Delhi District Court
State vs . Niranjan Mishra on 28 March, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS NEETI SURI MISHRA
ACMM (NORTH): ROHINI COURTS:NEW DELHI
Cr. Case no. 5293596/2016
STATE Vs. Niranjan Mishra
FIR NO 912/2015
PS Mahendra Park
Date of Institution of case: 18.12.2015
Date of Judgment reserved: 17.03.2023
Date on which Judgment pronounced: 28.03.2023
Unique ID no. of the case : DLNT02-0000384-2016
Name of complainant : Smt. Minakshi Mishra
Name and address of accused : Niranjan Mishra s/o Sh. Madan Kant
Mishra r/o H.No. I-1670, Jahangir
Puri, Delhi
Offence charged with: 323/341 IPC
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Date of reserving the order: 17.03.2023
Date of order : 28.03.2023
Final order : Convicted for the offences under
Section323/341 IPC
FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 1/15
JUDGMENT
1. The accused Niranjan Mishra has been sent for trial for allegedly having committed the offence of wrongfully restraining and beating the complainant Ms. Meenakshi Mishra and causing simple injuries to her, during the day time at about 1:00 pm on 12/10/2015, in the street/gali in front of their house bearing no. 1670, I-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi. On these facts, it is alleged by prosecution are that accused committed offences punishable under Section 341/323 IPC.
2. Prosecution's case is that on the statement of complainant/injured FIR was registered against the accused. Police authorities conducted investigation on the allegations of complainant and upon finalization of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused in the court. Police filed chargesheet under offences punishable under Sections 341/323 IPC. The court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused as he had been released on police bail.
3. On the appearance of accused before court, copy of chargesheet was supplied to him in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323 IPC. Accused however, pleaded not guilty for the charge and claimed to be tried.
4. Pursuant to framing of charge, trial commenced with recording of testimonies of prosecution's witnesses. Prosecution examined 06 (six) witnesses for bringing home the guilt of accused. The testimonies of prosecution's witnesses are as under:
FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 2/15 PW1 Meenakshi Mishra deposed that earlier she was residing with her husband who is accused in the present case. She identified the accused in the court. She deposed that she was married to the accused in the year 2007 and out of the wedlock two boys namely Jai Mishra and Tanishk Mishra were born. She deposed that at that time her husband was not doing any work and he was an alcoholic and used to give beatings to her. She deposed that on 11th Day of the month falling in the year 2015, name of the month she does not remember, they had returned from Mehndipur Balaji Maharaj, Rajasthan at about 1:00 pm and at that time the accused was heavily intoxicated and also gave beatings to her and then took her to the street and also gave beatings to her in the street. She deposed that she called her mother and in the year 2015 the above-stated matter was reported to the police on the 12th Day of the month which she does not remember, however it was in the year 2015. She deposed that thereafter she returned back to the house of her mother. The accused had been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month, however he has not paid even a single penny. Witness proved her statement given to police as Ex. PW-1/A. During evidence of PW-1 Ld. APP for State sought permission to ask leading questions to the witness which was allowed.
She deposed it to be correct that the accused used to give beatings to her under the influence of alcohol and used to quarrel with her on regular basis. She deposed it be correct that about three months prior to the incident the accused was admitted to the De-addiction Centre and he came from the De-addiction Centre three days prior to the alleged incident i.e. on 09.10.2015. She further admitted as correct that she alongwith the accused, her mother in law namely Smt. Gauri Devi and FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 3/15 both the children had gone to Mehndipur, Balaji, Rajasthan. She deposed as correct that the present incident occurred on 12.10.2015 and also stated to be correct that the accused gave beatings to her with fists and legs/kicks after laying her down in the street.
PW2 ASI Dharampal deposed that on 12.10.2015 he was posted at PS Mahendra Park when on that day he was on duty from 4:00 pm till 12:00 midnight and at about 8:00 pm rukka was handed over to him by HC Thomas and he registered FIR bearing no. 912/15. Witness proved the computerized copy of the same as Ex. PW-2/A and the certificate u/s 65 B as Ex. PW-2/B. Witness also deposed that he endorsed the rukka and same was proved as Ex. PW-2/C. He further deposed that after that copy of FIR alongwith the rukka was handed over to Ct. Shri Bhagwan for handing over the same to the IO at the spot.
PW3 ASI Anju Bala deposed that on 12.10.2015 she was posted as HC at PS Mahendra Park when on that day on the instructions of the IO she took the complainant Smt. Meenakshi Mishra to BJRM hospital for her medical examination where she was duly examined and her MLC was prepared. Thereafter, she returned back to the PS and handed over the MLC of the complainant to the IO.
PW4 HC Anil Kumar deposed that on 06.11.2015 he was posted at PS Mahendra Park as constable and on that day, accused Niranjan Mishra came to the PS where he was interrogated by HC Thomas and after interrogation accused was arrested by HC Thomas vide arrest memo Ex. PW-4/A.Witness identified the accused in court.
PW5 Smt. Lalita deposed that her daughter namely Smt. Meenakshi got married to the accused Niranjan Mishra. Witness identified the accused in FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 4/15 court and deposed that in the year 2007 when her daughter was married they were told that the accused was working in an NGO, however after marriage her daughter told her that the accused is not working any where and instead used to give beatings to her daughter. She deposed that the accused used to regularly beat her daughter and the present case FIR was got registered against the accused on 12.10.2015 for the beatings given to her daughter by the accused.
PW6 HC Shri Bhagwan deposed that on 12.10.2015 he was posted as constable at PS Mahendra Park and was on emergency duty, when during duty hours complainant Meenakshi Mishra came to the PS and gave her complaint. He deposed that there after DO register an FIR, copy of FIR and original tehrir was handed over to the witness and he had given the same to IO/HC Thomas at the spot of the incident and thereafter when they came back to the PS, IO recorded his statement.
5. After all witnesses of prosecution were examined and cross-examined at length, evidence of prosecution was closed. The court thereafter, in compliance with Section 313/281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioned the accused regarding the incriminating facts and evidence that surfaced in prosecution's evidence against him and granted him an opportunity to furnish his explanation for the same. The accused explained his side of the story, while denying the allegations of prosecution. He also opted to lead defence evidence.
6. Defence evidence was led by the accused. First and foremost, he examined himself as DW1 after court allowed his application under Section 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He also examined one Shri Azam Khan as DW2 who was the friend of accused and negated the FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 5/15 occurrence of any fight of accused with his wife Meenakshi Mishra. The testimonies of both witnesses are as under:
DW1 Niranjan Mishra deposed that the present case is a false case against him. He deposed that the complainant wants divorce from him but he does not want to give her divorce. He deposed that the complainant has three sisters and all of them have filed similar matrimonial cases for maintainance against their in-laws for grabbing money from them. He depsoed that he never quarrled with his wife.
DW2 Azam Khan deposed that he has appeared on the asking of the accused Niranjan Mishra as he has told him about the registration of the present case against him. He deposed that the accused is his neighbour for the last 25-30 years and is a good friend of the witness. He further deposed that no quarrel had taken place between the accused and his wife in his presence and that he knows the family of the accused very well for the last 25-30 years and is also on visiting terms with them.
Both witnesses of defence side were extensively cross examined by Ld. APP for State.
7. Defence evidence was closed.
8. Matter was listed for final arguments.
9. Ld. Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State contended that prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, accordingly, the accused ought to be convicted in the present case. Ld. Counsel for accused per contra submitted that prosecution has put forth a weak case as there are gaping loopholes in the story furnished by it. He FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 6/15 contended that depositions of prosecution's witnesses, especially the testimony of PW1 who was the wife of accused ought not to be believed because it is filled with falsities and is nothing but a bundle of lies. He further contended that keeping in view the weaknesses and infirmities of prosecution's case, the accused ought to be acquitted in the present case.
10.Submissions heard. Record extensively perused.
11.Prosecution's side of the story showcased by the chargesheet and supporting documents is that on 12/10/2015 at about 1 pm in the street/gali in front of house bearing no. 1670, I-Block, Jahangirpuri, Delhi, the accused Niranjan Mishra wrongfully restrained his wife Meenakshi Mishra and have her beatings with kicks and fist blows resulting in simple injuries on her body. It is alleged by prosecution that on account of this factual situation, FIR was got registered against the accused by the complainant wife on the same day and police authorities thereafter initiated investigation on her allegations. On these facts, it is alleged by prosecution are that accused committed offences punishable under Section 341/323 IPC.
12.It is trite law that according to the well-established principles of criminal jurisprudence, the onus is always on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is also settled legal position, that the accused is presumed to be innocent unless he is proven guilty and that prosecution's case has to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit/gain from the shortcomings in the defence of accused.
13.From a coalesced evaluation of the factual matrix of prosecution's case, the well-considered observations of this court are that the allegations FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 7/15 levelled against the accused herein have been alleged by his wife Ms. Meenakshi Mishra who has alleged that on 12/10/2015 she was beaten up by her husband accused Niranjan Mishra during the day i.e. at about 1:00 pm inside the house and also out of the house in the gali, when she tried to escape from his beatings. Prosecution's witness Ms. Meenakshi Mishra was summoned by court as PW1. The witness completely supported prosecution's case and reiterated the contents of her statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She affirmed that on the day of incident the accused was in a state of acute alcohol intoxication and under the influence of alcohol he gave severe beatings with kicks and fists to PW1 in the house and later after shoving her down in the street/gali, again he beat her with kicks and fists. PW1 was cross- examined at length by the counsel for accused, but in the considered opinion of this court, she stood the test of cross-examination and supported prosecution's case, through and through. The broad lines of defence raised by the counsel for accused aimed to mire PW1 in a volley of confusing questions so that she directly or indirectly denies the occurrence of the incident, but PW1 firmly reiterated all details regarding the incident and cogently and convincingly explained even minute details about what had transpired. Besides this, no inconsistencies or contradictions could be elicited in the cross-examination of PW1 by the counsel for accused. The testimony of PW1 appeared to be truthful and hence totally believable.
14. Ld. Counsel for accused challenged the veracity of the testimony of PW1 primarily on two counts. He contended that the married life of PW1 and the accused was going through a rough weather for several years. Even though the couple was blessed with two boys out of their wedlock, but FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 8/15 PW1 did not stay with her husband for long and the parties did not enjoy a healthy married life. He contended that this fact has been admitted by PW1 in her cross-examination where she admitted that she has stayed only for a few days with accused, hence PW1 was an interested witness who had cent percent interest and motive to get her husband convicted in the present case, to seek vengeance against him. He contended that it therefore, can be effortlessly implied that testimony of PW1 is tainted with mala fides and ill-feelings against the accused, hence it ought not to be believed.
15. I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions advanced by the Ld. Counsel for accused. It is indisputably clear from the mere existence and pendency of the present criminal proceedings against the accused, that the married life of the parties has been on the rocks for the last several years. From the testimony of PW1, the problem of acute alcoholism of accused followed by her physical abuse by accused, has been attributed as the reason for initiation of the present criminal proceedings. His heavy addiction to alcohol has also been admitted by the accused in his evidence, who examined himself as DW1. Accused also categorically admitted in his cross-examination by Ld. APP for the State that due to his strong addiction to alcohol, he was got admitted by PW1, twice to Drugs-De-addiction Centre, but each time he returned from the Drugs De-addiction Centre after about 6-7 days. He also specifically admitted in his cross-examination that he was habitual of drinking alcohol on a daily basis due to which he was got admitted to the Drugs De- addiction Centre by his wife. The clear and cogent admission made by the accused regarding his problem of alcoholism clearly corroborates the testimony of PW1 who testified that even on the day of incident, the FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 9/15 accused was in a state of heavy intoxication and inflicted kicks and fist blows on her in the street/gali outside their house. In view of the specific admission by accused about his problem of alcoholism and that he was habitual of drinking alcohol on a daily basis, the testimony of PW1 stands partially corroborated by the testimony of accused itself, where she deposed that accused beat her while he was in a state of intoxication.
16.Coming now to the argument of Ld. Counsel for accused that PW1 is an interested witness. If one goes by this contention of Ld. Counsel for accused, then labelling PW1 as an interested witness, interested to seek vengeance from accused, would tantamount to grossly trivializing her victimization by the accused, resulting in discounting the physical and mental abuse suffered by her at the hands of the accused. It is most commonly seen in the conservative patriarchal family set up dominating the Indian society all across the board and especially amongst the middle- class and the lower middle-class strata of the society, that women are counselled by their near and dear ones to prolong initiating legal action to the hilt, so that the unity of the family is not disrupted. In such circumstances the woman continues to live as the scathed, traumatized and hapless saviour of the family unity. Labelling such woman, merely as an interested witness would be causing gross injustice to her. Hence the contention of Ld. Counsel for accused that PW1 was merely an interested witness does not appeal to the reason of this court and stands rejected, outright. In my considered view, PW1 was the victim of abuse by her husband and sole reliance can be placed on her testimony for holding the accused guilty.
17. It is settled position of law that in criminal proceedings, conviction can be based even solely on the testimony of the victim if it is found to be of FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 10/15 sterling quality, clear and absolutely cogent. It is also another established position of law that corroboration from other independent sources is only a rule of prudence and a not rule of law, meaning thereby that the court can convict the accused solely on the clear, cogent and convincing testimony of the victim sans corroboration from any independent source. Likewise, in the present case, since the cogent and clear testimony of PW1 read completely inspires confidence, the same can be relied upon completely. [Reliance is placed on State vs P.K. Jain And Anr., 2007 CriLJ 4137 and Johnson vs. State, 2006 (4) CHN 870]
18. The defence side further challenged the prosecution's case on the ground that no public witness was examined by prosecution, notwithstanding the fact that PW1 alleged that accused beat her in the street/gali outside their house. With regard to this contention of the defence side, the foremost plausible explanation is forthcoming from the testimony of PW1 itself, where she has testified that even though her husband beat her in the street, yet nobody came forward to save her. This explanation appears plausible and believable because normally in the social and economic setup of the society to which the parties herein belong, members of the public including the neighbours usually turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to incidents of matrimonial discords, thinking they are common occurrence in every household. Besides this, the general apathetic attitude of not involving oneself in private lives of other people especially fighting couples, also prevails their thoughts and actions. Reliance herein is placed on the Supreme Court judgment of Appabhai And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat, AIR 1988 SC 696, where the Hon'ble Apex court observed:
"It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 11/15 cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused."
Hence, merely because no public person has been examined by prosecution as a witness in addition to PW1, doesn't mean that prosecution's case can be doubted and overthrown on this ground and version of PW1 can be rejected. This argument of the defence counsel also stands rejected for the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraph.
19. Thirdly, the defence counsel argued that prosecution has failed to prove on record the MLC of PW1, inspite of the fact that PW3 has deposed that she took PW1 for the medical examination. In the facts of the present case, the accused has admittedly been charged with the offences of wrongfully restraining and causing simple hurt with fists and kicks to his wife Ms. Meenakshi. The testimony of PW1 has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused caught hold of her and beat her in the street with fists and kicks. Immediately after the incident on the same day, the FIR was also registered by the police on the statement of PW1 proved as Ex.PW1/A and according to the version of PW3 she took PW1 to BJRM Hospital for her medical examination which took about 15 minutes. Testimony of PW3 has remained unchallenged that no medical examination of PW1 was got conducted by her, thus merely because the FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 12/15 MLC of PW1 is not proved in evidence would not result in denying the occurrence of incident in question. Moreover, it is common sense that for proving simple injuries on a person, medical examination or medical report is not always necessary. Even if a person is slapped or kicked or pushed without there being any proof of patent injuries or bleeding or swelling on his/her body, case of simple injuries can be made out. Moreover, in the facts of the present case, as per the testimony of PW3, PW1 was medically examined from BJRM Hospital and after the examination, PW3 handed over the MLC to the IO. But, the IO of the case admittedly expired during trial and the MLC could not be proved on record. In view of these circumstances, considering the totality of the facts of the case, I fail to appreciate the argument of the defence counsel that for failure of prosecution to bring on record the MLC of PW1, prosecution's case would be torpedoed. The allegations of causing simple injuries to PW1 have been duly proved vide the deposition of PW1 itself. Hence contention of the defence counsel stands rejected, outright.
20.Lastly the accused in his defence himself stepped into the witness box and examined one of his friends in support of his case. But on examination of the testimonies of both witnesses, it has been observed that their testimonies have failed to shake the foundations of the prosecution's case which has been built on the cogent and convincing testimony of PW1.
21.The accused during his evidence sought to introduce a different angle to rebut the prosecution's case by alleging that his wife and her two sisters were all having matrimonial discord with their respective husbands and matrimonial family and sought to portray a negative picture by deposing that PW-1 and her siblings were used to filing false case against their FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 13/15 matrimonial families for the purpose of grabbing money from them. This defence of accused is nothing but a vague and bold theory without any documentary evidence to substantiate the same. The said defence of the accused therefore stands declined and rejected for the reasons above- mentioned.
22.Last but not least, the witness namely Azam Khan testifying as DW-2 alleged that no incident of quarrel had occurred in his presence between the accused and PW-1. The witness however no where testified that on the date of the incident i.e. on 12.10.2015 he was present at the residence of the accused. The witness DW-2 was thus apparently not an eye witness to the incident alleged by PW-1, hence his testimony holds no relevance for controverting the case of prosecution, proved cogently and convincingly by PW-1. Moreover, DW-2 clearly appears to be an interested witness and not an independent witness as he admitted to have known the accused for the last 25-30 years and was also a good friend of the accused and most pertinently he had appeared in court to testify in favour of the accused on the request of accused. Therefore, the deposition of DW-2 appears to be tainted to safeguard the accused at any cost. Testimony of the witness is therefore discarded from consideration as it appears to be untruthful.
23.In light of the above-stated facts, circumstances and evaluation of evidence in its totality, I am of the considered opinion that the accused Niranjan Mishra has committed the offences punishable under Section323/341 IPC. The accused Niranjan Mishra is accordingly convicted for the offences under Section323/341 IPC.
24.Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 14/15
25.Copy of the order and judgment be supplied to accused free of cost.
(This judgment contains 15 pages and (Neeti Suri Mishra) all have been signed by undersigned) A.C.M.M. (North)/Rohini Courts Delhi/28.03.2023 FIR No. 912/15 State vs Niranjan Mishra page no. 15/15