Delhi District Court
Ram Niwas S/O Rati Ram vs Pawan on 1 September, 2007
-:1:-
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI DELHI
SC No. 4A dated 12/01/2007
Date of Decision: 01.09.2007
RAM NIWAS S/o Rati Ram
R/o Village Ridhaw, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana .... Complainant
Versus
1. Pawan
S/o Sh.Inder
R/o Village Ridhaw,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
2. Raj Kumar
S/o Sh.Hukum Singh
R/o Village Raidhaw,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
3. Ranbir
S/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
R/o Village Ridhaw,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
4. Billa @ Dalbir
S/o Sh. Inder
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
5. Balraj
S/o Sh. Dharam Singh
R/o Village Ridhaw,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana.
6. Dhaula @ Joginder
S/o Sh. Singh Ram
R/o Village Ridhaw,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana
-:2:-
Complaint Case No.225/1/1999
PS Mangol Puri
U/s. 342/365/307/397/506 IPC
JUDGMENT
First the Facts On 24.06.99, Pawan, Raj Kumar, Raj @ Baljraj S/o Dharam Singh and Ranbir are alleged to have abducted Ram Niwas complainant in furtherance of their common intention from Mangol Puri, Delhi, with intent to wrongfully confine him. They alongwith Billa @ Dalbir and Dhaula @ Joginder are then alleged to have wrongfully confined said Ram Niwas in a tubewell room for a period of more than three days. At the time of his abduction, the accused persons are alleged to have robbed him of Rs. 10,000/-. All of them are also stated to have caused hurt to Ram Niwas, in furtherance of their common intention and thereby attempted to commit murder. On the aforesaid allegations, accused persons have been facing trial for offences U/s. 365, 397, 343, 395, 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Case of prosecution is that in respect of agricultural land of Gram Panchayat of Village Ridhaw, -:3:- dispute was going on between Dhani Ram, father of Ram Niwas, complainant and Pawan and his five companions. Civil suit instituted by Dhani Ram, father of the complainant was pending against Gram Panchayat in respect of agricultural land. In that suit, on 10/06/1999, an order of injunction was passed by the court at Sonepat accepting the version regarding possession of Dhani Ram in respect of land.
Further case of prosecution is that on 14/06/1999, the complainant Ram Niwas was going on towards Sonepat while travelling in a bus, Pawan and his companions Rajesh, Dilbag and Suraj Bhan, got the bus stopped by halting a truck in front thereof and then abducted the complainant and put him in Truck. Case FIR No. 173/1999 was registered at Police Station Sadar Sonepat in respect of abduction of the complainant. On 24/06/1999, complainant Ram Niwas was travelling in a bus which he boarded from ISBT Kashmere Gate for Mangol Puri Industrial Area. When the bus reached a little ahead of the area of Peeragarhi, the complainant got down from the bus and started moving on foot to go towards Mangol Puri Industrial Area and at that time a matador type vehicle stopped by his -:4:- side and from it Pawan and his companions Ranbir, Billa, Raj Kumar, Balraj alighted. Pawan and his companions Ranbir, Billa @ Dalbir, Raj Kumar and Balraj, picked up the complainant and put him in a matador type vehicle after placing a 'chaddar' over him. Thereafter they all started. Complainant heard Ranbir, companion of Pawan telling Dhaula @ Joginder, their companion that he (Dhaula @ Joginder) should catch hold of complainant tightly. Pawan and his companions Ranbir, Billa, Raj Kumar and Balraj took the complainant to unknown place and gave him beating. The complainant was made to lie facing downwards and then given beatings as a result of which he suffered injuries on chest, arms and on feet. Pawan and his companions rolled over a piece of wood on the back of complainant while giving him beatings. Pawan and his companions confined the complainant at the aforesaid unknown place till 01/07/1999 and also removed a sum of Rs.12,000/- from the person of the complainant.
On 01-07-99 complainant saw Pawan and his companions armed with knives. They then put the complainant in a vehicle and took him to an unknown place. On the way complainant was attacked with knives. Pawan -:5:- and Raj Kumar stabbed the complainant. The complainant then became unconscious. Pawan threatened the complainant that he would be eliminated in case he did not deliver possession of the aforesaid land. Complainant regained consciousness and found himself in a hospital in the area of Najafgarh. Police removed the complainant to DDU hospital. But no legal action was initiated by the police in proper manner.
It is in the statement of PW-2 Mahavir Singh that from 1996 to 2005 complainant was a tenant in respect of a shop which forms part of his house (house of Mahabir Singh), situated in Village Farmana. In that shop complainant was doing the job of welding. He also used to sleep in the said shop under tenancy of the complainant at his shop. In June 1999, PW-2 slept at the shop of the complainant for about 7/8 days at the request of Sant Ram, brother of the complainant, when Sant Ram told him (PW2) that perhaps the complainant had been kidnapped three days prior thereto, as his whereabouts were not known.
Dr. Ritu Chawla stated in her statement that on 02/07/99 Ram Niwas S/o Dhani Ram when brought to DDU Hospital by Constable Ram Chander of P.S. Mangol Puri was -:6:- medico legally examined by Dr. S. Bhasin. On his medico legal examination, three injuries were observed on the person of the complainant. Dr. S. Bhasin opined that the injuries were simple in nature and caused with sharp weapon. Dr. S. Bhasin opined that none of the injuries observed on the person of complainant were self inflicted. Dr. S. Bhasin also opined that those injuries were of the duration of 2/3 days. Charge Prima facie case having been made out, Pawan, Raj Kumar son of Hukum Singh, Ranbir and Balraj son of Dharam Singh were charged for offences U/s. 365 and 397 read with Section 34 IPC. All the aforesaid four accused and their co-accused Billa @ Dalbir and Dhaula @ Joginder were charged for offences U/s. 343, 395 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC.
Prosecution Evidence Since they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, in order to prove its case, complainant examined himself as PW1 and narrated the manner in which the occurrence took place on 24.06.99.
PW2 Mahabir Singh has been examined to prove that he learnt about abduction of the complainant from his -:7:- brother Sant Ram and at his request he slept at the shop of the complainant for about 7/8 days in the month of June 1999.
Medical evidence is available in the statement of PW3 Dr. Ritu Chawla, who has proved MLCs Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B prepared by Dr. S. Bhasin of DDU Hospital on 02.07.99.
Defence Plea
When examined U/s. 313 CrPC, the accused
persons denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them claiming false implication.
Pawan and Raj Kumar son of Hukum Singh admitted that litigation was going on between Dhani Ram, father of the complainant and Gram Panchayat in respect of agricultural land of Village Ridhaw. Pawan accused further admitted that his father was also a party to the litigation.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that from the statement of the complainant which stands corroborated by the statement of PW2 Mahabir Singh and the medical evidence, it stands established that all the accused persons abducted the complainant on 24.06.99, kept him in illegal confinement till 01.07.99, caused injuries on his -:8:- persons during the period from 24.06.99 to 01.07.99 and also on 01.07.99, and as such, all the accused persons are liable to be convicted.
On the other hand, learned counsel for accused has referred to statements of complainant made during trial, his previous statement Ex.PW1/DA made at the time of preliminary evidence and also to the version made available in the complaint Ex. PW1/DB, and argued that the complainant has made material improvements in his statement, while appearing in court during trial, and also made self contradictory statement on material aspects of the case, and as such, no reliance should be placed on his testimony. It has also been argued that PW2 Mahabir Singh has not at all supported the case of complainant regarding the factum of his confinement. Accordingly, learned defence counsel has argued that medical evidence available in the statement of PW3 is of no help to the complainant. Motive:
Case of the complainant is that a dispute was going on between his father and all the six accused in respect of agricultural land of Gram Panchayat in Village Ridhaw. -:9:- While appearing in court as PW1, the complainant deposed that civil suit instituted by his father was pending in court at Sonepat, against Gram Panchayat and in that suit on 10.06.1999 order of injunction was passed accepting the version of his father regarding his possession over the land.
On the other hand, Pawan and his brother Billa @ Dalbir accused have denied if Dhani Ram, father of the complainant, was found in possession of the suit land. As per plea put forth by Pawan accused, litigation going in the Courts at Sonepat was between Dhani Ram, father of the complainant and the Gram Panchayat, and also their father.
In the given facts and circumstances, it was for the complainant to establish that his father instituted a civil suit in respect of such and such piece of land and that all the six accused in this present case were also defendants in the aforesaid suit. However, the complainant has not got proved on record any copy of plaint of the said suit to substantiate the allegation that all the six accused were on litigation with his father. In absence thereof, it can also not be said as to over which piece of land his father instituted the civil suit before the Courts at Sonepat, so as to attribute a motive to all the accused persons in commission of the crime. The fact -:10:- remains that complainant has failed to establish that all the six accused persons were on litigation with his father. He has also failed to establish that his father was prima facie found to be in possession of any such land situated in Village Ridhaw. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that any of the accused had any motive for commission of crime against the complainant or to extend him threat for delivery of possession of the land. Even otherwise, while appearing in court as PW1, the complainant deposed that it was Pawan accused who threatened to eliminate him in case he does not deliver possession of the aforesaid land. It is not case of complainant that he himself was in possession of any such land situated in Village Ridhaw. When as per the version of complainant his father was in possession, threat could be extended to his father or the threat could be to the effect that his father should deliver possession. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that any of the accused persons ever extended any such threat to father of the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the conclusion that complainant has failed to establish on record that accused persons were having any motive for dispossessing the father of the complainant from any such -:11:- land situated in Village Ridhaw.
Pendency of case FIR no. 173/99 of P.S. Sadar Sonepat:
Case of complainant is that on 14.06.99, while he was going towards Sonepat in a bus, Pawan accused, Rajesh, Dilbagh and Suraj Bhan stopped the bus by halting a truck in front thereof and then abducted him. In this respect, case FIR No. 173/99 came to be registered at PS Sadar Sonepat. Pawan accused has denied this allegation being false. It was for the complainant to establish that any such criminal case was got registered by him against Pawan, the present accused and his three companions. He could place on record copy of FIR or summon any police official from PS- Sadar Sonepat. There is nothing in the statement of the complainant that challan has been put in Court in case FIR No. 173/99. The fact remains that complainant has not led any documentary evidence to substantiate this allegation regarding registration of a criminal case against Pawan and his three companions on the allegation of his abduction on 14.06.99.
Occurrence dated 24.06.99:
Present case pertains to occurrence dated -:12:- 24.06.99 when the complainant is alleged to have been abducted by the accused persons, then kept in wrongful confinement and thereafter inflicted injuries.
While appearing in court as PW1, complainant deposed that on 24.06.99, when the bus, in which he was travelling, reached a little ahead of the area of Peera Garhi, he got down from it and started moving on foot to go towards Mangolpuri Industrial area. At that time, a matador type vehicle stopped by his side. From that vehicle, Ranbir, Billa, Raj Kumar, Balraj and Pawan, all accused, alighted. All of them picked up him and threw in the matador type vehicle. While the vehicle was being driven away, he heard Ranbir accused telling Dhaula accused that he should catch hold of him (complainant) tightly. The witness then deposed that he was ultimately taken to an unknown place where all the accused gave him beatings. He also deposed that he was made to lie with face downward and then given beatings, as a result whereof he suffered injuries on chest, arms and on feet. At that time, a piece of wood is stated to have been rolled over his back. This is all which according to the complainant happened on 24.06.99.
Statement of PW1-complainant was also recorded -:13:- before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.11.2003, when he was examined as PW1, while leading preliminary evidence. Whereas before this court, the complainant deposed that on 24.06.99, that he had alighted from the bus a little ahead of the area of Peera Garhi, while making statement Ex. PW1/DA before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, the complainant nowhere stated so. In that statement, it also does not stand recorded that any matador type vehicle reached by his side. What is recorded therein is that all the accused persons overpowered the complainant at Mangolpuri and took him to an unknown place. It also does not stand recorded in Ex. PW1/DA that on 24.06.99, he was so abducted after he alighted from a bus. Therein, it stands recorded that on 24.06.99, he had left for his business purpose at Delhi. While making statement Ex. PW1/DA, the witness did not state that he was returning from ISBT, Kashmiri Gate to Mangolpuri. Rather, from the statement Ex. PW1/DA, it appears as if the complainant was coming to Delhi for purchase of raw material when he is alleged to have been abducted at Mangolpuri. Had he been coming to Delhi from his village for purchase of raw material, while appearing before this Court as PW1, he would not have stated that he -:14:- was returning from ISBT, Kashmiri Gate to Mangolpuri. Therefore, the version narrated by the complainant is self contradictory on this aspect.
As regards his abduction and having been taken away in a matador type vehicle, the witness was confronted with his previous statement Ex.PW1/DA made before learned Metropolitan Magistrate where this fact does not stand recorded. Had the complainant been abducted or taken away forcibly in any vehicle, he would not have omitted to state about the use of a matador type vehicle at the time of his abduction. But the fact remains that in Ex.PW1/DA, he nowhere stated about use of any vehicle by any of the three accused in abducting him or taking him away forcibly from Peera Garhi. It is also pertinent to mention here that in his statement Ex. PW1/DA, the complainant is stated to have been abducted from Mangolpuri, but while appearing during trial as PW1, he deposed that he was abducted from the area of Peera Garhi. Therefore, on this aspect also the complainant has made self contradictory statements.
As regards the words attributed to Ranbir that Dhaula should catch hold of the complainant tightly, the complainant admitted in his cross-examination to have not -:15:- stated so, while making previous statement Ex.PW1/DA. Therefore, on this aspect, the complainant can safely be said to have improved upon his version, while attributing role to Ranbir and Dhaula accused.
So far as the factum of wrongful confinement is concerned, the witness nowhere stated as to at which place he was so wrongfully confined. There is nothing in his statement to suggest that the place where he was confined was a plot or a room or a building or some other place. He is alleged to have been confined there for three days. It is not case of the complainant that during this period of three days of confinement, he was not served with any meals or he did not go to any toilet or that he was so confined that he could not see even the light of the day. In the given circumstances, it was for the complainant to establish that he had no opportunity to know about the place of his confinement.
While appearing during trial as PW1, complainant deposed that he was given beatings after he was made to lie with face downward. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted to have not stated so in Ex.PW1/DA. He also admitted to have not stated in his previous statement Ex. PW1/DA that the accused persons caused him beatings by -:16:- rolling over his back a piece of wood or that he suffered injuries on his chest, arms and feet. Thus, the complainant has improved upon any other significant aspect of the version making it doubtful if he was inflicted injuries by any of the accused.
Robbery of Rs. 12,000/-:
Case of the complainant is that at the time he was abducted, he was having a sum of Rs. 12,000/-. While appearing as PW1, he deposed that Pawan and Raj Kumar removed Rs. 12,000/- from the left side pocket of his kurta. When the witness was questioned if he stated so in his previous statement Ex. PW1/DA, he admitted to have not stated so in the previous statement. What stands recorded therein is that they looted Rs. 12,000/- from him. Therein, the complainant did not name Pawan and Raj Kumar as the accused for having robbed him of Rs. 12,000/-. In this respect, the witness was confronted with the version made available in his complaint Ex. PW1/DB wherein it stands recorded that he was robbed of Rs. 10,000/-. All this goes to show that the complainant has improved upon his previous version and also narrated self contradictory version at -:17:- different stages.
Occurrence dated 01.07.1999 :
Case of the complainant is that on 01.07.99, all the accused put him in a vehicle, took him to an unknown place and on the way attacked him with knives, as a result whereof he became unconscious and on regaining consciousness, he found himself in a hospital of Najafgarh from where police removed him to DDU hospital.
In this regard, when the complainant was confronted with his statement Ex. PW1/DA, he admitted to have not stated therein that on 01.07.99, all the accused persons put him in a vehicle or took him to an unknown place. So far as inflicting of injuries on his persons with knives, on 01.07.99, by all the accused persons is concerned, a perusal of his previous statement Ex. PW1/DA would reveal that this fact does not stand recorded therein. Had any of the accused persons inflicted injury on his person with a knife, the complainant would not have omitted to state so while deposing before learned Metropolitan Magistrate on 17.11.2003. PW1, in his cross examination, candidly admitted to have not stated therein that Raj Kumar and -:18:- Pawan inflicted injuries on his person with knives. He also admitted to have not stated in previous statement that on receiving injuries, he had become unconscious. Furthermore, he admitted to have not stated in his previous statement that Pawan accused threatened him with dire consequences in case he did not deliver possession of the aforesaid land.
The above evidence goes to show that the complainant, while appearing during trial as PW1, made material improvements in the version earlier narrated during preliminary evidence. It is well settled that material improvements in the version of a witness make his version highly doubtful.
Testimony of PW2 Mahabir Singh:
Case of complainant is that he was running a shop, under his tenancy, in village Farmana and since he was abducted by the accused persons, his landlord Mahabir Singh slept at his shop for about 7/8 days.
PW2 Mahabir Singh has deposed about the factum of tenancy of the complainant in respect of his shop in Village Farmana. He further deposed that complainant was doing the job of welding in that shop. It is also in his statement -:19:- that in June 1999, he came to know from Sant Ram, brother of the complainant, that the latter had been, perhaps, kidnapped about 2/3 days prior thereto as his whereabouts were not known, and as such, at the request of Sant Ram, he slept at the shop of the complainant for about 7/8 days in June 1998.
It is pertinent to note that PW2 nowhere specified the date when Sant Ram, brother of the complainant, apprised him (PW2) about the factum of such kidnapping. Furthermore, the complainant has not examined his brother Sant Ram to lend corroboration to the statement of PW2 Mahabir Singh that he was ever so requested by Sant Ram or ever so told about any such kidnapping. There is nothing in the statement of PW2 Mahabir Singh as to how and from whom Sant Ram had come to know about abduction of his brother Ram Niwas. Had Mahabir Singh been so informed by Sant Ram, Sant Ram must have reported the matter to the police or got a case registered. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that any case was got registered by Sant Ram, brother of the complainant. Even Mahabir Singh could help in reporting the matter to police instead of simply helping him by his stay in the tenanted shop as alleged. However, -:20:- there is nothing in the statement of PW2 that he helped the brother of the complainant in reporting the matter to the police. It may be mentioned here that case FIR No. 628/99 was registered at PS- Mangolpuri on the statement made by Ram Niwas complainant himself. That statement was recorded on 01.07.99. After investigation, police submitted final report finding that there was no evidence of abduction of the complainant and that the complainant could not specifically tell the names and addresses of the persons who were alleged to have abducted him.
In view of the above discussion, even statement of PW2 Mahabir Singh does not help the complainant to any extent.
Medical Evidence:
Medical evidence is available in the statement of PW3 Dr. Ritu Chawla, who proved MLCs Ex. PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B in respect of Ram Niwas prepared by Dr. S. Bhasin on 02.07.99 and 03.07.99 respectively. It is true that as per MLC Ex. PW3/A, three injuries were observed on the person of Ram Niwas complainant. However, as noticed above, the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations levelled against any of the accused persons. Therefore, only medical -:21:- evidence does not come to the aid of the complainant to hold the accused persons liable for their involvement in causing injuries on his person.
Conclusion:
In view of the above discussion, this court come to conclusion that complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations levelled against any of the accused persons beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Therefore, this court hereby orders for acquittal of all the six accused in this case.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on Dated: 1st of September, 2007 [NARINDER KUMAR] Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court: Rohini/Delhi -:22:-