarding the above said quarrel as per DD no. 13. When they reached at the spot, they were informed by Shashi and Sanju that they had sustained injuries and blood was oozing out from the hand of Shashi. Neither the blood was fallen on the ground nor it was on the clothes of Shashi. No blood was oozing out of the body of one person Shashi apart from blood oozing out of her hand. IO alongwith W/Ci. Meenu, Shashi and Sanju went to the hospital. He stayed back at the alleged place of incident and did not accompany to the hospital. After that, IO alongwith W/Ct. Meenu. Shashi and Sanja came back to the alleged place of incident. He did not remember the time as to when they arrived. He did not remember as to whether bandage was done to the injured. The injured persons refused to make any statement to the IO and asked to give statement to the senior police officials. The statements of the injured were not recorded in his presence. Vol. Her statement was recorded in the room of Chowki In-charge.
10) PW-6 W/HC Meenu deposed that on 14.12.2007, she was posted as constable at PP Pitam Pura, PS Shalimar Bagh. On that day, IO ASI Gyanveer called her at SU-214, Pitam Pura, Delhi and accordingly, she went there and from there she alongwith the IO took three ladies namely Shashi, Sanju and Poonam to BJRM hospital for their medical examination and after their medical examination, they all went back to FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 16 of 32 the spot. Thereafter, they went back to the PP Pitam Pura alongwith the injured ladies. She was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel. During her cross-examination, she stated that IO called her at about 1.00-1.15 pm to the alleged place of incident. Vol. The time would be around 1.00-1.30 pm. One constable from PP Pitampura dropped her at the alleged place of incident. She was called at the spot of the incident to take the injured to the hospital. She did not remember as to how she took the injured persons to the hospital. She did not remember whether the blood was oozing out of the body of any of the accused. At the hospital, two of the injured. persons Shashi and Sanju were medically treated and Poonam was not medically treated. She did not remember as to what time she alongwith the injured persons reached back to the alleged place of incident. She did not remember as to how she alongwith three of the injured persons came back to the alleged place of incident from the hospital. Her statement was recorded by the IO at PP Pitampura, Delhi.
11) PW-8/W/HC Seema Devi, No. 7064, Supreme Court Security, Delhi deposed that on 06.12.2009, she was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh as Constable. On that day, she joined the investigation with ASI Randhir Singh. She went to the SU-Block Pitam Pura for the purpose of the arrest of accused Poonam Mittal. IO arrested accused Poonam Mittal vide arrest memo Ex.PW8/A bearing her signature at point A. She personally searched the accused Poonam Mittal vide personal search memo on the direction of the IO, vide personal search memo Ex.PW8/B. During the personal search, of accused Poonam Mittal, FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 17 of 32 two gold bangles and one wrist watch and Rs. 302/- cash were recovered. Identity of the accused Poonam Mittal shall not be disputed by the Ld Defence counsel. IO recorded her statement u/s 161 Cr.PC and thereafter, IO relieved her. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
12) PW-9 HC Satender deposed that on 05.12.2009, he was posted at PS Maurya Enclave as Constable. On that day, he joined the investigation with IO. On that day, on the directions of the IO, he personally searched the accused Kulbhushan who was present in the court that day (correctly identified by the witness) vide personal search memo Ex.PW9/A bearing his signature at point A. During his personal search, one gold chain, key of one Esteem Car, five ATM cards of different bank. IO recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.PC. Thereafter, IO relieved him. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
13) PW-10 Rtd. SI Gyanveer Singh deposed that on 14.12.2007, he was posted at PP Pitam Pura, PS Shalirnar Bagh as ASI. On that day, he received one DD entry no. 13-PP, true copy of which is now Ex.10-A. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Jaswinder Singh went to the spot i.e. SU- 214, Pitam Pura, Delhi where Smt. Shashi Bindlesh, Sanju Sighal and Poonam Mittal were found present who told him and they told him that a quarrel had taken place between them. Thereafter, he called one W/constable on the spot. Thereafter, all of were taken to BJRM Hospital where they were got medically examined. Thereafter, he FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 18 of 32 asked them to give their statements, however, none of them gave their statement. Later on, on the same day, Shashi Bindlesh gave her written complaint which is already Ex.PW1/A which was attested by him at point B. Thereafter, he prepared the tehrir which is now Ex.PW10/A bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he went to the spot alongwith Shashi Bindlesh and there he prepared the site plan at her instance which is now Ex.PW10/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, he recorded the supplementary statement of Smt. Shashi Binldesh and he also recorded the statement of Sanju Mittal. He recorded the statement of police witnesses. Thereafter, on 18.12.2007, he recorded the statement of Ram Kumar Mittal and Santosh. Thereafter, he searched for the accused persons who could not be found. Thereafter, he was transferred from the PS Shalimar Bagh and therefore, he handed over the case file to MHC(R). Witness was cross- examined by Ld. APP for the State wherein he deposed that Accused Poonam Mittal was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. He admitted that injured Ms. Sanju and Ms. Shashi Bindlesh were medically examined in BJRM Hospital vide M.E. number 100095 and 100096 respectively which are now Mark 10A-1 and Mark 10A-2. He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel. During his cross-examination, he stated that he reached at the place of incident at about 1.30 pm. No blood was found on the floor where the alleged incident took place. When he reached at the spot. He noticed that none of the person was bleeding at the spot. I asked the woman constable to take Shashi Bindlesh, Sanju and Poonam for medical examination but he did not remember if Poonam went FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 19 of 32 alongwith them or by their own conveyance. He did not remember whether Poonam went to the hospital alongwith the woman constable, though Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh went alongwith woman constable to the hospital. He also went to the hospital where Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh were present. He also obtained M.E. of Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh. He did not record the statements of Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh in hospital. Though, Shashi Bindlesh gave a written complaint to him on the same day. He did not remember if blood was oozing out from the ear of Sanju. He did not meet the parents of Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh on the day of alleged incident. Apart from Sanju. Shashi Bindlesh and Poonam, no other person was present at that alleged place of incident. After the complaint was registered, he again went to the alleged place of incident and recorded the statement of father of Kulbhushan Mittal. Vol. He did not record the statement of father of Kulbhushan Mittal and he requested him to come later on for making inquiries from him as he was not feeling good at that time. Apart from father of Kulbhushan Mittal, no other person was examined on that day. Again said, the statement of Sanju was written on the same day. No maid was examined or interrogated by him on alleged date of incident or on 18.12.2007. On 18.12.2007, statement of father of Kulbhushan Mittal and Santosh were recorded. Santosh was not injured in the alleged incident which took place on 14.12.2007. On 14.12.2007, when he returned from the hospital. Sanju and Shashi Bindlesh did not accompany him. The site plan was not prepared on the same day. Again said, site plan was prepared on the same day after the registration of FIR. He went to police post from hospital. FIR was FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 20 of 32 lodged on 14.12.2007 and after that at about 7.00 pm, he again went to the alleged place of incident. Father of Kulbhushan Mittal was never called by him for investigation in the PS. He denied that he was deposing falsely.
14) PW-11 SI Prithvi Lal deposed that on 05.12.2009, he was posted Head constable at PS Maurya Enclave. On that day, he joined the investigation of the present case with the TO ASI Randhir Singh and went to ACP Office, Shalimar Bagh where the 10 arrested the accused Kulbhushan Mittal who was present there vide arrest memo now Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point A. Accused Kulbhushan Mittal was present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
15) PW-12: Rtd. SI Randhir Singh deposed that on 05.12.2009, he was posted at PS Maurya Enclave as ASI. On that day, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. On that day, ACP of PS Shalimar Bagh called him at his office and accused Kulbhushan Mittal was already present there and thereafter, he alongwith HC Prithvi Pal reached at the office of ACP, Shalimar Bagh. he arrested the accused Kulbhushan Mittal vide arrest memo already Ex.PW11/A bearing his signature at point B. He conducted personal search of the accused vide personal search memo already Ex.PW9/A. On 06.12.2009, accused Poonam Mittal came to PS and thereafter, he arrested her in the presence of W/Ct. Seema vide arrest memo already Ex.PW8/A bearing FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 21 of 32 his signature at point B. W/Ct. Seema conducted the personal search of the accused Poonam Mittal vide personal search memo already Ex.PW8/B bearing his signature at point B. Accused Poonam Mittal and Kulbhushan are present in the court that day and correctly identified by the witness. He recorded the statements of W/Ct. Seema, HC Prithvi Pal and Ct. Satender u/s 161 Cr.PC. He prepared the charge-sheet of the present case and filed the same in the concerned Court case. He was not cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
16) PW-13 ASI Rishi Prakash deposed that on 14.12.2007, he was posted at PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi and was working as Duty Officer and his duty hours were from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. On that day, at about 6.20 pm, Ct. Jasvinder brought the rukka, sent by ASI Gyanveer. On the basis of the same, he recorded the present case FIR no. 796/07, u/s 323/324/34 IPC, copy of which is Ex. PW13/A (OSR) bearing his signature at point A. He made endorsement on rukka, which is Ex.PW13/B, bearing his signature at point A. Certificate U/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act, prepared by him qua the said FIR was now Ex. PW13/C, bearing his signature at point A. He was not cross- examined by Ld. defence counsel despite opportunity given.
17) PW-14 Dr. Neeraj Chaudhary deposed that he has been deputed by MS BJRM Hospital to depose the him Number 100096 and 100095 on behalf of Dr. Yashpal and Dr. Nadeem. Both the doctors had left the hospital and their whereabouts are not found. He can identify their FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 22 of 32 handwriting and signatures as they had worked with him during the course of his official duties. On 14.12.2007, patient Shashi Bindlish brought in casualty with alleged history of physical assault. The patient was examined by Dr. Nadeem in the supervision of Dr. Yashwant. As per local examination abrasion over right wrist (human bite) and Dr. Nadeem opined the injury as simple. The him Ex.PW14/A bearing the signature of Dr. Nadeem at point A and the name of Dr. Yashwant written at point B. On 14.12.2007 patient Sanju Singhal aged about 39 years brought in casualty with alleged history of physical assault. The patient was examined by Junior Resident doctor in the supervision of Dr. Yashwant. As per him the injuries was simple. The him Ex.PW14/B bearing the name Dr. Yashwant at point A. He was cross-examined by Ld. defence counsel and during his cross-examination, he admitted that the said ME (Medical Examination) was not prepared in his presence and he did not have any personal knowledge about the case. He denied that he did work with the above said doctors namely Dr. Yashwant and Dr. Nadeem. He did not bring any document to show that he had worked with the Dr. Yashwant and Dr. Nadeem. He denied that the signatures of the doctors are acquainted. He did not know the period of working with the said doctors.
18) Vide order dated 27.02.2023, witness namely ASI Vinod Kumar was dropped from the list of witnesses at the request of Ld. Substitute APP for the State.
FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 23 of 32
19) The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed upon request of the Ld APP for the State whereafter statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 281 read with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 wherein the entire incriminating evidence was put to them who maintained their innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in the present case as no such incident ever took place and there was only a dispute regarding the property for which the complainant made false case against them. The accused persons opted not to lead defence evidence vide order dated 03.05.2023, DE stands closed on the statement of accused.
20) Final arguments as advanced by Ld. APP for the State and by Ld. Counsel for the accused, Sh. Vineet Jain have been carefully considered along with the evidence on record.
21) In the present case, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and reasonable doubt has been created by the cross-examination done by the accused with respect to the whole state of affairs. The case of the prosecution is ridden with contradictions and inconsistencies.
(a) It is the case of the prosecution that as soon as PW1, PW2 and PW3 reached the place of their father, both the accused here in along with their two maid were already standing at the entrance gate and thereafter both the accused along with their two maids had beaten PW1, PW2 and PW3 with fist and blows.
FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 24 of 32
(b) The line of story with respect to the fact that both the accused were already standing at the gate along with their two maids in anticipation of PW1, PW2 and PW3 is unsustainable as neither the accused were knowing that PW1, PW2 and PW3 were visiting the house of the father and further even the testimony of the witnesses clearly established that it was all of a sudden decision of all the three sisters to visit the place of their father and even their father was not knowing that PW1, PW2 and PW3 were visiting on date of incident. It has been categorically testified by PW1 that 'She does not know that accused person had prior knowledge that all the sisters would be visiting' whereas PW2 stated 'Parents were not aware that we would visit them on that day and she did not know whether accused person have knowledge of their visiting on 14.12.2007 at their parents house.' whereas PW3 stated ' She did not know whether the accused persons were aware that we would visit out parents house on date of incident and further stated to have randomly reached there' whereas PW4 i.e Father clearly admitted that 'all the daughters came to the house casually.'. Therefore in view of such testimony PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 wherein the relationship between the accused and his father are not cordial( therefore no communication could be anticipated between father and accused person and even father pleads ignorance) and none of the sisters or father have ever told the accused that all the sisters would be visiting the house and since it is admitted position that they decided casually to visit the house of the father, since there was no information, it is unimaginable that both the accused FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 25 of 32 along with the two maid, ignorant of any visit by all the three sisters would in anticipation would be standing at the gate to beat and attack them at exactly right time and place. Such co-incidence in this context is never imaginable in this random world.
(c) Though PW1 stated 'On 14.12.2007, they all left their matrimonial home and reached at the place of incident', omitting the shopping part, whereas PW2 stated 'All the three sisters went to shopping and thereafter went to the Parents house.' This omission and contradiction do not inspire confidence.
(d) As far as the testimony of two maids is concerned, same is also riddled with inconsistency. While PW1, PW2 and PW3 deposed on same line that both the maids were present with the accused and all of them have beaten them, both the maids were not made accused, nor there was any whisper and whether maids will also indulge in any quarrel on behalf of their masters and take up the cause of the accused is disputable proposition and they would had been waiting for victims in anticipation points towards unlikelihood. Even Police did not call/interrogate the two maids who were present on the spot at the time of incident. This also propositions is further fortified as both or even one of the maid was neither made witness, nor accused.
(e) One of the inconsistency is with respect to whether Father (PW4) reached at the Police Station or not. PW1 states 'She along with two sisters and father went to police station'. Later on PW1 states that 'her father did not accompanied her to the PS' whereas PW2 stated 'My Father directly came to the Police Station' while PW3 FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 26 of 32 stated 'Both the accused person and both the sisters went to the police station, but since PW3 has not sustained injury, therefore she never went to the police station.'. This is glaring contradiction and who is speaking the right version comes under doubt.
(f) As to nature of Injury, it is essential to point out that PW1 in her tehrir had stated 'Accused Poonam has bitten her hand with teeth and also given beatings' but PW1 MLC reveals that 'Abrasion over right wrist and though written HUMAN BITE, but nothing has been placed on record to substantiate the same. The way HUMAN BITE has been written between the lines do not inspire confidence and such a serious affair would be written so lightly is not expected of.' As far as PW2 is concerned, PW2 stated 'Accused Poonam Mittal had bitten my right hand with her teeth' though it is absolutely missing in her MLC Ex. PW14/B, and PW2 further stated that 'Accused Poonam pulled by left earring due to which blood started oozing out from the ear.'. To appreciate the testimony of PW2, two glaring contradiction has to be taken note of. Firstly, though she states that her father has not accompanied her to the Hospital but MLC (Ex.PW14/B) speaks otherwise and Secondly, the factum of bite is totally missing from the MLC, though asserted in the examination-in-chief of PW2. This further brings into doubt the case of prosecution. Even Earring was not seized by Police, nor earrings were handed over to the Police. This is omission on part of prosecution to prove the essential facts and injury goes to the root of the case.
(g) The testimony of PW3 is under serious doubt. PW3 gave statement FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 27 of 32 on 18.12.2007, i.e. four days after the alleged date of incident. The statement recorded at the father's house and interestingly, she received call from his father, rather than police station to record statement. This clearly established the kind of investigation that was being led in the present case. PW3 even does not know whether the accused person were present in the house on that day. Another fact that is glaring contradiction has been that though PW1 and PW2 had stated that accused used to quarrel with the all when they used to visit the house of their father, PW3 stated prior to 14.12.2007, there was no quarrel between us and accused persons. Which of the version is correct is not clear.
(h) PW4 has clearly stated that he was inducted in the house by the order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and was even provided with the police protection however all the three sisters has pleaded ignorance with respect to whether the father was provided with the police protection on that day or not. Their ignorance only goes to prove that there was attempt to not to reveal the truth. If any order has been passed Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, and there is also dispute relating to property, it is not expected that all the three sisters who are visiting their father would be ignorant of such important order in favour of their father.
(i) It is interesting that PCR call was made by accused Poonam Mittal, however though she was made accused along with her husband, but no formal arrest was made by police officials then and there. Both the accused were not formally arrested on the date of incident i.e. 14.12.2007 rather after two years on 06.12.2009 and FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 28 of 32 05.12.2009. Accused Poonam Mittal has also alleged that she had also sustained injury, but MLC of accused Poonam Mittal was neither conducted and even if it is assumed that she was treated as accused, her medical must have been done as per guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Failure to take such steps by the investigative agency only creates doubt upon the case of the prosecution. It is interesting to note that there have been suggestion to witnesses that one of their relative was doctor in BJRM Hospital(where all the medical documents were prepared). This raised suspicion in the context in which such question has been raised and makes things not free from doubt.
(j) Therefore in view of the fact that it is unimaginable that both the accused person would in anticipation would be standing at the entrance of gate along with their two maids when it is established that neither the father, nor the accused were knowing that PW1, PW2 and PW3 were to arrive at any scheduled time, there being inconsistency in the testimony of PW1 who states that they reached by 12 noon while PW3 stating that they reached by 1:30 pm, omission to make two maids as witness or accused, inconsistencies in the testimony of witness, omission to make mother as witness who was present at the spot, omission and inconsistency in MLC further compounded by doubts raised on MLC and accused also raising the issue of injuries, though no MLC was conducted of accused Poonam and inconsistencies as to what transpired only goes on to give benefit of doubt to both the accused.
(k) As to the issue of human bite, the same is under doubt and whether FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 29 of 32 it will amount to offence under Section 324 IPC or not is no more in doubt as Ld. Counsel for Accused has relied upon the Judgment of Neetu Bhandari & Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Police & Othr passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 26 November, 2019 and in particular paragraph.
23. In Khemchand Soni (supra), the High Court of Madhya Pradesh had proceeded on the basis that the question whether teeth could be considered as a cutting weapon or not would depend on the wound inflicted. The Court reasoned that if a thumb is chopped by teeth, then it would be considered as a sharp cutting weapon. However, if a bone was broken due to the pressure exerted by the teeth, then the hurt could be considered as caused by a blunt object. This Court does not find the said reasoning persuasive. The question whether the teeth is an instrument for cutting would not be dependent on the manner in which the teeth are used. Similarly, the question whether an instrument is for shooting or stabbing, would not be dependent upon the manner in which it is used.
24. In this regard, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Anwarul Haq (supra). The Court had set out the provisions of Section 324 of the IPC and had observed as under:-
"12....The expression "any instrument, which used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death" should be construed with reference to the FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 30 of 32 nature of the instrument and not the manner of its use. What has to be established by the prosecution is that the accused voluntarily caused hurt and that such hurt was caused by means of an instrument referred to in this Section...."
25. In view of the above, the contention that the complaint did not indicate an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC is merited. The status report does indicate commission of an offence under Section 323 of the IPC. However, the said offence is not cognizable and therefore, the police authorities could not have investigated the same without the order of a Magistrate.
26. In view of the above, the FIR to the extent that it records commission of an offence under Section 324 of the IPC, is set aside. It would be open for respondent no.2 to seek an appropriate order from the concerned Magistrate.
27. In these aforesaid facts and circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused (1) Poonam Mittal W/o Sh. Sh. Kulbhushan Mittal (2) Kulbhushan Mittal S/o Late Sh. Ram Kumar Mittal, are hereby acquitted for the offences under Section 323/324/34 IPC in FIR No. 796/2007 PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
28. Both accused are directed to furnish personal bond in a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one surety in like amount in compliance of FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 31 of 32 provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are further directed to be present before the Ld. Appellate Court as and when notice is served upon them.
File be consigned to the Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open court on 04.08.2023 (VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi Certified that this judgment contains 32 pages and each page bears my signature.
(VAIBHAV CHAURASIA) Metropolitan Magistrate-04/ North West District Rohini District Court/New Delhi FIR No. 796/07 (PS Shalimar Bagh) U/s 323/324/34 IPC State Vs. Poonam Mittal & Anr. Page No. 32 of 32