Delhi District Court
In Re: State vs Rattan Lal Etc. on 14 October, 2011
IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI
In Re: STATE VERSUS RATTAN LAL ETC.
F.I.R. No:643/03
U/s 452/323/325/427/34 IPC
P.S.Defence Colony
Date of Institution of Case : 11.03.2004
Judgment Reserved for : 14.10.2011
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2011
JUDGMENT:
(a) The serial no. of the case : 47/2/04
(b) The date of commission of offence : 26.12.2003
(c) The name of complainant : Ms. Usha D/o Sh. Roshan
Lal, R/o (A, Masjid Moth,
K.M. Pur, New Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, of accused : 1) Rattan Lal @ Dalal
2) Shiv Kumar Both S/o Sh.
Shiv Charan,
3) Chameli W/o Sh. Shiv
Charan, All R/o120,
Masjid Moth,Defence
Colony,New Delhi.
FIR No.643/03 1/40
4) Roopa W/o Sh.
Rajender
5) Rajender Prasad S/o
Sh. Gurdayal, Both R/o
H. No.9, Masjid Moth,
Defence Colony, New
Delhi
Present Address : As above
(e) The offence complained of : U/s 452/323/325/427/34
IPC
(f) The plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) The final order : Accused Rajinder,
Shiv Kumar & Chameli
are acquitted.
Accused Roopa is
convicted u/s
323/325/452 IPC
(h) The date of such order : 14.10.2011
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 26.12.2003 at about 10.15 am at House No.9, Masjid Moth, New Delhi within the jurisdiction of police station FIR No.643/03 2/40 Defence Colony, accused Rattan Lal (already convicted on 29.02.2008), accused Shiv Kumar, Ms. Roopa and Rajender Prasad in furtherance of their common intention committed house tress pass after having made preparation for causing hurt and they in furtherance of their common intention caused/inflicted simple injuries upon Usha and grievous injuries to Ms. Seema and also committed mischief by breaking the roof of the room and damaged other properties and thus thereby the accused persons committed offence punishable u/s 452/323/325/427/34 IPC.
2. Charge sheet was filed in the court and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. accused persons were supplied the documents. Thereafter vide order dated 13.10.2004, charge u/s 452/323/325/427/34 IPC was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. During the course of the trial accused Rattan voluntarily pleaded guilty and he was convicted and sentenced accordingly by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide judgment/proceedings dated 20.02.2008/29.02.2008.
4. After the testimony of PW1, 2 & 4 i.e. Ms. Usha, Seema and Parvati was recorded before my Ld. Predecessor an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the Ld. APP for the State and accordingly accused Chameli was summoned FIR No.643/03 3/40 u/s 427 IPC by the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide orders dated 17.04.2006.
5. Accused Chameli appeared in the court, was admitted to bail and in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C. documents were supplied to her. Thereafter vide order dated 23.06.2006, notice u/s 427 IPC was framed against her to which she pleaded guilty. PW1,2 & 4 as mentioned above were reexamined, cross examined and discharged accordingly.
6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, prosecution examined thirteen witnesses. After the PE was closed, statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and having been falsely implicated in the case.
A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under:
7. PW1 Ms. Usha deposed that on 26.12.2003 at about 10.15 am while she along with her sister in law (Bhabhi) were present in her house in front of H. No. 120 Masjid Moth, accused Roopa, Rajender and Dalel @ Rattan Lal (correctly identified) entered in her house. They abused them and gave them beatings. She further deposed that thereafter the accused persons dragged her and her Bhabhi by pulling her hair out of her house and brought them to gali. She further deposed that thereafter accused Roopa inflicted Phawra blow on her head and FIR No.643/03 4/40 accused Daler injured her with a half brick on her head. She further deposed that Accused Rajender inflicted punch blow and leg blow on her Bhabhi. During that period, other accused namely Chameli Devi, Shiv Charan (dead) and Shiv Kumar (correctly identified) were pelting stones and flower pots on the roof of their house due to which cemented roof of their house was broken. Their house hold articles were also got damaged i.e. Fans, sofa, other furniture and other house hold items. She further deposed that she sustained injuries on her head under her right eye, corner of the left eye and other parts of the body. She further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar also got down from the roof of his house, from where they were pelting stones and flower pots and he struck the head of her bhabhi Seema on electric pole and they gave her beatings with leg and fist blows. She further deposed that on hearing the voice, her mother also came out from H. No. 120 and the accused persons left her Bhabhi and started giving beatings to her mother. Two front teeth of her mother were broken. She further deposed that their neighbors came there and rescue them. She further deposed that accused persons ran away from the spot. She further deposed that they called the police who took them to the hospital and she gave her compliant to the police i.e. Ex. PW1/A.
8. During her cross examination she stated that her father Roshan Lal was in Delhi Police as an Inspector and had retired in the year 2004. Bhim Sen is her FIR No.643/03 5/40 brother and husband of her Bhabhi Seema, who is a Head Constable in Delhi Police. She admitted that a dispute with regard to the portion of a property i.e. house No. 120 and 9, Maszid Moth, New Delhi is pending between them and accused persons. She stated that they reached the hospital at around 11/11.15 AM in a van of their neighbor Ramesh Saini. She voluntarily stated that she does not remember the fact regarding Ramesh Saini being stated to the police by her. She further stated that the shop of Ramesh Saini is situated at about 25 yards from their house. The house number of his father is 120, Maszid Moth. She stated that the accused persons also reside in house No. 120 as the house No. 120 is partitioned between her father and her uncle (Late Sh. Shiv Charan). She further stated that the police persons did not meet her in the hospital. She denied the suggestion that police had not accompanied them in the hospital as the police had not reached the spot and they on their own had gone to the hospital with Ramesh Saini. She was discharged from the hospital at 8.00 PM on 26.12.2003. She further stated that her mother was also discharged with her bhabhi Seema was discharged three days later in the evening. She further stated that in the hospital, she was conscious but was unable to speak and was crying silently. She further stated that she does not know if any police official had come to her to record her statement in the hospital. She denied the suggestion that she willfully did not get her statement recorded in the hospital despite being declared fit for statement by the doctor. She further stated that her brother was FIR No.643/03 6/40 posted as HC at P.S. R.K. Puram. She denied the suggestion that her brother Bhim Sen and her father Roshan Lal in connivance with the local police had concocted the false story against the accused persons. She stated that the statement of her mother was recorded on the same day i.e. 29.12.2003. She further stated that the police persons had met her on the next date i.e. 27.12.2003 in the afternoon and had inquired from her whether anyone was troubling her and had further taken the photographs. She further stated that she did not inquired from her father's home as to who other were present there as she was not in a position to stand on that day. She further stated that statement of Smt. Seema was also recorded on 29.12.2003. She further stated that police persons had visited the house of her father during the intervening period from 26.12.2003 to 29.12.2003. She denied the suggestion that the time period from 26.12.2003 from 12.00 PM to 29.12.2003 till 10.00 PM was availed by them to concoct a false story against the accused persons and to falsely implicate them in a false case as there is an on going dispute between her family and the accused's family for the last about 30 years as they were associated with their grand father whereas the accused persons were not associated. She also denied the suggestion that none of the accused person was present at the spot. She also denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by her, her bhabhi and her mother were not inflicted upon them by the accused persons. She also denied the suggestion that Chameli Devi was present at the spot and she had FIR No.643/03 7/40 gone to the AIIMS Hospital along with her husband and her son. She further stated that she did not ask Ramesh Saini to appear as a witness for them. She stated that on that day Ramesh Saini was passing through the road. She admitted that around 15 to 20 persons had gathered at the spot which included their neighbors. But she cannot tell their names. She had not stated to the police with regard to the public gathering at the spot. She further stated that she had asked one/two neighbors to be witness for them. She further stated that she does not want to disclose their names and addresses due to the fear of accused persons. She further stated that she had asked the neighbours after about 15/20 days of the date of incident. She further stated that she had stated to the IO Sh. Mukhtiar Singh of the present case about the abovesaid facts, who had said in response "MADAM AISE NAHIN CHALATA KOI GAWAH HO TO UNKE NAAM BATAO". She further stated that she did not disclose the name of witnesses to the IO. She further stated that the distance between house No. 9A and 120 is around 15 to 20 paces. The distance of the shop of Ramesh Saini from her house is about of 2 minutes. She further stated that on the date of incident 100 number was dialed by Sh. Vinod their neighbour, Ramesh Saini from house No. 120 and by one more person. Vinod had intervened in between the fight and had done the BEECH BACHAO. She further stated that she had stated this fact to the police. She further stated that she does not know if her mother and her Bhabhi Seema had refused to give the statement on 26.12.2003 to the police. FIR No.643/03 8/40 Again said Seema was in an unconscious state. Seema remained unconscious for 3/4 hours. She denied the suggestion that Seema was conscious in the hospital and she had refused to give her statement. She further stated that the police had not taken photographs in her presence but in the presence of her father. She further stated that on 26.12.2003 her father was present at house No. 120 and had gone inside the house to refresh himself as he had just come after the morning walk. She further stated that she does not know if her father had stated the above fact of his being present in house No. 120 to the police. She had also not stated to the police the above fact. She further stated that Ramesh Saini's statement was recorded by the police and he is a witness in the present case. She further stated that statement of Bhim Sen was not recorded as he was not present at the spot. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely.
9. PW2 Seema deposed that on 26.12.2003 at about 10 AM she along with her Nand Usha were present in house no. 9A, Masjid Moth, in the meantime Dalel, Rajinder and Roopa (correctly identified) forcibly entered in the house and they were having stones and bricks in their hands and started giving beatings to her Nanand. She further deposed that accused Roopa was having spade in her hand and she inflicted the same on the head of her Nanand Usha. She further deposed that accused Dalel hit brick on the head of Usha. She further deposed FIR No.643/03 9/40 that accused Rajender gave her leg and punch blow. She further deposed that when she tried to rescue her Nanand, they started beating her by leg blow and punch blow. She further deposed that both the accused persons dragged her outside the house. She further deposed that when they came in the street, accused Chameli, Shiv Kumar and Shiv Charan were pelting stones and flower pots from their house (accused's house) towards their house (complainant's house) i.e. House No. 120, Masjid Moth. She further deposed that the roof of the house was of cement sheet and as a result it was broken and house hold articles lying in the house was also damaged. She further deposed that all the three accused persons were stating from the roof that "Jo bhi hamare khilaf gawahi dega unka be yehi hal hoga". She further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar came down from the roof. She further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar and Dalel hit her head with the electric pole situated in front of the house of the accused. She further deposed that accused Roopa started beating her and she inflicted injury on her left eye due to which the eye bone was fractured. She further deposed that she sustained injuries on her head as well as other parts of the body. She further deposed that in the meanwhile her motherinlaw came out from the house and tried to rescue her. She further deposed that on this accused persons also started beating her motherinlaw with the leg blow and punch blow. Her head was also hit on the wall by accused Shiv Kumar and Rattan Lal. She also received injury on her head and her tooth was also broken. She further FIR No.643/03 10/40 deposed that in the meantime their neighbor Vinod Kumar came at the spot and he rescued them from the hands of the accused persons. She further deposed that accused Rattan (Dalel) and Roopa were apprehended at the spot and others ran away from the spot. She further deposed that someone called the police, police came there and took them to the hospital. She further deposed that her neighbor Ramesh Saini also accompanied them to the hospital. She further deposed that IO recorded her statement. She further deposed that she was discharged from the hospital on 31.12.2003. One day prior to the incident, accused Shiv Kumar had taken the photograph of her and her Nanand Usha and threatened her "Tumko Uthwa Denge aur Kisi ko pata bhi nahi chalega". She further deposed that at the time of pelting of stones by accused Shiv Kumar, Shiv Charan and Chameli (correctly identified), they were also shouting that "Jo bhi Hamare Khilaf Gawai Dega Uska Bhi Yehi Hal Hoga".
10. During her cross examination, she stated that her father's name is Mr. Kartar Singh who is in Delhi Police as ASI but she does not know where he is posted. She admitted that Usha had told her that she had gone to the court to appear as a witness in the present case. She further stated that she had not talk with her regarding statement given by her as they live separately. She stated that the distance between her house and house of Usha is 1520 yards. She denied the suggestion that she had a talk with Usha regarding the statement FIR No.643/03 11/40 given by her. She further stated that she cannot tell after how much time the police came there. She admitted that the area is densely populated area. She also admitted that neighbors had gathered around the spot but she cannot tell as to who had come as she was injured in the eye and was having severe pain. She cannot recollect who had gathered there apart from Sh. Vinod Kumar. She further stated that the police was present at the hospital when she reached at the hospital. She further stated that she remained in the hospital for about three days. She further stated that the police persons never came to meet her in the hospital till the time she remained at the hospital. She denied the suggestion that she had intentionally not given her statement to the police on 26.12.2003 after she reached at the hospital. She further denied the suggestion that time from 10 AM on 26.12.2003 to 29.12.2003 till 10.30 PM was used by her and her family members to falsely implicate the accused persons in the present case. She further stated that her fatherinlaw Sh. Roshan Lal was not present at home on 26.12.2003 as he had gone to the temple. He had not returned from the temple till the time they reached the hospital. She further denied the suggestion that after having a talk with Usha and after her statement was recorded in the court, she had improved upon her statement in chief. She further stated that her statement was recorded by the police on 29.12.2003 at her home. She further stated that she does not remember if any police person had come to her after 29.12.2003 regarding investigation of the present case. She further stated that FIR No.643/03 12/40 police persons had never met any of her family member after 29.12.2003. She further stated that she had not told to the police that neighbors had collected on the spot. She further stated that she had not asked any of the neighbor to become witness. She further stated that statement of her motherinlaw and her sisterinlaw were recorded along with her. She further stated that she does not know if statement of any other witness was recorded or not by the police. She further denied the suggestion that her fatherinlaw was present at the home. She further denied the suggestion that she was deposing falsely or that the accused Chameli Devi was not present at the spot or that she had gone to AIIMS hospital along with her husband and son.
11. PW3 HC Chander Pal deposed that on 29.12.2003 at about 10.30 pm while he was working as DO, he recorded the FIR No. 643/03 vide Ex. PW3/A.
12. PW4 Parvati deposed that on 26.12.2003 she was present at her home. On that day at around 10.15 AM accused Shiv Charan, Chameli and Shiv Kumar started pelting stones on her roof which was made of cement sheet due to which the roof was broken. She further deposed that when she came out after hearing the noise, she found accused Shiv Kumar, Dalal (Rattan Lal), Rajinder and accused Roopa (correctly identified) were holding Seema by her hairs and dragged her upto the house no. 120 after giving beatings to her. She further FIR No.643/03 13/40 deposed that that when she tried to rescue Seema accused Shiv Kumar and Rattan Lal hit the head of Seema on electric pole. She further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar and Rattan Lal also started beating her by leg blows and hit her head on the wall due to which she sustained injuries on her forehead and her tooth was broken. She further deposed that she was also beaten by accused Roopa and Rajender and accused Shiv Kumar stated that "Abhi Abhi to Suruwat Hai age dekho kya hota hai tumhare bachcho ko kidnap karwa denge." She further deposed that neighbor Vinod Kumar rescued her from the hands of the accused persons otherwise they would have kill them. She further deposed that accused Roopa and Rattan Lal were apprehended at the spot and other accused ran away. She deposed that her neighbor took her, Seema and Usha to the AIIMS hospital for their medical examination. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the IO.
13. During her crossexamination she stated that on that day her husband had gone to the temple. She stated that her husband met for the first time on that day at about 4.00 PM in the hospital. She stated that she was taken to the hospital by Ramesh Saini. She had told to the police that Ramesh Saini had taken her to the hospital. She further stated that the police met her for the first at the spot and she was unconscious at the hospital, so she does not know if the police was present in the hospital or not. She stated that she had regained FIR No.643/03 14/40 consciousness at about 2.00 PM. She admitted that she was in conscious state at about 11.45 AM on 26.12.2003. She denied the suggestion that at that time the police had met her. She further denied the suggestion that she willingly had not got her statement recorded at that time. At 4.00 PM, when she regained her consciousness, no police official was present in the hospital. She further stated that she came back at her home at about 6.00 PM. She stated that her husband was working as Inspector in Delhi Police and had retired four years ago. She further stated that police met her after 45 days of the incident and her statement was recorded on that day. She further stated that on that day only her statement was recorded by the police at her home. She stated that around 50 persons from the neighborhood had gathered at the spot. She stated that she does not remember their names. She stated that she had not disclosed the said fact to the police. She denied the suggestion that, period from morning of 26.12.2003 till the evening of 29.12.2003, was availed by them to concoct the false story against the accused persons and to falsely implicate them as there is an on ging dispute between her family and the accused persons family for the last about 30 years. She stated that police had taken the photographs of the spot. She stated that she had come to know about it from the neighbors. She denied the suggestion that her husband was not at home on that day. She denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated the accused in this case. She stated that she does not know if the police ceased flower pots, stones, broken roof and the broken FIR No.643/03 15/40 furniture from the spot.
14. PW5 Vinod Kumar deposed that in the year 2003, one day at about 9/9.30 AM he was standing in the balcony of his house. He further deposed that after hearing the noise, he peeped into the street and saw accused Rattan (correctly identified) was holding Seema by her hairs and dragged her upto her house and started beating her with kicks and fists blows and when he came down, he saw accused Rattan Lal again holding Parvati, who was the motherin law of Seema and he put her on the ground and started kicking her and was not caring that which part of the body he was kicking. She further deposed that Parvati was put near Seema where she was lying. He deposed that he rescued Seema and Parvati. He apprehended Rattan and called PCR from mobile phone belonging to one Raju. He further deposed that he had not witnessed the other witnesses (in fact accused) present at the spot, except accused Rattan Lal. During his crossexamination by learned APP for the State, he stated that his statement Ex. PW5/A was recorded by the police. The said statement was read over to him, which he admitted to be given to the police. He admitted that accused Roopa (correctly identified) was having a brick in her hand and was instigating the accused Rattan Lal.
15. During his crossexamination by learned defence counsel, he stated that FIR No.643/03 16/40 Roopa was following Dalel when he was dragging Seema. His statement was recorded by the police at his house, in his office, which is in same compound. His house is situated at a distance of 60/70 feet from the spot.
16. PW6 Desh Raj deposed that in the end of December, 2003 the younger brother of accused and mother brought the father of the accused in the hospital at about 9.15 am. At that time he was working as Techanical Assistant in AIIMS hospital. He further deposed that he took the blood of the father of the accused and he handed over the report of blood at about 12.00 noon. He further deposed that Dr. Rajesh medically examined the injured. He further deposed that he does not know anything more about this case.
17. During his cross examination he admitted that Shiv Charan was brought to the hospital by Chamli and Shiv Kumar at about 9.30 am. He admitted that Shiv Charan and Chameli remained in the hospital upto 2.30 pm. He stated that he took the sample of the blood at about 9.30 am. He stated that he cannot tell whether Shiv Kumar left the hospital at 10.00 am.
18. PW6 Desh Raj deposed that in December 2003 while he was posted as Technical Assistant, in AIIMS hospital, Delhi, he took the blood sample of Shiv Charan and handed over the report of the same at about 12.00 noon and on the FIR No.643/03 17/40 same day and Dr. Rajesh had medically examined the injured.
19. During his cross examination he admitted that the record was maintained regarding taking of blood sample and its examination. He stated that he cannot bring the said record. However, HOD can bring the same i.e. Head of Endocrinology Department. He stated that report is in the handwriting of the doctor.
20. PW7 Ramesh Saini deposed that on 26.12.2003 he was present at his home near Masjid Moth at about 10.00 am. At that time, on hearing some noise he reached at the spot and found that three ladies were lying on the road in injured condition namely Usha, her mother and her sister in law. He deposed that he called the police at number 100. He further deposed that he took the injured persons to AIIMS hospital. He deposed that IO met him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he saw one person namely Daler was giving beating by fist blow and leg blow to all the three ladies. He further deposed that one person namely Vinod apprehended the accused Daler and then, he took the injured persons to hospital. He further deposed that he does not know anything more about this case.
21. During his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State he denied the FIR No.643/03 18/40 suggestion that he also saw the accused Rajender and Shiv Kumar at the spot and they ran away on their scooter. He further denied the suggestion that one Roopa was also apprehended at the spot and she was handed over to the police along with Rattan Lal @ Daler by him and then he left for AIIMS along with injured persons. He further denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
22. PW8 SI Seema Singh deposed that on 30.12.2003 she along with ASI Muktiar Singh reached at Masjid Moth, House No.9 of accused Roopa. She deposed that she arrested the accused Roopa (correctly identified) and conducted her personal search vide memos Ex .PW8/A & B. She further deposed that she took the accused Roopa to AIIMS hospital for her medical examination. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by the police.
23. During her cross examination she admitted that Roopa was arrested from her house.
24. PW9 Ct. Brahma deposed that on 29.12.2003 he along with the IO reached at the spot i.e. 9A, Masjid Moth, New Delhi and IO recorded statements of complainant and prepared the rukka and handed over to him to get the FIR registered. After registration of the FIR he came back at the spot and handed over the copy of FIR to the IO. He further deposed that on the same day, FIR No.643/03 19/40 accused Rattan Lal (correctly identified) was arrested from his house vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A. Accused Roopa was arrested from her house. He further deposed that accused Shiv Kumar (correctly identified) was arrested on 08.01.2004 by the IO vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/B. He further deposed that personal search of accused Rattan Lal and Shiv Kumar was also conducted vide Ex. PW9/C & D.
25. During his cross examination, he admitted that accused Rattan Lal was arrested from inside the house. He stated that he was not present when accused Roopa was arrested. Accused Rajender was also not arrested in his presence. He voluntarily stated that accused Rajender was arrested in his presence. He stated that he signed all the documents at the spot. He stated that he remained at the spot for about half an hour. He stated that accused Shiv Kumar was arrested in front of his house on 08.01.2004. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely and accused were arrested falsely at the instance of the IO and the complainant.
26. PW 10 ASI Janak Lal deposed that on 26.12.2003 he was on emergency duty at PS Defence Colony. He deposed that on receipt of DD no.7A he along with Ct. Manoj Kumar reached at the spot i.e. H. No.9A, Masjid Moth, New Delhi where he found the Divisional Officer Mukhtiar Singh and SI Ashok Kumar Singh FIR No.643/03 20/40 already reached there. He further deposed that SI Ashok Kumar informed the SHO PS Defence colony and SHO told the SI Ashok Kumar to hand over the investigation of the this to Mukhtiar Singh and hence, thereafter he left the spot for PS Defence Colony. He further deposed that IO recorded his statement.
27. During his cross examination he stated that he remained at the spot for about 10 minutes. He stated that he reached there at about 11.15 pm.
28. PW10 ( in fact PW11) Dr. Shalini deposed that on 26.12.2003 at about 11.20 hours injured Parvati wife of Sh. Roshan was examined by Dr. Ajay Dixit vide MLC no. 149730/03 i.e. Ex. PW10/A. She further deposed that she identified his writing and signatures as she had seen him writing and signing during the course of her duty. She further deposed that Dr. Ajay has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. She further deposed that Dr. Ajay has opined the nature of injuries as grievous. She further deposed that on 26.11.2003 injured Seema wife of Sh. Bhim Sen was examined by Dr. Murmu Vide MLC no. 149729/03 i.e. Ex. PW10/B. She further deposed that she identified his writing and signatures as she had seen him writing and signing during the course of her duty. She further deposed that Dr. Murmu has left the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known. She further deposed that the nature of injuries has been opined as grievous.
FIR No.643/03 21/40
29. During her cross examination she admitted that the contents of the MLC Ex. PW10/A was in the handwriting of Dr. Ajay Dixit. She further admitted that the MLC Ex. PW10/B was in the handwriting of Dr. Murmu. She stated that she had not seen both the patients. She stated that she was not present when both the injured were examined by the doctors and therefore, she cannot identified both the injured.
30. PW11 (in fact PW12) Dr. Zafar Nayaz deposed that on 26.11.2003 the X ray plate of injured Seema was examined by Dr. Deepali vide Xray plate no. 61735 i.e. Ex.PW11/A. He further deposed that Dr. Deepali has left the hospital and her present whereabouts are not known. He further deposed that he identified her writing and signatures as he had seen her writing and signing during the course of his duty. He further deposed that no bony injuries seen in X rays.
31. PW12 (in fact PW13) ASI Mukhtiar Singh deposed that on 26.12.2003 on receipt of DD no.7A he along with SI Janak Lal and Ct. Manoj Kumar reached at H. No. 120, Masjid Moth where they came to know that the injured had been removed to the hospital. He deposed that the assailants namely Rattan Lal @ Dalel, Roopa were present at the spot. Hence, in preventive action, both the FIR No.643/03 22/40 accused were arrested u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. He deposed that he kept pending the DD no.7A as a result on the MLC of the injured were to be obtained on 29.12.2003. He deposed that when he reached at the spot, Usha wife of Roshan Lal met him and she gave her statement i.e. Ex. PW1/A and he prepared rukka as Ex. PW12/A and sent Ct. Brahma Nand to PS for registration of FIR. He further deposed that he obtained the photographs at the spot. He deposed that he prepared site plan Ex. PW12/B. He further deposed that on 30.12.2003, he arrested the accused Rattan Lal and Roopa vide arrest memo Ex. PW9/A. He further deposed that he obtained the result on the MLC of the injured namely Usha, Seema and Parvati. He further deposed that on 01.08.2004 he arrested the accused Shiv Kumar and on 23.02.2004 he arrested the accused Rajender vide memo Ex. PW9/B and Ex. PW12/C. He further deposed that he conducted the personal search of all the accused vide memos Ex. PW9/C & D and personal search of accused Roopa was conducted by SI Seema. He further deposed that during investigation, he also recorded the statements of witnesses and prepared Challan.
32. During his cross examination, he stated that he was at the distance of 1km from the place of incident when this DD was received in the PS. He stated that he reached at the spot at about 10.55 am. He stated that the other party was not arrested by him u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. because they were in the hospital. He stated FIR No.643/03 23/40 that he had not gone to the hospital till 29.12.2003. He stated that he recorded the statement of Ms. Usha at her house no.120, Masjid Moth on 29.12.2003 and thereafter went to the hospital at about 78 pm. He stated that he does not remember the exact time when he reached at the hospital. He stated that on the day of incident, he did not record the statement of any public person at the spot. He stated that he does not remember the date when the statement of Vinod Kumar was recorded by him. He stated that when he reached at the spot, the parties to this case were quarreling, the accused were abusing the parents of injured Roshan Lal. He stated that he remained at the spot for one hour. No Pawra was found at the spot by him. He stated that there were few houses under the construction. He again stated that only one house in dispute was under
construction and some bricks were lying there. He stated that the dispute started at house no.9A, Masjid Moth, he did not record the statement of Usha on 26.12.2003. He stated that SI Seema Singh was with him at the time of arrest of accused Smt. Roopa. He stated that he did not get teeth on the place of incident.
He stated that on the basis of statement only, the accused Rajinder was arrested in this case and also on the basis of statement accused Shiv Kumar was arrested in this case. Though he did not see them at the place of incident, when he reached there. He stated that no complaint regarding the construction of house was received by him during investigation. He stated that accused Shiv Kumar was arrested from his house. He stated that he prepared the arrest memo. He FIR No.643/03 24/40 stated that he does not remember the exact time when the DD no.15A was recorded. He admitted that he recorded in the said DD that he had brought the accused Roopa and accused Dalel to the police station. He stated that on the day of incident he did not record statement of any person. He further stated that he did not seize the broken flower pots and the sheets. He stated that accused Rajinder and Shiv Kumar were not present at the place of incident. He stated that no sufficient evidence was available qua the accused Shiv Charan, therefore, he was not booked in the present case. Same is his reply regarding accused Chameli Devi. He denied the suggestion that he had connived with the complainant or this case is false. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of the complainant or that they are innocent.
33. This is so far as the prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
34. I have heard the arguments advanced at bar by the learned Defence counsel for the accused persons as also learned APP and have carefully gone through the evidence recorded in the matter and perused the documents placed on record by the prosecution in this case.
35. After going through the material on record and giving my thoughtful FIR No.643/03 25/40 considerations to the arguments advanced at bar, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has been successful in brining home the guilt against the accused Roopa only. As far as accused Rajender, Chameli and Shiv Kumar are concerned the prosecution could not established their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and their involvement in incident dated 26.12.2003 is highly doubtful. Evidence against accused Roopa and grounds for her conviction.
36. In order to prove its case against accused Roopa prosecution examined injured witnesses namely Usha, Seema and Parvati apart from the eye witnesses of the incident and through the testimony of the injured witnesses duly corroborated by the eye witnesses it stands unambiguously established that accused Roopa had assaulted/inflicted injuries upon Smt. Usha, Seema and Parvati after committing house tress pass at house no.9A, Masjid Moth, Defence Colony.
37. Smt. Usha who is the complainant in the present matter and who was examined as PW1 proved that on 26.12.2003 while she along with her Bhabhi Seema (PW2) were present at their house accused Roopa along with accused Rattan Lal @ Dalel entered their house, abused and beat them. She further proved that she along with Seema were dragged out of their house by pulling FIR No.643/03 26/40 their hairs and brought into the street where accused Roopa inflicted Phawra upon her.
38. The deposition of complainant/injured Usha was duly corroborated by PW2 Smt. Seema and PW4 Smt. Parvati who proved the factum of infliction of injury upon them by accused Roopa on the same lines as proved by Smt. Usha. Both these witnesses/injured persons elaborately narrated the circumstances in which incident dated 26.12.2003 occurred as well as established the identity of accused Roopa as the perpetrator of the crime. Their testimony remain consistent and did not suffer from any material contradiction.
39. Apart from the testimony of the injured witnesses, independent account of the incident dated 26.12.2003 was given by PW5 Sh. Vinod Kumar and PW7 Sh. Ramesh Saini who were the neighborers/local resident of the area where the incident occurred.
40. PW5 Vinod Kumar proved that on the day of incident he was standing in the balcony of his house and on hearing some noise he went into the street and saw that accused Rattan (convict) had dragged Smt. Seema and Parvati outside their house, had thrown them on the ground and was beating them by giving kick blows. In his cross examination by the Ld. APP for the State he admitted that FIR No.643/03 27/40 accused Roopa was having brick in her hand and she was instigating accused Rattan. Further, during his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel he admitted that accused Roopa was following Dalel when he was dragging Seema.
41. PW7 Ramesh Saini lend further credence to the prosecution story when he proved that Smt. Usha, her mother (Parvati) and her sisterinlaw (Seema) were lying in injured condition and accused Dalel (Rattan Lal) was giving fist and kick blows to all three of them. He further proved that the injured persons were taken to hospital by him.
42. PW3 HC Chander Pal proved the registration of the FIR on 29.12.2003 at about 10:30 p.m. vide Ex. PW3/A.
43. PW8 W/SI Seema proved the arrest of the accused Roopa vide documents Ex. PW8/A & B.
44. Injuries as sustained by Smt. Seema and Smt. Parvati were proved by PW10 Dr. Shalini vide MLC bearing no. 149729/03 & 149730/03 i.e. Ex. PW10/A & B respectively. Xray plates of Smt. Seema were proved by Dr. Zaffar Nayaz (PW11) vide Ex. PW11/A. FIR No.643/03 28/40
45. The incident in detail was also proved by PW12 ASI Muktiar Singh who rendered further strength to the testimony of the complainant and the injured witnesses. He proved that on the day of incident on receipt of DD no.7A when he reached the spot he found the situation to be tensed, the injured had been removed to the hospital and assailants Roopa and Rattan Lal (already convicted) were present there and after gathering inputs from the neighborhood he took preventive action and arrested both of them u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. He further proved that DD No.7A was kept pending and after the MLC result was obtained, statement of complainant/injured party i.e. Ex. PW1/A was obtained, he got the case FIR registered vide Rukka Ex. PW12/A and arrested the accused persons in the present matter.
46. Therefore, from the testimony of the complainant, injured witnesses duly supported by the eye witnesses and the IO no doubt remains that accused Roopa had on 26.12.2003 inflicted injuries upon Usha, Seema and Parvati after tress passing into their property/house.
47. During the course of the arguments, Ld. Defence counsel for the accused persons vehemently argued that the prosecution story does not inspire confidence and suffers from various inconsistencies/loop holes. It was argued that the accused persons were falsely implicated in the present case on account FIR No.643/03 29/40 of family/property dispute pending between the accused and the complainant party. It was argued that to settle the property dispute the complainant party took the help/aid of their relatives and police as admittedly Usha's father and Seema's father were employed in Delhi police. Hence in collusion with the local police, the complainants got the accused persons arrested in this case. It was also argued that there is a delay of around three days in the registration of the FIR which has not been explained by the prosecution and which itself is fatal to the prosecution story. It was argued that the public witnesses namely PW5 Vinod and PW7 Ramesh Saini have not uttered any incriminating statement against Smt. Roopa. It was argued that the Phawra i.e. alleged weapon of offence was never recovered by the IO and the same itself proves that it was a concocted/false story.
48. However, I do not agree with either contentions raised by the Ld. Defence counsel.
49. Testimony of an injured witness has its own efficacy and relevancy. He has no reasons to omit real culprit and implicate falsely the accused persons. It's a well settled law that once the eye version is given particularly by the injured himself, the Court would normally rely upon such version of the prosecution un less it suffers from serious infirmities or improvements. (Balbir Singh v. State of FIR No.643/03 30/40 Punjab, (P&H) 2003 Cri.L.J. 3148 and State of Gujarat v. Bharwad Jakshib hai Nagribhai, (Gujarat) (DB) 1990 Cri.L.J. 2531 and Appabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696).
50. In the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 , the Supreme Court deprecated the practice of rejecting the prosecution version ei ther for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses.
51. In the case at hand, I have no reasons to disbelieve Smt. Usha, Parvati and Seema. All these three persons who were the victims/were assaulted by ac cused Roopa consistently deposed against her. They elaborately narrated the circumstances in which they were repeatedly assaulted and beaten by accused Roopa. No doubt, admittedly there was a long going property dispute between the accused and the complainant party however I am not inclined to believe the defence version that merely because of a pending property dispute the accused persons were involved in this case. The injuries as appearing in MLC Ex. PW10/A & B cannot be self inflicted. Apart from the injured PW5 & 7 who are in dependent neighborhood witnesses and ASI Muktiar Singh (PW12) have also supported the prosecution story/the claims of Smt. Usha, Seema and Parvati that they were beaten by accused Roopa.
FIR No.643/03 31/40
52. Mere fact that the relatives of the complainant and the injured persons (fa ther of Usha and Seema) were employed in Delhi Police does not render the tes timony of the complainant/injured persons or the prosecution story unreliable. Had they been influential enough the FIR would have been registered on 26.12.2003 itself and not 29.12.2003. It is a matter of record that on 26.12.2003 only preventive action u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. was taken against the accused per sons. This delay in itself despite the fact that the complainant parties close rela tives were employed in Delhi Police proves that the police authority approached the matter with caution and only after satisfying themselves as to the true facts of the case the FIR was registered.
53. At this stage, I would also like to put to rest the contentions of the Ld. De fence Counsel regarding the delay in the registration of the FIR. Ld. Defence Counsel had argued that the incident allegedly occurred on 26.12.2003 but the FIR was registered only on 29.12.2003 hence, this delayed FIR proves that the entire story is a concocted one and the accused has been falsely implicated. I strongly differ with the Ld. Defence Counsel. The incident occurred on 26.12.2003 and after the information was received by the police vide DD no.7A ASI Mukhiar along with other police officials reached the spot. By the time they reached injured persons had already been removed to hospital. Accused Roopa FIR No.643/03 32/40 was available at the stop and a preventive step she was arrested u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. vide DD no.15A dated 26.12.2003. DD no.15A is on record and from its contents it is clear that accused Roopa along with coaccused Rattan Lal (al ready convicted) had injured the complainant party i.e Seema, Usha and Parvati. Hence, immediate action in the form of DD no.15 A was taken against accused Roopa. No doubt, FIR was not registered on that day but the non registration of the FIR was explained by PW12 ASI Mukhtiar Singh when he stated that as the injured persons have been removed to the hospital, result of the MLC was await ed and the statement had not been recorded he kept DD no.7A pending. This is sufficient explanation for non registering the FIR on 26.12.2003. The law is well settled that delay in registration of FIR is not fatal if the same has been explained by the prosecution. Reliance may be placed upon the law laid down in Sohan Singh v. State of Bihar 2009 V AD (Cri) (SC) 261, Basudeo Yadav v. Suren dra Yadav & Ors. , (SC) 2009 A.I.R. (SC) 546, State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand, (SC) 2001(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 666, Harbans Kaur v. State of Haryana, (SC) 2005(3) J.T. 233, Harpal Singh v. Devinder Singh, (SC) 1997 Cri.L.J. 3561, Ramanbhai Naranbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (SC) 2000(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 93 , Zahoor v. State of U.P., (SC) 1991(Sup1) S.C.C. 372 .
54. Though, Ld. Defence Counsel had also argued that PW5 & 7 did not utter any incriminating things against accused Roopa however, the said contention of FIR No.643/03 33/40 the Ld. Defence colony finds no force. A careful scrutiny of PW5 & 7 squarely proves the involvement of accused Roopa. No doubt, PW5 in his examination in chief did not utter anything against accused Roopa however, in his cross exami nation he categorically stated that accused Roopa was having brick and was in stigating accused Rattan Lal. He further stated during the cross examination by the Ld. Defence counsel that accused Roopa was following Dalel when he wad dragging Seema. These two statements are sufficient to hold accused Roopa guilty of the charges in the present case. Accused Roopa has also been charged u/s 34 IPC as is evidence from the charge sheet and the charge as framed on 13.10.2004. Section 34 IPC deals with the principle of vicarious liability in crimi nal jurisprudence. it punishes a person for acts done by him or the other in fur therance of the common intention shared by them. Reliance may placed upon the law laid down in Suresh v. State of U.P. AIR 2001 SC 1344, Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 2001 SC 1929, Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao v. State of A.P. AIR 2004 SC 132, Girija Shankar v. State of U.P. AIR 2004 SC 1808, Nandu Rastogi @ Nandji Rastogi v. State of Bihar 2003, Krishnan v. State AIR 2003 SC 2978, Gopi Nath v. State of U.P. AIR 2001 SC 2493 and Lallan Rai v. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 333. In the case at hand, firstly from the de position of the complainant/injured witnesses as discussed above no doubt re mains that accused Roopa had beaten them/inflicted injuries upon them. Sec ondly, accused Roopa cannot avoid her liability/escape the clutches of law in FIR No.643/03 34/40 view of Section 34 as discussed above as the complainant party was injured by Rattan Lal and her in furtherance of their common intention.
55. The last contention of the Ld. Defence counsel that the non recovery of the Phawra is also fatal to the prosecution case also does not find any force/mer it. The law is well settled that non recovery of weapon of offence cannot be made a ground to reject the otherwise consistent testimony of the injured witnesses/be lieve the prosecution case. May the accused had hidden it somewhere or thrown it from where it could not have been recovered or IO did not made sincere efforts to find it. Reliance may be placed upon (Anwarul Haq v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (SC) 2005(5) J.T. 9 : 2005(2) Apex Criminal 350 ) and Vazir Singh v. State of Haryana, (P&H) 1990(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 545.
56. Though, accused Roopa has also been charged u/s 427 IPC there is no iota of evidence against her which proves that she had damaged either the roof or the property belonging to the complainant party. There is no evidence against her in this regard.
Grounds for acquittal of accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli.
57. No doubt, prosecution successfully brought home guilt against accused FIR No.643/03 35/40 Roopa however, as far as the other remaining accused persons are concerned the prosecution story/deposition of complainant/injured witnesses did not inspire confidence and their involvement is highly doubtful. I have no hesitation in extending the benefit of doubt to all three of them. Reasons are as under:
1) It is a known fact/practice that in family disputes/quarrel there is a tendency amongst the complainant party to rope in almost the entire members of the rival party even though they did not take part in the crime. In family disputes/ quarrel with aim/intention/design to teach lesson to the rival party frivolous and false allegations are levied on almost all the family members of the rival family/party. More so, if in the past certain quarrel had taken place with them or the complainant party had any grudge against them.
In the case at hand, same occurred with accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli.
2) The foremost punitive action as was taken by the police officials regarding the incident was against accused Roopa and Rattan Lal @ Dalel only. The action was in the form of DD no.15A vide which both of them were arrested u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. Roopa has been convicted as discussed above and Rattan Lal was also convicted as he had admitted his guilt as reflected in proceedings dated 29.02.2008 as conducted before my Ld. Predecessor. This DD no.15A is a very vital piece of document. A careful scrutiny of DD no.15A would reveal that when the police reached the spot none of the accused persons i.e. Rajender, Shiv FIR No.643/03 36/40 Kumar and Chameli were present at the spot. If in deed they were also the perpetrators of crime as alleged by complainant party then they should have been present at the spot. But that was not the case.
3) The next action as was taken against the accused persons was registration of FIR of which complaint of Smt. Usha (PW1) i.e. Ex. PW1/A formed the basis. In the said complaint there is a material cutting in the 5th line. Some word seems to have been cut, fluid/whitener applied on it and a word rewritten on it. It is a very significant alteration/cutting. Its in Hindi as the entire statement is in Hindi and in my opinion prior to the alteration/cutting its import was Roopa W/o Sh. Rajender and after alteration its import was Roopa and Rajender i.e. before the alteration only Roopa was the accused but after alteration of the word W/o even Rajender became an accused. This alteration has not been explained by the prosecution and goes against its story.
4) Independent public witnesses Vinod (PW5) and Ramesh Saini (PW7) have not supported the prosecution story qua accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli. They in their examination have not attributed any role to the said accused persons regarding the incident in question i.e. to say they have not de posed against them. In their cross examination they have categorically denied the presence or involvement of the said accused persons in incident dated 26.12.2003.
FIR No.643/03 37/40
5) PW6 Desh Raj's testimony completely dislodges the prosecution story qua accused Shiv Kumar and Chameli. Desh Raj was an employee of AIIMS hospital as he worked as a Technician Assistant there. In his deposition as recorded on 24.05.2005 (rerecorded on 01.12.2007) he categorically stated that on the day of incident Chameli and Shiv Kumar had come to the hospital in the morning at around 9.15 am as they had brought Shiv Charan for treatment/blood test. The document Ex .DA dated 26.12.2003 i.e Cr. No. 9698 of Shiv Charan was proved during the cross examination of this witness by the Defence. Hence, the testimo ny of this witness who was a prosecution witness goes against the prosecution case as from his above statement as well as the other material as discussed above presence of both these accused at the spot becomes highly doubtful.
6) Testimony of PW12 ASI Mukhtiar who was the IO of this case leaves no doubt and confirms my opinion that accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli were neither present at the spot nor involved in quarrel/incident dated 26.12.2003. During his cross examination, IO stated as following "Accused Ra jinder was not present at the place of incident nor accused Shiv Kumar was present. No sufficient evidence was available qua accused Shiv Cha ran. Therefore, he was not booked in the present case. Same is my reply regarding accused Chameli Devi."
FIR No.643/03 38/40
58. It is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is pre sumed to be innocent. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of ac cused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution is under a legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by any statute. This general burden never shifts, it always rests on the prosecution. ( Daya Ram v. State of Haryana, (P&H)(DB) ,1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 662).
59. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to the establishment of the charge against an accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved. Criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. It was observed in Partap v. State of U.P., (SC) 1976 A.I.R. (SC) 966 that while prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, accused can discharge his onus by establishing a mere preponderance of probability. In Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (SC) 1990(3) S.C.C. 190 it was again held that in criminal cases burden is always is on prosecution and never shifts. In Nasir Sikander Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (SC) 2005 Cri.L.J. 2621 and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (SC) 1996(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 465 it was held that it is cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent and burden FIR No.643/03 39/40 lies on prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution is under legal obligation to prove each and every ingredient of the offence beyond any doubt, unless otherwise so provided by the Statute. (AIR 1962 SC 605 relied). Accused is not expected to prove his innocence to the hilt. If prosecution story is doubtful, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
60. In the present case prosecution has failed to discharge its onus qua accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli. Accordingly, all these accused persons are entitled to acquittal.
61. As far as accused Roopa is concerned she is held guilty and convicted u/s 323/325/452/34 IPC.
62. I order accordingly.
Announced in the open (Gaurav Rao) Court on 14.10.2011 MM (SD)/Delhi FIR No.643/03 40/40 F.I.R. No:643/03 U/s 452/323/325/34 IPC P.S.Defence Colony 14.10.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
All accused persons are present on bail today along with their counsel.
Vide separate judgment announced in the open court today, accused Rajender, Shiv Kumar and Chameli have been acquitted of the charges in the present case.
However, accused Roopa has been convicted u/s 323/325/452/34 IPC.
Renotify the matter for orders on sentence on 18.10.2011.
(Gaurav Rao) MM (SD)/Delhi 14.10.2011 FIR No.643/03 41/40 IN THE COURT OF GAURAV RAO: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE:
SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS: NEW DELHI In Re: STATE VERSUS RATTAN LAL ETC.
F.I.R. No:643/03 U/s 452/323/325/34 IPC P.S.Defence Colony ORDER ON SENTENCE 18.10.2011 Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict Roopa is present along with her counsel.
Vide judgment announced on 14.10.2011 accused Roopa was convicted u/s 452/323/325/34 IPC.
The learned defence counsel submitted that convict Roopa has been facing trial for the last more than 8 years and the same itself has been enough punishment for her. It was prayed that she is in her mid forties, has small children to look after and if she is sent to jail it will be a punishment not only to her but to her small children who without their mother care and protection shall go wary. It was also prayed that the accused Roopa be given benefit of probation of offenders Act as she is not involved in any other criminal case. FIR No.643/03 42/40
Per contra, learned APP has very vehemently argued that the act of the accused Roopa is unpardonable. It was submitted that the accused Roopa without any justification/provocation inflicted injuries upon the complainant and injured witnesses i.e. Usha, Seema and Parvati. It was submitted that the accused Roopa deserves no leniency least to release her on probation.
After giving my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made at bar I am of the considered opinion that taking into account:
1. the long drawn trial, the fact that matter pertains to the year 2003 i.e. around 8 years old,
2. the age of accused Roopa,
3. her family responsibility,
4.the fact that the incident occurred in a fit of rage and on account of family/property dispute,
5. taking into account the fact that she is not involved in any other criminal case and to give her one chance to reform herself, I am of the opinion that it shall meet the ends of justice, if benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. is given to her and she is sentenced to period already undergone in custody (30.11.2003 to 11.02.2004 ) along with fine of Rs.1000/ each for offence u/s 323 IPC and 325 IPC and u/s 452 IPC. In default of payment of fine, she is directed to undergo SI of 10 days.
Fine paid.
She is also directed to deposit a total sum of Rs. 15,000/ as FIR No.643/03 43/40 compensation for injured Usha, Seema and Parvati which shall be released to them in equal share as per rules and procedure. In default of payment of compensation the accused Roopa shall undergo SI of 30 days.
Benefit of probation is not given to her as no doubt there was a family dispute between her and the complainant party but that did not give her right to take the law in her hands and inflict such serious injuries upon the complainant party. Her act is unjustified. More so, when the complainant/injured party was closely related to her.
Fine of Rs.3000/ and compensation amount of Rs.15,000/ has been paid.
A copy of this order be given to the convict Roopa free of cost. Court notice be issued to injured persons and amount be released to them as and when they appear.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court (Gaurav Rao)
on 18.10.2011 MM (SD)/Delhi
FIR No.643/03 44/40