Delhi District Court
State vs . Amarjeet & Ors. on 21 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. TYAGITA SINGH: METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
(SOUTH WEST)-01, MAHILA COURT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Amarjeet & ors.
FIR NO: 149/2004
P. S. Dwarka
Case ID No. 02405R13232004
Date of institution of case : 10.06.2005
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 04.07.2014
Date of judgment : 21.07.2014
Advocates appearing in the case :-
Sh. Anil Kumar, Ld. APP for State
Sh. S.K. Balyan, Ld. Counsel for accused persons.
JUDGEMENT U/S 355 Cr.P.C.:
a) Date of offence : 11.04.2004
b) Offence complained of : U/s 451/354/323/34 IPC
c) Name of complainant : Sh. Devraj Gupta
d) Name of accused, his parentage, : (i)Amarjeet @ Bittu
local & permanent residence s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
(ii)Ram Swaroop (since expired
and case stands abated against
him vide order dated
22.11.2012).
(iii)Asha
w/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
(iii)Devender @ Monu
s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop
all r/o RZ-330/C, Rajnagar-II,
Palam Colony, New Delhi.
e) Plea of accused : Accused are falsely implicated.
f) Final order : Accused are acquitted.
BRIEF FACTS OF CASE OF PROSECUTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The present FIR was lodged on the complaint of FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 1/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
complainant Devraj Gupta dated 11.04.2004. Brief facts of the original complaint(written in Hindi) on the basis of which FIR was lodged are as follows:-
1.1 The complainant has stated that he alongwith his family is residing at house no. RZ-686/B-200, Raj Nagar-I, Palam Colony, New Delhi and he works in All India Radio and he has given one room set at the ground floor of the said house to accused Amarjeet Singh s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop since past 8 years.
1.2 The complainant further stated that he had already filed case for eviction of the premises, against accused Amarjeet, which is pending in Tis Hazari Court and due to this reason, accused tries to quarrel with him on one pretext or the other and harasses them.
Complainant further stated that in February 2004 also, accused Amarjeet and his brother had quarreled with complainant and his family and cross cases were lodged against them.
1.3 The complainant further alleged that on 11.04.2004, when he alongwith his wife Vijay Laxmi was at first floor of their house, at about 3.30 p.m, accused Amarjeet @ Bittu and Devender Singh @ Monu, both sons of Sh. Ram Swaroop reached at the first floor and started beating them. He further stated that accused Amarjeet hit wife of complainant with a hammer and the hammer struck near the eye of the victim and accused Devender Singh started beating the complainant with a rod(danda) due to which both the complainant and his wife suffered injuries. 1.4 The complainant further stated that in this process, accused Amarjeet tore the blouse of his wife and in the meantime, FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 2/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
accused Ram Swaroop and Asha Devi who are the mother and father of accused Amarjeet, also reached at the spot and they also started beating complainant and his wife, due to which many people of the locality gathered and saved them. Complainant alleged that accused Amarjeet Singh @ Bittu, Devender Singh @ Monu, Ram Swaroop and Asha Devi entered the first floor of his house and beat him and his wife and strict legal action be taken against them.
2. On the basis of abovestated averments of the complainant in his complaint dated 11.04.2004, present FIR was lodged on the same date i.e on 11.04.2004 at about 9.30 p.m. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed by the IO against all accused persons. Ld. Predecessor Court framed charge u/s 354 IPC against accused Amarjeet @ Bittu and charge u/s 451/323/34 IPC against all the accused persons namely Ram Swaroop, Asha Devi, Amarjeet and Devender vide order dated 03.06.2008 and case was fixed for Prosecution's Evidence.
3. During pendency of the proceedings, accused Ram Swaroop expired and case against him was abated on 22.11.2012.
4. The prosecution has examined five witnesses on its behalf to prove its case against the accused persons.
5. PW1 is Duty Officer HC Pritam Singh who exhibited copy of FIR as Ex. Pw1/A and endorsement made by him on rukka as Ex. Pw1/B and the original record of FIR was seen and returned.
6. PW2 is victim Smt. Vijay Laxmi, who is wife of complainant.
FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 3/19
St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
6.1 In her examination-in-chief dated 21.02.2011, she stated
that in the year 2004, she alongwith her family was residing at house no. 686-B/200, Palam Village, Raj Nagar-I, New Delhi and they had given one room and kitchen on the ground floor on rent to Amarjeet s/o Sh. Ram Swaroop . She stated that they were residing at the first floor of the said house and accused was residing at the ground floor for about 7 years prior to the incident. She further stated that a case for eviction of the accused was pending in Tis Hazari court and accused used to trouble them because of said case.
6.2 PW2 further alleged that on 11.04.2004, she and her husband were present in their house and at about 3.30 p.m, accused Amarjeet and Devender Singh came inside the house and asked about her daughter and started beating her and accused Amarjeet caught hold of her hair and struck her with a hammer which landed on her left eye and accused Devender caused beating to her husband by Danda(rod). 6.3 Pw2 further alleged that accused Ram Swaroop and Asha Devi also came there and Ram Swaroop told Amarjeet "Ayse Nahi Bataygi, Iski Bejazzati Karni Paregi"(she will not tell in this manner and she will have to be insulted), on which accused Amarjeet tore her blouse and put his hand in it and accused Ram Swaroop and Asha beat her husband. PW2 further stated that they raised hue and cry, on which their neighbours came and rescued them from accused persons and her husband called the police and police came and took them to hospital. She marked her MLC as mark A and stated that her statement was recorded by the police and her torn blouse was also taken in possession by the FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 4/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
police.
6.4 PW2 further stated that accused Amarjeet wanted to marry her daughter, to which they did not agree and accused threatened them on 11.02.2004 that he will take away their daughter due to which they had lodged complaint to the police. PW2 further deposed that in January 2004, they had filed complaint to the police regarding the abovesaid threat, on which police had told accused Amarjeet not to visit their house but in February 2004, accused alongwith his two brothers again came there and fought with them, in which her son also suffered injuries and the matter was reported to the police. 6.5 PW2 further alleged that on 07.02.2004, accused Amarjeet alongwith his brother again came to her house and was trying to take away their articles alongwith his own articles and when she stopped them, accused fought with them and her son also suffered injuries and cross cases were lodged against each other. She identified all the accused persons in the court.
6.6 In her further examination-in-chief dated 20.05.2011, Pw2 identified her blouse brought as case property by the MHC(M). The blouse was torn from the front side and was of light red colour and it had been sealed with seal of JRB and the seal was opened with permission of court. She correctly identified the blouse and exhibited it as case property Ex. P1.
6.7 In her cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel dated 27.04.2012, PW2 stated that accused Amarjeet used to reside in the tenanted accommodation given by them, for about 8 years prior to the FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 5/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
date of incident, and other accused persons often used to come to the house. She stated that accused remained with them in cordial relations for about first two and half years and made her daughter Arti as his sister and used to get Rakhi tied from her. Pw2 alleged that accused Amarjeet took her daughter into confidence and gradually developed sexual relationship with her daughter but she came to know about said affair about 3 years prior to the incident. She alleged that they did not report the matter to the police since accused Amarjeet had threatened them that he will publish the love letters got written by him from their daughter Arti. She stated that her daughter had not written her name in those letters. She further stated that accused Amarjeet threatened them that since the letters are in handwriting of Arti, public would come to know that letters had been written by Arti. PW2 further alleged that accused also made her write a letter requesting him to leave the rented accommodation and she wrote one letter in English and other letter in Hindi. She admitted one photocopy of letter which was marked as mark DA to be in her own handwriting. She also admitted that the letters Ex. Pw2/D1 and Ex. Pw2/D2 are in her handwriting.
6.8 In her further cross-examination dated 18.07.2012, the Ld. Defence Counsel showed her a set of photocopies of letters(running into 20 pages) and she admitted that all the photocopies were of the letters written by her to accused. The entire set of letters was collectively marked as mark DB. PW2 stated that accused Amarjeet had forced her to write these letters. She admitted that accused Amarjeet used to give regard to her as a mother. She further alleged that her son Abhijat had FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 6/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
gone to buy paint on the date of incident at 3p.m and both the accused had beaten him. She further stated that police was also present in the house when Abhijat had gone out of home to buy paint. 6.9 Pw2 further stated that when she was assaulted by accused persons, her husband was on the roof of the house. She stated that accused persons might have been beaten up by outsiders due to which accused Devender had head injuries and accused Amarjeet had been hit by a brick on his right shoulder and suffered fracture. She denied the suggestion that due to the injuries suffered by accused persons and due to the possibility of being booked in serious case, she and her family had lodged present false case against the accused.
7. Pw3 is Sh. Dev Raj Gupta who is main complainant in this case. He stated that he alongwith his family was residing at his earlier address RZ-686/B200, Raj Nagar-I, Palam Colony, New Delhi in the year 2004 and was working in All India Radio.
7.1 He stated that on 11.04.2004, he was present on the roof of his house when he heard shrieks of his wife and came downstairs and saw that accused Amarjeet, Devender, Ram Swaroop and Asha Devi were present there and all of them had grappled his wife and Amarjeet had torn her blouse.
7.2 Pw3 further stated that accused Ram Swaroop had caught the saree of his wife and Devender had pulled the hair of his wife and Asha Devi had caught his wife from behind and when he tried to save his wife from her, accused Devender hit him with a Danda(rod) which he was carrying and thereafter, he called neighbourers who intervened and FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 7/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
save them from accused persons. Pw3 further alleged that accused Amarjeet also fought with the neighbours and thereafter, ran away and locked himself in the room at ground floor, so police was called who took them to police station and then to hospital, where their medical examination was conducted. Pw3 marked his MLC as mark A and her statement recorded before the police as Ex. Pw3/A and identified his signatures on it.
7.3 Pw3 stated that he does not know when the police had arrested accused persons. All accused persons present in the court were correctly identified by the witness. He exhibited the seizure memo of the blouse of his wife as Ex. Pw3/B. The case property i.e. blouse was brought by MHC(M) which was duly identified by the witness and exhibited as Ex. P-1. Pw3 further stated that there were prior litigations between him and accused for eviction of accused from the rented accommodation. 7.4 Ld. APP cross- examined the witness with permission of the court since he was resiling from his previous statement. In his cross- examination by Ld. APP, Pw3 admitted that accused Amarjeet and Devender had come to the first floor. He denied the suggestion of the Ld. APP that accused Amarjeet had hit his wife with hammer injuring her eye and accused Devender had hit him with stick(danda). He denied the suggestion of Ld. APP that accused Ram Swaroop and Asha Devi had come afterwards and started beating him and his wife. The relevant portions of his statement (already Ex. Pw3/A) were confronted to him and marked from mark A to A and B to B but the witness still denied having given any such statement to the police. He voluntarily stated that when he FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 8/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
came downstairs, he saw all the four accused persons grappling with his wife and on his intervention, they also beat him. He admitted that police had recovered hammer from Amarjeet from his room which was seized by the police vide memo Ex. Pw3/PX1 bearing signatures of Pw3 at point A. 7.5 MHC(M) produced sealed pullanda bearing seal of JRB and seal was broken in the court and pullanda was opened and one hammer was taken out, which was duly identified by the witness and exhibited as Ex. P2. He exhibited the arrest memo of accused Amarjeet and Devender as Ex. Pw3/PX2 and Ex. Pw3/PX3 bearing his signatures at point A. He voluntarily stated that he could not tell about the factum of arrest of accused persons in his examination-in-chief since accused persons were not handcuffed. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by accused persons. He further denied that he was giving such statement since he was under threat from accused persons.
7.6 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence Counsel dated 18.03.2013, Pw3 stated that accused Amarjeet had vacated the tenanted room and the said house had been sold in June 2006. He admitted that accused Amarjeet had vacated the tenanted premises in May 2006. He admitted that accused Amarjeet had filed civil suit against him in the court but he stated that he does not remember whether he and his wife had made statement before Hon'ble Court of Sh. Naresh Kumar, Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi that they would not dispossess accused Amarjeet from the tenanted premises without due process of law. Pw3 alleged that he had asked Amarjeet to vacate the house since he and his brother used to bring FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 9/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
anti- social elements and even girls to the tenanted premises and his wife had lodged complaint to CAW Cell, Moti Bagh and at P.S. Dwarka against the accused.
7.7 Pw3 further stated in his cross-examination that at about 3.30 p.m on the date of incident, Late Sh. Ram Swaroop, his wife Asha, Amarjeet and Devender entered their house. He stated that entrance gate was open at that time and he and his wife were present at home. He categorically stated that gate was not locked. He denied the suggestion that his son Abhijat was present in the house at that time. He further stated that he had not seen any person coming to the first floor of the house. He stated that all the four accused persons were grappling with his wife.
7.8 Pw3 denied the suggestion that accused Amarjeet and Devender had come to his house to collect some wooden articles at about 11 a.m and entrance gate was locked at that time and after their knock it was opened by his son Abhijat. He further denied the suggestion that accused Ram Swaroop and his wife were called lateron by the police. He also denied the suggestion that his wife Vijay Laxmi had thrown a brick from the first floor and he also denied that accused Amarjeet had received fracture injury on his right shoulder. He admitted that a cross case bearing FIR no. 150/08 dated 11.04.2004 u/s 325/342/34 IPC is pending trial against himself, his wife Vijay Laxmi, his son Abhijeet @ Abhijat and his daughter Arti. He denied the suggestion that when he entered the house at about 3.30 p.m., Amarjeet was lying in injured condition in the house and some goondas had been called by them to beat Amarjeet. He denied FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 10/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
the suggestion that he had lodged false case against accused persons due to fear of getting involved in a case due to grievous injury sustained by accused Amarjeet. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
8. Pw4 is Retd. SI Jugu Ram who stated in his examination-
in-chief dated 21.11.2013 that during the year 2004, he was posted in P.S. Dwarka.
8.1 He stated that on 11.04.2004 DD No. 24A Ex. Pw4/A was assigned to him and he went to spot i.e. Rz686, Gali No.6, Raj Nagar-I where Vijay Laxmi and Dev Raj and accused Amarjeet and Devender met him. He further stated that both the parties were sent to DDU hospital for their medical examination and on returning of both the parties from hospital, he recorded complaint of Devraj Gupta which is already Ex. Pw3/A and prepared site plan Ex. Pw4/C at the instance of complainant.
8.2 Pw4 further deposed that he arrested accused Amarjeet Singh and Devender vide memo already Ex. Pw3/PX2 and Ex. Pw3/PX3 and recorded disclosure statement of accused Amarjeet Singh as Ex. Pw4/D. He stated that one hammer was taken into possession vide seizure memo already Ex. Pw3/PX1 and also took into possession blouse of Vijay Laxmi vide seizure memo already Ex. Pw3/B, arrested accused Asha vide arrest memo Ex. Pw4/E and deposited MLCs of Dev Raj Gupta and Vijay Laxmi (Ex. P3 and Ex. P4 )in hospital for obtaining final opinion and after completion of investigation, filed chargesheet.
8.3 In his cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Pw4
FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 11/19
St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
stated that he received information regarding quarrel at about 3.45 p.m. Pw4 further stated that when he alongwith constables Puran Mal and Narender/Pratap Singh reached at aforesaid house, accused Amarjeet and Devender were standing in the street and there were 6-7 more people standing with them and when they went upstairs, they found Dev Raj and Vijay Laxmi sitting on stools. Pw4 further stated that Vijay Laxmi and Dev Raj were taken to DDU hospital by constable Puran Mal in a three wheeler scooter and other constable Narender Singh and Pratap Singh had taken Devender and Amarjeet to hospital in another three wheeler at about 5p.m.
8.4 Pw4 further replied that he was present in the house no. Rz-686 uptil 10.30 pm. and police constables had brought all the injured persons in the said house from the hospital after their medical examination at about 9 p.m. He further replied that during his stay for about six hours in the house, no family member i.e. son or daughter of Devraj had come in the house. He further stated that accused Devender, Amarjeet and complainant Vijay Laxmi and her husband had also been taken to the police station at about 11 p.m after their arrival from hospital.
9. Pw5 is Dr. Babita who has stated in her examination-in-
chief dated 12.05.2014 that on 11.04.2004, one person namely Dev Raj Gupta was brought in hospital with alleged history of assault who was examined by Dr. Shadan Ahmad vide MLC no. 7604 and she exhibited the MLC of complainant Dev Raj Gupta as Ex. Pw5/A. She further stated that nature of injury was "simple and blunt" as per MLC. Pw5 further stated that on the same day, one lady namely Vijay Laxmi was also brought in the FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 12/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
hospital with alleged history of assault who was examined by Dr. Vanita Mittal vide MLC no. 7630. Pw5 exhibited the MLC of Smt. Vijay Laxmi as Ex. Pw5/B and stated that as the patient was referred to Opthalmology department, the MLC was kept under observation but IO did not obtain final opinion on the MLC.
10. After closure of P.E., statement of accused persons u/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded in which they stated that they are innocent and has not committed any offence but preferred not to lead Defence Evidence.
11. Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments. Final arguments were heard on last date and case was fixed for order for today. BRIEF REASONS FOR DECISION AND DECISION THEREOF:
12. During final arguments, Ld. Defence Counsel argued that accused persons have not committed any offence against complainant and complainant has falsely implicated the accused persons in the present case.
13. On the other hand, Ld. APP argued that the complainant has withstood the test of cross-examination and duly supported the case of prosecution, therefore it is a fit case for conviction of accused persons.
14. The comparison of original complaint Ex. Pw3/A of complainant Pw3 Devraj Gupta with his examination-in-chief dated 17.02.2012 reveals that there are various discrepancies in the original complaint and examination-in-chief of the complainant. In his original complaint, complainant has stated that on 11.04.2004, he and his wife were on first floor of their house when at about 3.30 p.m, accused FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 13/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
Amarjeet and Devender came to the first floor and started beating them. However, in his examination-in-chief , complainant/Pw3 has stated that he was at his roof when he heard the shrieks of his wife Vijay Laxmi and came downstairs and saw that all the accused persons namely Amarjeet, Devender, Ram Swaroop and Asha had grappled his wife and Amarjeet had torn the blouse of his wife and Ram Swaroop had caught the saree of his wife and Devender had pulled her hair and Asha Devi had caught her from behind. All these averments of Pw3 seem to be an improvement and after thought and the same have not been mentioned in the original complaint Ex. Pw3/A. Moreover, in the original complaint, complainant has stated that accused Ram Swaroop and Asha came at the spot afterwards and they also started beating him and his wife but in the examination-in- chief, he stated that all the accused persons came together.
15. Due to this discrepancy, Ld. APP cross examined Pw3 with permission of the court but even upon specific suggestion by the Ld. APP, Pw3 denied that accused Ram Swaroop and Asha came thereafter and started beating him and his wife. He again voluntarily stated that when he came downstairs, he saw all the four accused persons grappling with his wife and then on his intervention they also beat him.
16. In his complaint Ex. Pw3/A, complainant has stated that accused Amarjeet had a hammer in his hand and he attacked complainant's wife with hammer which landed at her eye and accused Devender had a danda(rod) in his hand and he started beating complainant with the rod. However, in his examination-in-chief, complainant/Pw3 did not mention anything about the hammer and the rod.
FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 14/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
Rather in the cross-examination by Ld. APP, Pw3 specifically denied the suggestion that accused Amarjeet had hit his wife with hammer which landed near her eye and Devender had hit him with a stick(danda) which hit on his back. The witness was even confronted with his original statement Ex. Pw3/B and the relevant portion of the statement was marked from mark A to A and B to B but still the complainant/Pw3 remained adamant on his stand that accused persons had not hit them with hammer or stick.
17. There is discrepancy in statement of Pw2 Smt. Vijay Laxmi Gupta also. Perusal of her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C reveals that she has also given the statement on same lines as complaint of her husband which is Ex. Pw3/A. She also stated in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C that she and her husband were standing on the first floor when accused Amarjeet and Devender came and started beating them. However, in her examination-in-chief dated 21.02.2011, she stated that she and her husband were present in the house when accused Amarjeet and Devender came and started beating them.
18. Moreover, the comparison of statement of Pw2 Vijay Laxmi and statement of Pw3 also reveal that there are various discrepancies in the examination-in-chief of both the witnesses. As discussed above, Pw3 has stated that when he came downstairs, he saw all the accused persons grappling with his wife and beating her and when he tried to intervene, he was also beaten up. However, Pw2 has stated that accused Amarjeet and Devender came first and started beating them and thereafter accused Ram Swaroop and Asha came and they also beat FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 15/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
them. Pw2 has stated that accused Ram Swaroop told Amarjeet "Ayese Nahi Bataygi, Iski Bejazzati Karni Paregi". This line has not been mentioned either in complaint or in examination-in-chief of Pw3. Further, Pw2 has stated that accused Amarjeet caught her hair and struck her with hammer and Devender caused beating to her husband with danda but this fact has been clearly refused by Pw3 in his cross-examination by APP.
19. The examination-in-chief and cross-examination of both the public witnesses Pw2 and Pw3 reveal that there were various litigations between the parties prior to the incident. Both the witnesses have categorically stated that they had given one room set on ground floor to Amarjeet on rent since 7-8 years and suit for eviction was pending against him in Tis Hazari Court. Pw2 has explained in her examination-in- chief the previous incidents of quarrels between them. It is very important to mention here that Pw2 has stated that accused Amarjeet wanted to marry her daughter, to which they did not agree. She also admitted that in February 2004 also, there was quarrel between them, due to which cross- cases were registered.
20. In her cross-examination dated 18.07.2012, Pw2 admitted that accused Amarjeet used to regard her like a mother. She also admitted the copies of letters written by her to accused Amarjeet which were marked as mark DB collectively. Due to admission of Pw2, the said copies of letters can be read into evidence.
21. Perusal of copies of the said letters reveal that daughter of complainant, namely Aarti had a relationship with accused Amarjeet and even Pw2 Smt. Vijay Laxmi was also very close to accused Amarjeet FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 16/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
and she used to write letters to him sharing her family problems and drove emotional support and consolation from accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of incident, accused had any bad intention to outrage the modesty of Pw2 Vijay Laxmi.
22. The discussion of discrepancies in the evidence of both the witnesses reveal that accused had no intention to outrage the modesty of the complainant. Though the quarrel had occurred on the date of incident, it is clear that accused Amarjeet and Devender were more seriously injured in the quarrel and the complainant and his wife had suffered very minor injuries. To prove the offence u/s 354 IPC, intention to outrage the modesty of a woman i.e. mensrea is very important ingredient. However, in this case, it is revealed from the entire facts and circumstances that accused had no mensrea to insult or outrage the modesty of Pw2. Rather, the perusal of letters reveal that accused used to give respect to Pw2 as his mother and this fact has also been admitted by Pw2 & Pw3. Therefore, no offence u/s 354 IPC is made out against accused Amarjeet. Hence, accused Amarjeet @ Bitoo stands acquitted from offence u/s 354 IPC.
23. As far as offence u/s 323 IPC is concerned, Pw5 Dr. Babita has stated that the opinion on the MLC of complainant Devraj Gupta was "simple and blunt" but IO had not obtained any final opinion on the MLC of Vijay Laxmi. Perusal of MLC of complainant Devraj reveals that there is no history of ENT bleeding and there were minor bruises and abrasions on the arm and shoulder of the complainant.
24. It is pertinent to mention here that Pw2 admitted that FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 17/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
accused Devender had an injury on his head and and accused Amarjeet had been hit by brick on his right shoulder and suffered fracture on the same date of incident. Perusal of cross-examination of Pw3 reveals that he has also admitted that accused Devender and Amarjeet were also injured very seriously in the incident and Pw3 further admitted in his cross- examination dated 18.03.2013, that a cross case bearing FIR no. 150/08 dated 11.04.2004 u/s 325/342/34 IPC was pending trial against himself, his wife, his son Abhijeet @ Abhijat and his daughter Aarti. Therefore, it is clear from the admissions of both the public witnesses that very serious injuries were caused to accused Amarjeet and his brother Devender on 11.04.2004, due to which cross case was lodged against complainant and his family members on the complaint of accused Amarjeet. Thus, it has been reasonably proved by the Ld. Defence counsel that a cross case had been lodged on the complaint of the accused, against complainant and all his family members. Therefore, it is clear that accused and his brother had received grievous injuries in the quarrel and it seems that the complainant had just lodged the complaint as a cross-case to save his skin. Hence, no offence u/s 323 IPC is made out against accused persons.
25. Both the witnesses Pw2 and Pw3 have admitted that the door of their house was open and Pw3 categorically stated that it was not locked. Accused Amarjeet was the tenant in their house and it cannot be said that he or his family members had criminally trespassed into the house without permission of the complainant. Hence, no offence u/s 451 IPC is made out against accused persons.
26. On the basis of abovestated discussion, this court is of FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 18/19 St vs. Amarjeet& ors.
the opinion that the Ld. Defence Counsel has been able to raise serious doubts and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution and prosecution has miserably failed to clear those doubts and failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence accused Amarjeet @ Bitoo stands acquitted from offence u/s 354 IPC and all accused persons namely Amarjeet @ Bitoo, Devender @ Monu and Asha Devi are acquitted from the offences u/s 451/323/34 IPC. Personal bond and surety bond of accused persons stand discharged subject to furnishing of bail bonds u/s 437-A Cr.P.C. Original documents, if any, be released to the authorised persons on proper receipt and endorsement, if any, be cancelled. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ( TYAGITA SINGH )
TODAY ON 21st July 2014. MM-01(SW), Mahila Court
Dwarka: New Delhi
FIR no. 149/04 ; PS: Dwarka Page no. 19/19
St vs. Amarjeet& ors.