Delhi District Court
State vs . Mohar Singh Etc on 27 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTHWEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
IN THE MATTER OF :
State Vs. Mohar Singh etc
FIR No. 104/2009
PS : Uttam Nagar
U/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
Date of Institution : 17.03.2010
Date of reserving of order : 07.02.2020
Date of Judgment : 27.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 8687/19
2. Name of the Complainant : Sh. Sohan Lal
S/o Sh. Choti Lal
R/o A1, Gali no. 8, Lions
Enclave, Vikas Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 02.04.2009
4. Name of accused person : (1) Mohar Singh
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
(2) Ravi @ Ravinder
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
(3) Basant Singh
S/o Sh. Prem Singh
All R/o A21, Lions Enclave
Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar,
Delhi
5. Offence charged : U/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
State Vs. Mohar Singh etc.
FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar
Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 1 of 10
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : Acquitted
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused have been chargesheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 323/325/341/34, Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC").
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 02.04.2019 at about 11:00 AM opp A1, Gali no. 8, Lions Enclave, Gali Sareaam Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, accused Mohar Singh, Ravi @ Ravinder and Basant Singh wrongfully restrained Sohan Lal and after Mohar Singh caught hold of his hand, accused Basant and Ravi alongwith their sister's son had beaten up Sohan Lal with iron pipe. Complainant Sohan Lal accordingly suffered injury on his legs as well as head. In the meantime, son of complainant namely Ashok also reached at the spot and accused Basant, Ravi alongwith their sister's son had hit him with iron pipe on his left hand. Thus, Ashok has also suffered injury. On the statement of the complainant, the FIR was registered.
3. Thereafter, the present chargesheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 323/325/341/34 IPC. Cognizance of offence was taken and accused were summoned to face trial. Copy of the chargesheet alongwith all annexures were supplied to the accused persons in terms of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
4. After giving opportunity to state as well as accused persons for State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 2 of 10 making submissions on charge, a charge for offence u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC was framed against all three accused persons on 21.09.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution has examined seven witnesses to prove its case.
6. Complainant Sh. Sohan Lal has been examined as PW1, who has deposed that wherein he has deposed that on 09.04.2009 at about 01:00 pm, accused Mohar Singh had started beating his son Ashok without any reason and slapped him. When the complainant reached at the spot, accused Mohar Singh asked him to settle the previous litigation failing which kill the complainant and his son. In the meantime, remaining accused came and after Mohar Singh caught hold of the complainant, his nephew hit the complainant with an iron pipe on his leg as well as the head. It was further deposed by the complainant that his son was also beaten up by the accused persons. According to him, he had reported the matter to the police after 2 or 3 days. He has thereafter proved his complaint Ex. PW1/A. With the permission of the court, some leading questions were asked to the complainant by Ld. APP as to the exact time of the incident and regarding visit of accused persons to the house of complainant on 02.04.2009 so as to threaten him to withdraw the case pertaining to molestation of his daughter. Complainant had denied the suggestion regarding visit of accused persons to his house on 02.04.2009 and deposed that on 02.04.2009 accused persons directly started beating him and his son.
7. Injured Ashok has been examined as PW2, who has deposed State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 3 of 10 that though he does not remember the date of incident, however, at about 11:00 am, when he was going to deliver the ironed clothes, accused Mohar Singh abused him, whereafter arguments ensued between accused Mohar Singh and his father. He deposed that accused Mohar Singh was having very lengthy iron rod and all the three accused persons alongwith their relatives have caught hold of his father and accused Mohar Singh has caused injuries with rod to his father. According to him, sister's son of the accused Mohar Singh had also beaten up his father. He further deposed that when he tried to rescue his father, he received invisible injuries on his arm. His father, according to him had sustained injuries on his head and foot.
8. Constable Narender Singh, who had accompanied the IO ASI Nahar Singh to the place of incident and thereafter to DDU hospital and got the FIR registered at PS Uttam Nagar and subsequently accompanied the IO during investigation, has been examined as PW3. He has proved arrest memo of accused Basant Singh as Ex. PW3/A, his personal search memo as Ex. PW3/B, arrest memo of accused Ravi as Ex. PW3/C, his personal search memo as Ex. PW3/D, arrest memo of accused Mohar Singh as Ex. PW3/E and his personal search memo as Ex. PW3/F and disclosure statement of accused Mohar Singh as Ex. PW3/G.
9. DO HC Devender Kumar, who had registered the FIR on the complaint of the complainant on 04.04.2009 was examined as PW4. He has proved the copy of FIR no.104/2009 as Ex. PW4/A and endorsement on rukka as Ex. PW4/B. State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 4 of 10
10. Dr. Dhanajay Kumar, Medical Officer from DDU hospital has been examined as PW5 who has proved the MLCs of both the injured prepared by Dr. Ankur and Dr. Puneet respectively as Ex. PW5/A and Ex. PW5/B respectively.
11. SI Prisila who has recorded DD No.20A, 23A & 29A at PS Uttam Nagar on 02.04.2009 has been examined as PW6 and the said DD entries are Ex. PW6/A.
12. ASI Nahar Singh, IO of case has been examined as PW7. He has proved rukka as Ex. PW7/A and site plan prepared by him at the instance of complainant as Ex. PW7/B.
13. All the aforesaid witnesses, except PW4 and PW6, were duly crossexamined by Ld. Counsel for the accused. No other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution and hence, PE was closed vide order dated 03.07.2017.
14. Thereafter, Statements of all the accused persons U/s 313 Cr.P.C were recorded on 26.10.2017 after putting entire incriminating evidence to them. They submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused persons opted not to lead any DE and hence, the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
15. At this stage, Dr. Aruna CMO, from DDU hospital, has been examined by the court as a court witness who has proved the MLC of accused Mohar Singh which is Ex. CW1/A.
16. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of state as well as the accused persons on 07.02.2020.
17. It is submitted by Ld. APP for the State that prosecution has State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 5 of 10 been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts through the uncontroverted testimonies of PW1 to PW7 and hence, the accused are liable for conviction for the offence u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC with which they have been charged.
18. On the other hand, it is submitted by counsel for accused persons that the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case which is apparent from the fact that the star witnesses of the prosecution namely PW1 and PW2 had failed to explain the injuries on the person of accused Mohar Singh. In fact according to her prosecution has deliberately concealed the MLC of accused Mohar Singh and the same could only be proved through court witness Dr. Aruna in pursuance to an application of accused u/s 311 Cr.P.C. It is submitted by counsel for accused that admittedly the PCR call was made by the accused and the accused have been falsely implicated in the present case after unexplained delay of more than two days when accused Mohar Singh had visited the police station with a complaint against the complainant herein.
19. It is submitted by her that there was a mutual fight between the neighbourers and though, the quarrel is admitted by the accused, however, the same is not admitted to the extent of injuries to the complainant. She submits that a false story has been concocted by the complainant to save himself from any action on the complaint of accused Mohar Singh. She submits that the case of the prosecution is fraught with material contradictions and no specific role has been assigned to each of the accused probably because accused Basant and State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 6 of 10 Ravi were not even residing in Delhi and were in Rohtak at the relevant time. Counsel for accused has thus prayed for acquittal of all the accused.
20. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also perused the record.
21. A bare perusal of the record shows that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 as to the actual sequence of events vis a vis the complaint Ex. PW1/A. In his complaint, complainant had alleged that on 02.04.2009 at about 11:00 am when he was present at his house, all the three accused alongwith their nephew came to his house and threatened her to settle the said case. Thereafter according to him, they had wrongfully restrained him and accused Mohar Singh had caught hold of both his hands and remaining accused alongwith their nephew had hit him on his legs with iron pipes whereafter he fell down and suffered injuries on his leg and head.
22. On the other hand, in his testimony as PW1 before this court, complainant had tried to make out an altogether new case in terms of which on the date and time of incident, the accused Mohar Singh had started beating the son of complainant without any reason and slapped him and when the complainant tried to intervene, the accused Mohar Singh threatened him to settle the previous litigation failing which they will kill him. In the meantime, the remaining accused came alongwith their nephew and after Mohar Singh caught hold of him, nephew of the accused persons hit him with the iron pipes on his leg State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 7 of 10 and head. Thereafter, all the accused gave beatings to his son Ashok.
23. Thus, the aforesaid testimony is in stark contradiction to the stand taken by complainant in his original complaint. When with the permission of this court, Ld. APP for State confronted the aforesaid witness with his complaint, the complainant insisted that the averments made in the complaint Ex. PW1/A were not correct and in fact the accused had visited his house on 01.04.2009 and not on 02.04.2009.
24. The aforesaid testimony of complainant as PW1 is also contradictory to the testimony of PW2 in as much as according to PW2 when he was going to deliver ironed clothes, he was abused by accused Mohar Singh whereafter the arguments ensued between Mohar Singh and the complainant. As has been observed hereinabove the stand taken by PW2 is in stark contradiction to the stand taken by PW1 that the dispute had arisen after accused Mohar Singh had beaten his son without any reason. Besides, though according to PW 1, the iron pipe was being carried by nephew of accused, according to PW2 the iron pipe was being carried by accused Mohar Singh and it is accused Mohar Singh who had hit his father with the iron rod whereas according to PW1 it was the nephew of accused Mohar Singh who had hit him with the iron pipe.
25. Moreover, as per the averments made in the complaint Ex. PW1/A, the accused had hit the complainant on his legs with the iron rod whereafter he fell down and suffered injuries on his head and legs due to fall. However, in his examination in chief, PW1 had tried to State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 8 of 10 improve upon the case by deposing that the nephew of accused persons had hit him with iron pipe on his leg and also on his head.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, PW1 and PW2 are not reliable witnesses and hence, the accused cannot be convicted on the basis of the sole testimonies of PW1 and PW2 without sufficient corroboration by independent evidence. However, prosecution has failed to examine any independent public witness in support of its case. None examination of the independent public witnesses despite material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 coupled with the delay of almost two days in registration of FIR by the complainant and concealment of MLC of accused Mohar Singh coupled with non explanation of the injuries on the person of accused Mohar Singh by the prosecution, in my considered opinion, cast reasonable doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case.
27. It is well settled legal position that in a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts before the accused are asked to put his defence. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have'. If the story of the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
28. In the case in hand, in my considered opinion, prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The story of prosecution thus lacks credibility and hence, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt. Accused are thus acquitted of State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 9 of 10 the charges u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC.
29. Accused have already furnished personal bonds and surety bonds in sum of Rs.10,000/ each in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. today which shall remain in force for a period of six months from today.
30. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in the open court on this 27th day of February, 2020. This judgment consists of 10 signed pages.
(ARUN KUMAR GARG) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka Courts: New Delhi Digitally signed ARUN by ARUN KUMAR GARG KUMAR Date:
2020.02.27 GARG 18:34:19 +0530 State Vs. Mohar Singh etc. FIR No.104/2009 P.S. Uttam Nagar Judgment dated 27.02.2020 Page No. 10 of 10