Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Baljeet, S/O Brij Mohan on 24 September, 2009
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE04 (NORTH) : DELHI
Case ID Number 0240IR0859202008
Session Case No. 106/09
Assigned to Sessions 02/07/2008
Arguments concluded on 24.09.2009
Date of Order 24.09.2009
FIR No. 384/07
Police Station Subzi Mandi
Under Section U/s 308/325/323/341/34 IPC
In the matter of:
State Versus 1. Baljeet, S/o Brij Mohan
R/o C71/10, Jhuggi Railway Colony,
Delhi Flour Mills, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
2. Rakhee, W/o Baljeet
R/o C71/10, Jhuggi Railway Colony,
Delhi Flour Mills, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
3. Atma Ram s/o Shankar Lal
R/o C71/10, Jhuggi Railway Colony,
Delhi Flour Mills, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
4. Sanatan s/o Shankar Lal,
R/o A229/8, Gali Chodhrana, Sec.5,
Rohini Rithala, Delhi.
J U D G M E N T
1. The above named accused persons were booked by SHO PS Subzi Mandi Under Section 323/325/341/34 IPC with the allegations that on 12.08.2007 Baby (complainant) alongwith her daughter Sangeeta had gone to fill water from the tap, a quarrel and grapple took place there State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 1 of pages 11 qua filling of water. On 13.08.2007 at about 7.00 pm on the issue of previous day, Rakhee started quarreling and grappling with the complainant Baby and accused Baljeet, Atma Ram and Sanatan also started beating her and by the time accused Atma Ram hit her with a stone on her head. When her brotherinlaw Munni Lal tried to save her, accused Baljeet hit her with his head, resultantly she sustained injuries on her teeth. In the meantime, when Pritam tried to intervene to save her, accused Sanatan came there and started beating him, as a result of which Pritam received injuries on his back. MLCs of the injured persons was got done. Upon the statement of the complainant IO prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, further investigation was initiated and the site was inspected at the instance of complainant and site plan was prepared. Statement of the witnesses were recorded. Then, the result on the MLC of injured were obtained and on finding sufficient evidence, charge sheet was filed against accused persons.
2. On presentation of charge sheet before the court, Ld. MM/Delhi while taking into consideration the statement of complainant Baby read with the MLC, took the cognizance of the offence U/s 308/323/341/34 State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 2 of pages 11 IPC and after completing the committal proceeding, the case was received in this court by way of assignment.
3. After hearing the rival submissions of both the sides, a charge U/s 308/323/325/341/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial. Thereafter the case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
4. In its support, the prosecution has cited as many as sixteen witnesses and out of them PW--2 Pritam, PW--4 Babi, PW--5 Sangeeta, PW--6 Dalip, PW--7 Munni Lal and PW--8 Ram Chander are the material public witnesses being complainant/injured/eye witnesses and rest of the witnesses are the formal/official witnesses. By now, the prosecution has examined all the aforesaid material witnesses alongwith PW--1 SI Brij Mohan (Retd.) and PW--3 HC Durga Prasad and none of the material witnesses has supported the story of prosecution.
5. PW1 SI Brij Mohan (Retd.) testified that on 13.08.2007 in the evening, he received a call to the effect that there was a quarrel in Jhuggi, near Subzi Mandi Railway Station and accordingly he reached at the spot alongwith two constables namely Veer Pal and Rakesh, where State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 3 of pages 11 he came to know that there was a quarrel and after the quarrel, the injured was already left for hospital. When he visited the hospital, injured was not in a position to give his statement. Then after consultation with the Sr. Officials, a kalandara was given U/s 107/151 Cr.P.C against both the parties. He took the preventive action and later on he came to know that case FIR was registered on 20.08.2008 in view of the statements made by the complainant and the investigations were conducted by the different IO. He collected the MLCs of all the injured namely Munni Lal, Sujit, Baby, Pritam, Sangeeta and Dalip Kumar .
During cross examination he stated that he reached at the hospital at around 7.008.00 p.m., where he met with Munni Lal, Rakhi, Baby, Sangeeta and few other persons but he did not record any statement in the hospital. Then he came back to the PS and visited the spot. He arrested both the parties in the kalandara. He also stated that after the day of incident, he neither visited the spot nor recorded any statements afterwards.
6. PW--2 Pritam (one of the injured) in his testimony could not tell the th year of incident but he stated that it was a day of 13 August and evening time and stated that a quarrel took place in respect of fetching of State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 4 of pages 11 water from the tank in their colony and when he was in the process of saving the persons, who were being beaten by some persons, he sustained injuries. He could not tell, who caused injuries to him. He further stated that accused persons are known to him being his neighbours but they had not caused injuries to him and others.
Although, the witness was permitted to cross examine by Ld. Addl. PP for the State by declaring hostile and during the course of said cross examination, the contents of his statement Mark A allegedly recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was read over to him but he flatly denied of having made such statement to the police.
7. PW--3 HC Durga Prasad is the Duty Officer and a formal witness, who recorded the FIR no.384/07, copy of which is Ex.PW3/A, after receiving of tehrir from SI Ravi Kant. He made his endorsement Ex.PW3/B on rukka and after recording of FIR he handed over the original tehrir and copy of FIR to the SI Ravi Kant for further investigation.
8. PW--4 Baby (the complainant and the main witness of the prosecution) testified that about 2 years ago, she alongwith her daughter Sangeeta had gone to fill water from a nearby tap, where all of a sudden State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 5 of pages 11 a crowd collected and a quarrel took place between her and her daughter on one side and other persons on the other side. She could not tell as to who were those persons or who caused injuries to her. She also stated that she knew the accused persons being her neighbours but they had not caused injuries to her and others.
The witness was also cross examined by the prosecution but nothing fruitful could be brought out from the mouth of the witness. She conceded that the police had recorded her statement Ex.PW4/A and she identified her thumb impression on the same at point A but she stated that she had not gone through the contents of the statement when she put her thumb impression on the same. She specifically denied that she had gone through the contents of the statement Ex.PW4/A or that the same were read over to her when she put her thumb impression on the same. She also denied that on 12.08.2007 when she alongwith her daughter had gone to fill water from the tap then there was exchange of hot words and quarrel also took place between them on one side and accused Rakhi on the other side. She further denied that on 13.08.2007 at about 7.00 p.m she and Sangeeta had come to fill water from the tap and there accused Rakhi started quarreling and grappling with Baby on State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 6 of pages 11 the issue of previous day or that accused Baljeet, Atama Ram and Sanatan also started beating her. She also denied that accused Atma Ram hit her with a stone on her head or that her brotherinlaw Munni Lal when tried to save her then accused Baljeet hit her on her teeth with his head or that in the meantime accused Sanatan also reached there and beat her or that when Pritam tried to intervene and save her then accused Sanatan started beating Pritam also, as a result of which Pritam received injuries on his back. Contents of statement Ex.PW4/A was read over to her and she denied of having so made before the police.
9. PW--5 Sangeeta (daughter of complainant) testified that about 2 years ago, she had gone to her parental house at C71/19, Railway Colony Jhuggi, near Flour Mill, Subzi Mandi, Delhi as her mother was not well. In the evening time at about 7 p.m she alongwith her mother Baby had gone to fill water from a nearby tap and all of a sudden a crowd collected there and a quarrel took place between her and her mother on one side and other persons on the other side. She could tell as to who were those persons and who caused injuries to her. She further stated that accused persons are known to her being her neighbour but they had not caused injuries to her and others.
State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 7 of pages 11 This witness was also declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State and she was cross examined at a great length but nothing material could be brought on record against the accused persons. She also disowned the contents of the statement Ex.PW5/A allegedly recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr. P. C.
10. PW--6 Dilip (one of the injured persons and husband of complainant) testified that about 2 years ago his wife alongwith his daughter Sangeeta had gone to fill water from a nearby tap and suddenly he heard a noise of quarrel and came out of his house. He saw that a crowd had collected there and a quarrel was taking place between his wife and his daughter on one side and other persons on the other side. He could tell as to who were those persons and who caused injuries to them. He further stated that accused persons are known to her being her neighbour but they had not caused injuries to his wife, daughter and others.
This witness was also permitted to cross examine by Ld. Addl. PP for the State by declaring hostile, but once again this remained a futile exercise as the witness did not change and even disowned his statement Ex.PW6/A alleged recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C.
State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 8 of pages 11
11. PW--7 Munni Lal (one of the injured persons and brotherinlaw of complainant) testified that about 2 years back his Bhabhi Baby alongwith her daughter had gone to fill water from a nearby tap and suddenly he heard a noise of quarrel and came out of his house. He saw that a crowd had collected there and a quarrel was taking place between his Bhabhi Baby and her daughter on one side and other persons on the other side. He could tell as to who were those persons and who caused injuries to them. He further stated that accused persons are known to her being her neighbour but they had not caused injuries to his Bhabghi, her daughter and others.
This witness was also declared hostile by the Ld. APP for the State and she was cross examined at a great length but nothing material could be brought on record against the accused persons. She also disowned the contents of the statement Ex.PW7/A allegedly recorded by the police u/s 161 Cr. P. C.
12. PW--8 Ram Chander (one of the injured persons) testified that about 2 years ago his daughter in law Baby alongwith his grand daughter Sangeeta had gone to fill water from a nearby tap and suddenly he heard a noise of quarrel and came out of his house. He saw State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 9 of pages 11 that a crowd had collected there and a quarrel was taking place between his wife and his daughter on one side and other persons on the other side. He could tell as to who were those persons and who caused injuries to them. He further stated that accused persons are known to her being her neighbour but they had not caused injuries to his daughter in law Baby, his grand daughter and others.
This witness was also declared hostile by Ld. Addl. PP for the State and on the permission of Court he was cross examined at a grate length but nothing material could be brought on record against the accused persons. The contents of the statement Ex.PW8/A recorded by the police U/s 161 Cr.P.C. was put to him but he flatly denied of having made any such statement to the police.
13. In this case by now, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses out of the total sixteen cited witnesses, out of them PW--2, PW--4, PW
--5, PW--6, PW--7 & PW--8 are the star witnesses being the material eye witnesses/injured but none of them have supported the story of prosecution. In their respective statements, they all denied that the accused persons were the assailants, who had caused injuries to them, rather they claimed that they are known to them being their neighbours State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 10 of pages 11 but none of them was amongst the assailants. The remaining cited witnesses are the police official/formal witnesses and no fruitful purpose will be served by continuing the trial by calling and examining them in the court as all the star witnesses have already turned hostile. In the above circumstances, the prosecution evidence was closed vide the order of even date. Since nothing incriminating against the accused persons have been brought on record, so statements of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C. were also dispensed with.
14. I have heard the submissions of Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. counsel for the accused persons and have perused the entire record.
15. In the instant case there are sixteen witnesses cited by the prosecution and amongst them PW2, PW4, PW5, PW--6, PW7 & PW8 are the material witnesses but unfortunately all of them have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. In these circumstances, I have no option but to acquit the accused persons of the charges levelled against them. All the accused persons stand acquitted accordingly. Their bail bonds are also discharged.
16. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open (RAKESH KUMAR) court today on 24.09.2009) ASJ04 (NORTH)/DELHI State Vs. Baljeet etc. Page no. 11 of pages 11