Delhi District Court
State vs Lekhraj on 10 March, 2025
State Vs. Lekhraj
IN THE COURT OF MS. PAYAL SINGAL,
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS-09, CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
State v. Lekhraj & Ors.
FIR No. 1009/2015
PS Burari
U/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
Cr. Case No. 10090/2018
JUDGMENT
1) CNR Number of the case : DLCT02-022767-2018
2)The date of commission of offence : 18.08.2015
3) The name of the complainant : Smt. Geeta Devi
4) The name & parentage of accused : 1) Lekhraj s/o Late Sh.
Amar Nath
2) Poonam Saxena w/o Sh. Ashok Saxena
3) 'K' d/o 'A' (JCL)
5) Offence complained of : u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC
6) The plea of accused persons : Both pleaded not guilty
7) Final order : Both acquitted Date of Institution : 11.07.2018 Judgment reserved on : 03.02.2025 Judgment announced on : 10.03.2025 BRIEF FACTS:
1) The brief case of the prosecution is that on 18.08.2015 at about 8.15 pm at Shani Mandir at 41 Foota Road, Tomar Colony, Burari, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Burari, Digitally FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 1 of 16 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:06 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj both the accused persons alongwith JCL 'K' in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained the complainant Geeta and gave beatings to her due to which she sustained simple injuries. Thereby, both the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 323/341/34 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC). It is further the case of the prosecution that on the abovesaid date, time and place, both the accused persons alongwith JCL 'K' in furtherance of your common intention also gave beatings to one Arvind Srivastav who came to the rescue of the complainant and due to the said beatings, he sustained grievous injuries. Thereby, both the accused persons committed an offence punishable u/s 325/34 IPC.
2) After completion of the investigation, the chargesheet was filed in the court, upon which cognizance was taken and compliance was made with the provisions of Section 207 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) Thereafter, arguments on the point of charge were heard and vide order dated 20.09.2019, charge was framed u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Thereafter, the case was proceeded further for prosecution evidence.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE:
3) Before proceeding with the prosecution evidence, it is relevant to mention here that during the course of trial, both the accused persons had admitted the copy of FIR FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 2 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:13 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj (Ex. AD1); endorsement on Rukka (Ex. AD2), certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act (Ex. AD3) and MLC No. 3369/15 (Ex.PWA AD4) without admitting the contents of the said documents. Thus, the said witnesses were not summoned.
4) It is relevant to note that on 17.05.2023, DVR qua PW Ct Shamsher was filed accordingly, the said witness unfortunately could not be examined.
5) Accordingly, to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined the remaining five witnesses in support of its case i.e. PW-1 Geeta Gupta i.e. the complainant/injured; PW-2 Arvind Srivastav i.e. the other injured; PW-3 Dr. Sangeeta Singh; PW-4 SI Vinod Kumar and PW-5 HC Hari Narayan. Now, the relevant portions of the testimonies of all these witnesses shall be discussed one by one.
6) PW-1 Smt. Geeta Gupta deposed that she resides at H. No. B-53, Gali No. 10, Tomar Colony, Burari, Delhi with her family and that on 18.08.2015 at about 8.00 pm, she alongwith her daughter namely Surbhi had went to the market at Tomar Colony. PW-1 stated that when they were buying deities (prasad) from the shop, accused persons namely Poonam, her brother Lekhraj Sirivastava and her daughter Apoorva were also present there and the said accused persons started having verbal altercation with her.
PW-1 then deposed that thereafter, the accused persons started beating her and she also called on 100 number wherafter, some time later, police personnels came and FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 3 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date: SINGAL 2025.03.10 17:53:20 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj took her to the hospital for her medical examination. PW-1 then stated that at the time of the incident, one person namely Arvind i.e. the brother of the accused Poonam came to her rescue but he too was beaten up by the accused persons and that too after the arrival of the police persons due to which his eardrum was injured. Then, PW-1 stated that the accused persons also lodged a false case of rape against her son Saurabh who was not available at the spot. PW-1 further stated that after returning from the hospital, she lodged her written complaint on 19.08.2015 which is Ex.PW-1/A whereafter, the statement of Arvind was gotten recorded by the police. The said witness correctly identified the accused persons in court but she stated that she did not know anything else owing to which she was put some leading questions by the ld. APP for the State after permission of the Court. During the said process, the witness admitted that during the incident, her earrings and chain were also lost and that she had stated in her written complaint that she had also previously lodged the complaint against the accused Poonam. The witness further admitted that she had gotten her complaint written through Arvind Kumar and that on 19.08.2015, she alongwith the police officials had visited the spot of incident and police officials had prepared the site plan, Ex.PW-1/B at her instance. She further admitted that she alongwith police officials had tried to search for the accused persons but they could not be found whereafter, her statement was recorded by the police.
FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 4 of 16 Digitally
signed by
PAYAL
PAYAL SINGAL
SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10
17:53:27
+0530
State Vs. Lekhraj
7) PW-2 Sh. Arvind Srivastava deposed that he resides at 725/4, Tomar Colony, Burari, Delhi with his family and that on 18.08.2015, at about 8.00 p.m.-8.15 p.m., he left his house on his scooter for going to Sant Nagar Road Market. PW-2 stated that when he reached near Shani Mandir, he saw his neighbor namely Geeta with her daughter Surbhi were also present at the gate of said mandir and in the meantime, accused Lekhraj, Apoorva and Poonam, who were already present there, had encircled Geeta and they started beating Geeta. PW-2 deposed that the accused persons had pulled the hairs and torn the clothes of Geeta and they also gave beatings to her daughter and when he tried to intervene in order to separate them, then he was also beaten by the aforesaid accused persons. PW-2 deposed that accused Lekhraj gave a hard slap at his right ear due to which his eardrum got damaged and the other accused persons namely Poonam and Apoorva gave him beatings with hands and leg blows. Then, PW-2 deposed that the public persons gathered there saved him from the clutches of accused persons whereafter, he called at 100 number but PCR did not reach at the spot. Then, PW-2 stated that he along with Geeta and her daughter Surbhi went to PS Burari where they narrated the whole incident to the police and police directed them to go to AAA hospital for medical examination and treatment. Accordingly, they went to AAA hospital, where they were medically examined and treated whereafter, they again came to PS Burari and police recorded statement of Geeta, FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 5 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:34 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj her daughter and himself. the said witness correctly identified both the accused persons in court.
8) PW-3 Dr. Sangeet Singh was a formal witness who deposed that on 19.08.2015, she was posted as Senior Resident at ENT department in AAA hospital and on that day, one patient namely Arvind with alleged history of physical assault by some known-unknown person at right ear was referred to her by casualty department.
Accordingly, patient came and on examination, she found that the patient had traumatic perforation of right tympanic membrane (hole in eardrum) whereafter, she got conducted the pure tone audiometry test of the patient and found that there is mild conductive hearing loss in right ear and left ear was having normal hearing. PW-3 deposed that on the basis of her examination and aforesaid diagnostic test, the nature of injury was opined to be as grievous vide MLC 3370/15 of patient Arvind, which is Ex. PW3/A.
9) PW-4 SI Vinod Kumar deposed that on 18.02.2015, he was posted as ASI at PS Burari and on that day, he was on emergency duty from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm when DD entry 85 B regarding quarrel was marked to him. Then, PW-4 deposed that after receiving the same, he went to the spot i.e. 41 Foota Road, Shani Mandir, Tomar Colony where, he could not find the complainant or injured and got to know that the injured was removed to AAA Hospital. PW-4 then deposed that thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Shamsher reached at AAA Hospital where he received the MLC of injured namely Geeta, Surbhi and Arvind but all the FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 6 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:41 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj injured persons had already left the hospital whereafter, he returned to the PS where Geeta, Surbhi and Arvind were present alongwith CCL Apoorva. Then, PW-4 deposed that he instructed Ct. Shamsher and lady Ct. Manisha to took the CCL Apoorva for medical examination to AAA Hospital whereafter, he asked Geeta and Surbhi to give their statement but they did not give their statement on that day and left the PS. In a meanwhile CCL Apoorva also reached at the PS and she also refused to give any statement and left the PS. Then, PW-4 deposed that he narrated the incident to senior officials who instructed him to keep the DD No. 85 B pending and then, on next day i.e. 19.08.2015, complainant Geeta and injured Arvind reached at the PS and at the instruction of Geeta, Arvind write down the complaint and handed over the same to him and on the basis the said complaint, he prepared tehrir which is Ex. PW4/A and handed over the tehrir to DO for registration of FIR. Thereafter, PW-4 deposed that he alongwith Geeta and Arvind reached at the spot and at the instance of Geeta, he prepared site plan Ex. PW1/B whereafter, he alongwith complainant Geeta and injured Arvind made all the possible efforts to search the accused persons and in the meanwhile, Ct. Shamsher also reached there and handed over the computerized copy of FIR and original tehrir to him, but despite best efforts to search the accused persons in their respective places i.e. Tomar Colony and near vicinity, they could not be found. Then, PW-4 deposed that after two-three days, he deposited the Digitally FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 7 of 16 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:48 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj MLC of the injured for getting the result of nature of injury at MRD office, Aruna Asif Ali and after getting the result, the specific section were added in the charge sheet whereafter, he served notice u/s 160 Cr.P.C to the accused persons Lekhraj and Poonam but they did not join the investigation. The said notices is Ex. PW4/B (colly 1 to 3) and after securing of the presence of accused persons vide pabandinama which is Ex. PW4/C (colly 1 to 3) and following the guidelines of the Supreme Court, he prepared the charge sheet whereafter, he got transferred to PS Bara Hindu Rao and so, he deposited the present file to MHC(R). the said witness correctly identified both the accused persons in court.
10) PW-5 HC Hari Narayan was a formal witness who deposed that on 15.12.2017, while being posted as HC at PS Burari, the present file was marked to him and after making compliance with the objections raised by the prosecution Department, he filed the chargesheet before the Court.
11) All the witness were duly cross examined by the Ld. Defence counsel wherein some material facts have come on record which shall be duly dealt with in the reasoning part of the judgment.
STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED:
12) Thereafter, PE was closed and statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C were separately recorded on 23.08.2024 wherein both the accused persons denied the FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 8 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:53:55 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj case of the prosecution and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the present case. The accused persons further chose not to lead any defence evidence and accordingly, DE was closed and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:
13) The arguments were advanced by Ms. Meenakshi Mohan, Ld. counsel on behalf of both the accused persons, Sh. Suresh Sharma, Ld. counsel for the complainant and injured and Sh. Rohit Lohat, Ld. APP for the State.
14) It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the accused persons that the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence was that the prosecution was required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt which the prosecution had miserably failed to do in the case at hand. It was argued that the present case was nothing but a counterblast to the case registered against the son of the accused Poonam under the POCSO act which was evident from the fact that the FIR was registered on 19.08.2015 when the incident was of a previous date. It was further argued that the FIR was completely devoid of any mention of the injured Arvind and it was at his behest that the FIR was only registered and even as per the complainant, the complaint that she gave to the police was gotten written by the said Arvind only. It was then argued that the said Arvind was the real brother of the accused and the present case was instituted to settle personal scores and FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 9 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.10 17:54:02 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj has no merits. Accordingly, it was argued that reasonable doubts had been raised in the prosecution story, the benefit of which necessarily had to be given to the accused as per the settled law and thus, the accused persons were entitled to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
15) Per contra, it was argued by the Ld. APP for the state, assisted by the Ld. counsel for the complainant that there were ocular and documentary evidences on record to bring home the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. It was argued that the accused persons had failed to bring any contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, who were both of the injured herself and their testimony, duly corroborated by the testimonies of all police witnesses was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused persons. Accordingly, it was argued that the state had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the accused persons were liable to be convicted of the offence u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC.
16) I have heard the arguments from both the sides and have carefully gone through the record.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT:
17) In the case at hand, in a nutshell, it is the case of the prosecution that both the accused persons alongwith JCL 'K' stopped the complainant, beat her with slaps and fists and while the injured Arvind tried to save the complainant, they beat him as well owing to which his eardrum got injured and thus the accused persons are guilty of the Digitally FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 10 of 16 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:10 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj offence u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC. Per contra, it is the case of the accused persons that the present matter has been instituted to put pressure on the accused persons to withdraw the case registered under POCSO Act that has been filed by them/their family members against the son of the complainant Geeta namely Saurabh, however, the defence has not led any evidence to support its version. Nonetheless, as per settled law, the court is merely to see whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt without going into the fact whether accused have been able to prove their case or not.
18) Now, before proceeding further, it is relevant to note the bare provisions of law which are to govern the decision of the present case.
Section 321 provides the definition of Voluntarily causing hurt.--"Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said "voluntarily to cause hurt""
Section 323 IPC provides for punishment for voluntarily causing hurt and lays down that : "whoever except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily caused hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both."
Section 322 provides the definition of Voluntarily causing FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 11 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:18 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj grievous hurt: "Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt""
Section 325 provides the punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt: "Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 341 IPC provides the punishment for wrongful restraint: "Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both." Section 34 IPC lays down that "when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
19) Now, the facts of the present case shall be dealt with in detail to see whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the allegations u/s323/325/341/34 against the accused persons Lekhraj and Poonam.
20) At the first instance, the prosecution has relied upon two public witnesses, being the injured persons themselves to bring home the guilt of the accused persons. Now, the testimony of both these witnesses corroborates each other FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 12 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:25 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj on the general points being that the accused persons with JCL 'K' gave beatings to the complainant and the injured Arvind while he was trying to rescue the complainant during which the eardrum of the injured Arvind was damaged. However, both the testimonies are completely different on the exact nature of injuries/beatings. On the one hand, the complainant merely states that a verbal alteration took place and the accused persons started beating her and when the injured Arvind tried to help her, the accused persons beat him as well but does not give any more details about how the beatings were given or their exact particulars. On the other hand, PW-2 very clearly mentions that accused persons encircled Geeta, gave beatings to her and her daughter, they pulled the hair of Geeta and also torn her clothes' and when he tried to intervene, accused Lekhraj slapped him on his right ear and accused Poonam and Apoorva gave him beatings with hands and leg blows; the details as mentioned by PW-2 as to what transpired with PW-1 is missing from the testimony of PW-1 herself. Furthermore, as per the testimony of PW-1/complainant, after the alleged incident, she called 100 number after which the police officials came at the spot and took the injured persons to the hospital but in the testimony of PW-2, he states that he called 100 number but police did not come and he alongwith Geeta and her daughter, themselves went to the PS. Thus, there come material contradictions in the testimonies of both the said witnesses qua the FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 13 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:33 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj circumstances of the alleged incident.
21) Now, what assumes significance to note here is that PW-1 Smt. Geeta admitted in her chief examination that the complaint that she gave at the PS was gotten written for her by PW-2 Arvind, who is stated to the brother of accused Lekhraj. What also assumes significance is that PW-1 stated in her chief-examination that the accused persons had filed a false rape case against her son Sourabh.
In these circumstances, it becomes clear that there is some enmity/rivalry between PW-2 Arvind with his brother i.e. accused Lekhraj as he is appearing as a witness against the said accused and also that some litigation is ongoing between PW-1/Complainant/ her family and the accused persons.
22) Now, although, nothing prevents the court from relying upon the testimonies of the said two witnesses, however, in view of these circumstances and the contradictions in the testimonies of these two witnesses, when the testimonies of both the said PWs 1 and 2 are read together, they do not inspire the confidence of the court as the possibility that the said persons might be deposing falsely to settle their personal scores cannot be ruled out. Moreover, it also cannot be ignored that it might be the case that complainant is deposing at the behest of PW-2. Accordingly, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to examine some independent witnesses who would have seen the alleged offence which the prosecution has failed to do even though, the testimony of PW-2 clearly mentions Digitally FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 14 of 16 signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:41 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj that public persons gathered at the spot saved him from the clutches of the accused persons.
23) As far as the remaining witnesses are concerned, PW-3, being the doctor is only a formal witness and has no information about the facts of the case. Similarly, PW-5, being police official only filed the chargesheet and again has no information about the facts/investigation. The only remaining witness is PW-4 i.e the IO who deposed that when they reached at the spot, injured or accused were not found as they had been taken to the hospital and on reaching at the hospital, the injured were not found there and only there MLCs could be collected. Furthermore, PW-4 deposed that injured persons refused to give any statement the said day and came back later on the next day to give their statement in which case, the possibility of improvement/ after-thought also cannot be ignored.
24) In the given circumstances, the court is of the considered opinion that PW-1 and PW-2 cannot be taken to be independent witnesses whose testimonies can be solely relied upon to prove the allegations against the accused persons, given their family history and previous involvement in litigations. The court is also of the view that in the facts and circumstances as discussed above, in the absence of the testimony of any other independent witness, the prosecution has failed to prove the allegations against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.
25) Accordingly, in view of the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 15 of 16 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL SINGAL Date:
2025.03.10 17:54:48 +0530 State Vs. Lekhraj innocent until his guilt is proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the general burden of which is always upon the prosecution and it never shifts and that it is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from 'may have' to 'must have' and if the same is not done, the benefit of any and every lacuna has to necessarily go to the accused person/s; in the present case, since the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, both accused persons Lekhraj and Poonam are acquitted in the present case for offences u/s 323/325/341/34 IPC.
(Announced in open Court On 10.03.2025 ) (PAYAL SINGAL) JMFC-09/Central/THC 10.03.2025 The judgment contains 16 pages and all the pages bears my signatures.
(PAYAL SINGAL) JMFC-09/Central/THC 10.03.2025 Digitally signed by PAYAL PAYAL SINGAL Date:
SINGAL 2025.03.10
17:54:56
+0530
FIR No. 1009/2015, PS Burari Page No. 16 of 16