Delhi District Court
Title Of The Case: : State vs . Jaspal on 22 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS SANYA DALAL
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-I, NORTH WEST
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
New Case No. : 545388/16
Title of the case: : State vs. JASPAL
FIR No. : 907/14, PS Sultanpuri
Date of institution : 30.09.2016
Date of reserving Judgment : 17.08.2023
Date of pronouncement : 22.08.2023
JUDGMENT :
(a) The date of commission 21.08.2014
(b)The name of complainant Mandeep Kaur W/o Jaspal Singh R/o D-
7/80, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(c) The name of accused 1. Jaspal Singh
S/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o D-7/80, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
2. Satpal Singh
S/o Ram Singh
R/o D-7/80, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
3. Misher Kaur
W/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o D-7/80, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
4. Sunita Kaur
W/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh
R/o E-6/231, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
5. Barkha
D/o Sh. Ram Singh
R/o D-7/80, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
(d) The offence complained of 341/323/506/34 IPC
(e)The plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 1 / 12
(f)The final order Convicted u/s 323 IPC
Acquitted u/s 341/506 IPC
(g)The date of such order 22.08.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The brief facts of the present case are that on 21.08.2014, at about 10.30 PM, the complainant/PW1 asked the accused Jaspal Singh for a sachet of coffee as she was 07 months pregnant and the accused instead of bringing the same after confining the complainant, started beating her and when the complainant called her mother in law (accused Misher Kaur) then even she started giving beatings to her who was joined by accused Sunita and Barkha who also gave beatings to her. In the meanwhile, Parmeet Kaur (PW2) and brother in law of the complainant came at the spot and all of the accused persons even started beating PW2. Thereafter, accused Sunita and Barkha kicked the complainant in the stomach as well as slapped her on her face while accused Misher Kaur hit the complainant in her back.
Upon these allegations, the present FIR was registered on 22.08.2014 and investigation was carried out. The chargesheet was filed for the offences u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC on 30.09.2016 against accused Satpal, Misher, Jaspal, Sunita and Barkha (hereinafter referred to as accused persons).
2. The cognizance of offences under Section 323/341/506/34 IPC was taken on 30.09.2016 and the accused persons were summoned. Upon appearance of the accused, the compliance of section 207 Cr.PC was carried out.
3. The charge for offence u/s 323/341/506/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons namely Satpal, Misher, Jaspal, Sunita and Barkha on 04.09.2019 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and hence, this Court conducted trial.
FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 2 / 12
4. For proving its case, prosecution examined 05 witnesses.
5. The deposition of PW-1 Mandeep Kaur is re-produced hereunder:
"l am residing at the aforesaid address with my family members. On 21-08-14 at about 10.30 PM I fall ill and I was having pregnancy of 7 months and I told my husband Jaspal Singh to bring coffee pouch as I was not feeling well. My husband did not get the coffee pouch rather he started beating me with fist and blows. Thereafter I called my mother in law namely Mishar Kaur and she also started beating me and in the meanwhile my sister in law namely Sunita and Barkha also came and started beating me and they hit in my stomach with legs. Thereafter my sister in law namely Gurmeet Kaur also came and some broken glass was lying in my room and Gurmeet Kaur got slipped and sustained injuries due to the broken glass and also scratched her face with the said broken glass. Thereafter all accused persons threatened me to kill if I told the aforesaid incident to anyone. After hearing my cries my sister namely Parmeet Kaur and my Jia namely Satpal also came and my sister tried to intervene but the accused persons also caught hold my sister and started beating her with fist and blows. My jija namely Satpal also gave beatings with fist and blows to my sister. My sister namely Parmeet Kaur made 100 number call and police official reached at the spot. Police recorded my statement which is EX. PW1/A bearing my signature at point A. I can identify the accused persons if shown to me. All accused persons are present in the court today, correctly identified by witness".
Xxxxxxxxxx By Shri Mahesh Chandra Ld. Counsel for all accused persons "I am married since 11 years and my husband used to beat me but I never made complaint to police official as the matter was pacified by my father in law and other relatives. I along with my husband was present in the room when my husband gave beatings to me with fist and blows. I did not hand over any money to my husband to bring the coffee pouch. I do not remember at what time my sister100 number call. I do not remember at what time police reached at the spot. There are total 6 rooms in our house. I am residing at the first floor. It is correct that quarrel took place at first floor. I do FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 3 / 12 not remember at what time I got medically examined by the doctor. I told the facts to the police official and he recorded my statement EX. PW1/A at police station. I remained admitted in the hospital. I do not remember the date when I got discharged from the hospital. At about 11.00 PM my jija Satpal came to the spot. Police made site plan at my instance. However I did not signed the said site plan. I do not remember at what time my sister came and tried to intervene. It is wrong to suggest that quarrel took place between me and my sister in law namely Gurmeet Kaur. Police official did not entered in the house and they were standing outside the aforesaid house. I do not remember whether I0 recorded the statement of any other witnesses or not. It is wrong to suggest that my mother in law, sister in law and my brother in law were not present at the aforesaid house or they did not gave beatings to me. It is wrong to suggest that all the aforesaid persons were present at SGM Hospital as Gurmeet Kaur sustained injuries and FIR was registered against me. I visited several times at PS however I do not remember date and time. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
6. The deposition of PW2 Parmeet Kaur is reproduced hereunder:
"I am residing at the aforesaid address with my family. On 21-08-2014 at about 10.30 PM I heard shoutings and thereafter I came to first floor of my house and saw that my mother in law namely Mishar Kaur and my sister in law namely Sunita and Barkha and the husband of my sister namely Jaspal Singh were giving beatings with fist and blows to my sister. Thereafter I tried to intervene and my husband namely Satpal Singh and my mother in law alongwith my sister in law and jija gave beatings to me with fist and blows. Thereafter I made 100 number call and police officials reached at the spot at about 11.30 PM. Thereafter we both were medically examined at SGM Hospital. All accused persons present in the court today, correctly identified by witness. Police recorded my statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C".
xxxxxxxxxx By Shri Mahesh Chandra Ld. Counsel for the accused persons "I lived on the second storey of the aforesaid house and my sister lived on the first floor of the aforesaid house. I alongwith my husband was present in the room on the second floor. I made 100 number call near about 11.00 PM from the mobile phone of passerby. The said spot is residential area however I FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 4 / 12 can not tell the numbers of houses situated there. Two police officials who were in uniform reached at the spot. Police official did not entered the premises of our house. Police officials took us for medical examination at about 11.30 PM. I do not remember whether any lady constable was present with the police official or not. I do not remember at what time we came back to our house. It is correct that no family relatives visited the hospital when we were medically examined. I sustained injuries on my face and there is no mark at present on my face. Police official recorded my statement u/s 161 Cr. P.C at PS however I do not remember date and time. I remained at PS for about 1-2 hours and lady police offcials were present there. I do not remember at what time I came back to my paternal house. It is wrong to suggest that I did not sustained injuries due to the beatings given by my husband and other relatives. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely".
7. PW3 W. ASI Saroj deposed in regard to receiving of rukka at about 3.35 PM on 22.08.2014 on the basis of which the present FIR was registered which was Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on rukka was Ex. PW3/B.
8. PW4 HC Arun deposed that on 22.08.2014 at about 08.25 PM , he received a call regarding a quarrel at D-7/136, Sultanpuri for which a DD No. 80B Ex. PW4/A was registered which was marked to SI Sharvan and Ct. Mukesh for further action.
9. PW5 SI Rajender Singh deposed that on 21.08.2014, after receiving DD No. 79B, he alongwith Ct. Mukesh went to the spot i.e. D-7/80, Sultanpuri where he came to know that a quarrel has taken place and injured persons have been taken to SGM hospital. Upon reaching SGM hospital, the MLC of Mandeep Kaur and Parmeet Kaur were collected and at that point of time, no one gave the statement hence, they came back to the PS and DD No. was kept pending.
On the next date i.e. 22.08.2014, he went to SGM hospital with Ct. Mukesh and recorded the statement of Mandeep Kaur which is Ex. PW1/A and FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 5 / 12 prepared the tehrir Ex. PW5/A which was handed over to Ct. Mukesh for registration of FIR. After sometime, Ct. Mukesh came back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to him. At the instance of Parmeet Kaur, the site plan was prepared which was Ex. PW5/B. The statement of the witnesses was recorded.
On 12.12.2014, accused Satpal and Misher were arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/C and Ex. PW5/D. Accused Jaspal was arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/E on the same day.
On 03.07.2016, accused Sunita and Barkha were arrested vide memo Ex. PW5/F and Ex. PW5/G. After obtaining the final result on the MLC of Mandeep Kaur, the charge-sheet was prepared. The accused persons were correctly identified by the said witness.
During cross-examination, he deposed that he reached at the hospital at about 11.30 PM and denied the suggestion that he had received the call at about 10.30 PM. The witness deposed that he found Manjeet Kaur admitted in causality and she did not give any statement to him due to the matter being related to the family.
10. Vide separate statement of the accused persons u/s 294 Cr.PC r/w 313 Cr.PC the genuineness of recording of MLC No. 15829/14 (Ex. PX) and 15830/14 (Ex. PY) was admitted. Consequently, the concerned witnesses were dropped.
11. Upon completion of prosecution evidence, the accused persons were examined in accordance with Section 313 Cr.P.C. The entire incriminating evidence was put to them and they denied the same. The accused persons stated that they have been falsely implicated on account of personal rivalry.
12. Final arguments were heard.
FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 6 / 12
13. Ld. APP for the State argued that on the basis of the entire evidence brought on record, the guilt of the accused persons has been established beyond reasonable doubt accordingly, the accused persons be convicted.
14. On the other hand, Sh. Bansi Pandit Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued that there is no public witness in the present matter who could present an independent picture and the parties herein are related by blood. It was further argued that there was delay in registration of FIR and the complainant did not give any statement to the police official on the alleged date of offence qua which a categorical deposition has been made by the concerned police witness. Hence, the case of prosecution suffers from various lacunas, the benefit of which should be given to the accused persons.
Applicable Law and its application to present facts
15. Before embarking to determine the innocence/guilt of the accused persons, it would be prudent to reproduce the relevant sections for which the accused persons have been charged:
319. -Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.
323. 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.
339. Wrongful restraint.- Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 7 / 12 Exception.- The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obst4ruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section.
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.
503. Criminal intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.- Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,or with fine, or with both.
16. In the present case, from the MLC bearing no. 15829 dated 21.08.2014, 11.10 PM which is Ex. PX and MLC bearing no. 15830 dated 21.08.2014 11.25 PM which is Ex. PY, it is established that one Mandeep Kaur suffered injuries on her ear lobs, suffering contusion over temporal region, contusion over Pavietal region. It is further established that one Parmeet Kaur also suffered simple injuries as there were laceration over chin, contusion over angles and abrasions over right side and the back side.
17. Now, it is to be seen whether it was the act of the accused persons which resulted in causation of simple injury to Mandeep Kaur and Parmeet Kaur. Further, it is also to be seen as to whether accused persons wrongfully confined the complainant/PW1 and PW2 (Parmeet Kaur) as well as threatened them of dire consequences.
As a general principle of criminal law, a person is liable only for the act which is done by him. However, Section 34 IPC creates constructive liability and FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 8 / 12 a person can be held liable even for the acts which were not done by him provided the conditions as specified in Section 34 IPC are fulfilled.
18. In order to establish the liability of the accused persons, the prosecution is required to prove that the accused persons shared the common intention and the offence was committed in furtherance of common intention of accused persons.
19. Intention is the desire of mind to produce a particular result. When two or more persons share the said desire, they are said to be having common intention to produce the desired result. Now if any of the persons will act in furtherance of such common intention, then by virtue of Section 34 IPC each of the other persons will also be liable for the said act.
20. Common intention is to be gathered from the circumstances; and the manner in which accused persons acted is evident from testimony of PW1 and PW2 and it can be concluded that they did not share the intention to cause simple/wrongful confinement/criminal intimidation to PW1 and PW2 as the acts of all of the accused persons was different and there is no evidence on record to suggest that there was prior meeting of mind or formation of common intention at the spot itself.
21. In view of the above, it can be concluded that the conditions as specified in Section 34 IPC are not fulfilled since the accused persons did not share the common intention to cause injury to the complainant; hence, each of the accused persons will be liable for the separate criminal acts done by them.
22. PW1/complainant/injured (Mandeep) deposed that on 21.08.2014 at about 10.30 PM, she asked her husband to bring a coffee sachet as she was not feeling well. The said witness further deposed that accused Jaspal then started FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 9 / 12 beating her with fist and blows. PW1 called her mother in law/accused Misher Kaur and she also started beating her. Thereafter, accused Sunita and Barkha also came at the spot and started beating PW1 and gave her kicks in the stomach. Upon hearing those cries, sister of PW1, namely Parmeet Kaur (PW2) came on the spot and PW2 tried to intervene but the accused persons caught hold of PW2 and started beating PW2 as well with fist and blows.
The version of PW1 stands corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Parmeet Kaur who has categorically deposed that on 21.08.2014 at about 10.30 PM when she heard shouting and upon reaching at first floor of her house, she saw that accused Misher, Sunita, Barkha and Jaspal were giving beatings with fist and blows to her sister / PW1. The witness has categorically deposed that when she intervened, accused Satpal and her mother in law, sister in law and brother in law gave beatings to her with fist and blows. The witness has stated that he had made a call at 100 no. and police officials reached at the spot at about 11.30 PM.
23. The aforesaid witnesses remained consistent in their testimony and nothing has been brought on record, through their cross-examination or otherwise, which could have reflect that the witnesses are not reliable or their testimony is not that of a sterling quality. It is further well known principal of law that reliance can even be based on a solitary statement of witness if the court comes to the conclusion that the said statement is true and is correct versions of the case of the prosecution (Raja vs. State (1997) 2 crimes 175 Delhi). Further it has been observed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Kishan Pal (2008) J T 650:2008 (11) SCALE 233) that it is the quality of evidence and not the quantity of the evidence which is required to be judged by the Court to place credence on the statement.
24. So far as registration of present case is concerned it would be pertinent to note that there is a delay of only one day in the registration of the present FIR FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 10 / 12 while the MLC of both the injured are dated 21.08.2014 at 11.10 PM and 11.25 PM while both the injured were brought before the concerned doctor by the police officials as transpired from the said MLC. Also, a PCR call was made by PW2 in pursuance of which the police officials arrived at the spot and took both the injured to the hospital. It has been stated by the police officials that in the present case statement of injured were not recorded on the same day and statement was recorded on the next day. Now, in the present case, two injured women were taken to hospital and their MLCs Ex. PX and Ex.PY are clearly bearing nature of injuries suffered by them as well as the occurrence of the offence is also in the late night. Accordingly, the furnishing of the statement on the next day seems to be reasonable as well as explained in the given circumstances of the present case.
25. Also, it would be pertinent to note that version of PW1 and PW2 has remained consistent and coherent with a version of their initial complaint which is Ex. PW1/A.
26. Further it has been held in Judgment tilted as Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl Appeal no. 2486/2009 decided on 07.08.2012 that:-
"the "sterling witness" should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulnesses of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end namely, at the time when the witness make the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross examination of any length and howsoever, strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 11 / 12 any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the person involved, as well as the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and every one of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness."
27. Through the above mentioned discussion, it is clear that offence u/s 323 IPC has been proved against all of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and so far as the offence u/s 341/506 IPC is concerned, the testimony of both the injured witnesses has remained completely silent on the aspect that they being wrongfully confined or being threatened by any of the accused persons. Accordingly, the accused persons namely Jaspal, Satpal, Misher, Sunita and Barkha are convicted for the offence u/s 323 IPC and for lack of evidences, they are acquitted for the offence u/s 341/506 IPC.
28. Let compliance of judgment of Karan vs. State be made by filing affidavit by the accused persons as well as by the prosecution by the next date of hearing i.e. 01.09.2023.
29. Copy of this judgment be given, free of cost, to all the convicts.
Announced, dictated and signed in the open Court on 22nd August, 2023 (SANYA DALAL) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-1 NORTH-WEST,ROHINI, DELHI 22.08.2023 FIR No. 907/14 State v Jaspal & Ors. 12 / 12