Delhi District Court
25. In Sanjay Alias Kaka vs . State Of Nct Of Delhi [Air 2001 Sc on 31 July, 2020
IN THE COURT OF SH. ABHISHEK KUMAR,
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: NORTH WEST-05,
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
FIR No: 69/2010
P.S.: North Rohini
Case No: 530215/2016
State
v.
Manohar Lal S/o Sh. Desh Raj, R/o H. No. C-4/288, Second floor,
Sector-6, Rohini, Delhi.
Date of institution of case : 18.08.2010
Date of reserving the judgment : 25.07.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 31.07.2020
JUDGMENT
1. S. No. of the Case: 530215/2016 2. Date of Commission of Offence: 19.03.2010 3. Date of institution of the case: 18.08.2010 4. Name of the Informant: Sanjeev Adhikari 5. Offence complained or proved: 325/506/509 IPC 6. Plea of Accused: "Not Guilty" 7. Final Order: Convicted 8. Date of Final Order: 31.07.2020 FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 1 of 26 PS North Rohini BRIEF FACTS
1. It is the case of the prosecution that on 19.03.2010, accused Manohar Lal voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant Sanjeev Adhikari on road in front of house no. C-4/288, sector-6, Rohini with an iron rod at about 9:00 am and also extended threats to kill informant. Further insulted the modesty of his wife namely Ms. Jyoti Adhikari by abusing her.
PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
2. The accused in the present case was charged for the offence under Section 325, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and an FIR bearing No.69/2010 was registered to this effect at PS North Rohini. After the conclusion of the investigation, a report under Section 173 Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) was filed in the Court. The cognizance of the offence was taken on 18.08.2010 and accused was present on the same day before the court. Documents in compliance of Section 207 CrPC were supplied to the accused. The charge for the offence under Section 325, 506 & 509 was framed against the accused on 19.10.2012. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution evidence commenced on 01.07.2013 and got concluded on 16.02.2017. Prosecution has examined a total number of 07 witnesses. The statement of accused under Section 313 CrPC was recorded on 18.04.2017. Accused did not lead any defence evidence. Thereafter, final arguments were heard.
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 2 of 26
PS North Rohini
TESTIMONY OF THE WITNESSES IN THE
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. The first witness examined by the prosecution is PW1 Sanjeev Adhikari. Witness was allowed to refresh his memory through his previous statement under section 159 of The Indian Evidence Act. Witness deposed that he and the accused were residing in the same building. Accused was residing on the second floor and he was residing on the third floor. On 19.03.2010 at about 10:30 am, accused started abusing him from his floor. When he asked the accused about the reason for the same, the accused called him on the ground floor. When we went downstairs, accused slapped him on his face and hit him on his head and right hand with a rod. He was given several blows due to which he fell on the ground and when he tried to stand up, he was given another blow. He became little unconscious and accused said that he will kill him today. Thereafter, his wife took him to house and he called 100 number. Police came and took him to BSA hospital. The complaint given by the witness is Ex. PW1/A. He was duly cross- examined by the accused.
4. PW2 Jyoti Adhikari has deposed on the similar lines as PW1 and stated that on 19.03.2010 after 9:00 am, the accused was abusing them from his floor. The accused was questioned by her husband with regard to his behavior. The accused then called his husband downstairs and she heard shouting of her husband and when she opened the FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 3 of 26 PS North Rohini window, she saw accused beating her husband with an iron rod. She went there and brought her husband back to their house and her husband called the police. Witness was asked a specific question regarding the abuses and she stated that he abused her with "maa behan ki gali". The witness was duly cross examined by the accused.
5. PW3 W/HC Krishna Kumari has deposed that on 19.03.2010, she was posted at PS North Rohini and was deputed as duty officer. On the said date at about 4 pm, Ct. Ravinder gave a rukka to him and he registered the present FIR on the basis of the same. He identified the copy of FIR which Ex. PW3/A and endorsement on the rukka as PW3/ B. The witness was duly cross examined by the accused.
6. PW 4 Ct. Ravinder has deposed that on 19.03.2010, he along with the IO went to the spot i.e C-4/288, Sector-6, Rohini upon the receipt of DD no. 8A at about 9:00 am regarding quarrel. Upon reaching there, they found that a quarrel had taken place between two persons who were overpowered by them and separated. The accused was holding an iron rod in his hand. He took the iron rod from his hand. They also found that informant Sanjeev Adhikari was hit upon his right hand from the rod and they took him to the BSA hospital for examination. The doctor opined fracture in the right hand of the inured. They left the injured at the hospital for medical treatment and came back to the police station. Upon the complaint of the injured, FIR was registered against the accused. Then, accused was arrested by the IO in his presence vide Ex. PW4/A and also his personal search vide memo FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 4 of 26 PS North Rohini Ex. PW4/B. Disclosure statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex. PW4/C and iron pipe/rod was seized vide memo Ex. PW4/D. Witness identified his signatures on all the memos.
7. PW5 ASI Surender has deposed that on 19.03.2010, he received a DD NO.8A regarding a quarrel at C-4/288, Sector-6, Rohini and he alongwith Ct. Ravinder went to the spot. Upon reaching there, he found accused and injured there. Then, he took both of them to BSA hospital where they both were medically examined. The accused was found to be injured with simple injury and informant was remarked as injured OR. The injured could not give statement to him at that time. So, he came back to the police station. Thereafter, the injured came to the police station and gave his complaint. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW5/ A on the basis of the same and handed over it to Ct. Ravinder who got the FIR registered through duty officer. Then, they all went to the spot and he prepared the site plan at the instance of injured which is Ex. PW5/B. He also recorded statement of the wife of the injured. He took the accused to the police station and arrested him and conducted his personal search. He also recorded his disclosure statement. Accused also produced the iron rod from his car which was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW4/D. Witness was duly cross examined by the accused.
8. PW6 Dr. Jitender Singh has deposed that Dr. Brijender Yadav who has given opinion of injury as grievous on the MLC bearing No.1593/10 Ex. PW6/A, left working at hospital and his whereabouts were not known but he identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 5 of 26 PS North Rohini Dr. Brijender Yadav, SR Resident Orthopaedics at point A and B as he has worked with him. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
9. PW7 Dr. Kumar Akhilesh has deposed that Dr. N.K Singh who has prepared MLC bearing No.1593/10 of injured Sanjiv Ex. PW6/A and referred the patient to Ortho, left working at hospital and his whereabouts were not known but he identified the signatures and handwriting of Dr. N.K Singh at point C and D as he has worked with him. The witness was not cross examined by the accused despite opportunity.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
10. It has been argued by Ld. APP that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. He stated in rebuttal to the defense arguments that certain inconsistencies and contradictions are bound to happen as evidence of the witnesses were recorded after a lapse of time and they do not affect the foundation of the prosecution case. Also, MLC stands proved through medical record called from the hospital and no material contradiction could be raised with regard to its genuineness. He also stated that there is no delay in the registration of the FIR as sometimes witness is not willing to give statement at time of incident as medical treatment is the priority for him and IO cannot wait entire day for the statement due to other official duties he has to perform. He further FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 6 of 26 PS North Rohini stated that joining of the independent witnesses is not always possible as people do not come forward to testify due to fear factor of getting involved in police investigation and it is not always essential to join independent witnesses during seizure of case property.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ACCUSED
11. It was argued by the counsel for the accused that the case of the prosecution has many reasonable doubts and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the delay in the registration of the FIR is not properly explained as incident took place in the morning and as per the MLC of the injured, he was examined at 11:00 am and was fit to give statement but he preferred to give statement to police at around 3 pm which was an afterthought statement and creates doubt about the genuineness of the information given by the informant. Also, the doctors who prepared the MLC were not examined and the particulars of the patient are filled in different handwriting. Counsel further argued that the injured stated in his statement that accused came at their house and committed offense but when he deposed before the court he said that accused abused them from his floor and called him downstairs and beat him which is self contradictory. None of the witnesses have mentioned that accused as well as injured were taken to the hospital by the IO except the IO himself and he has not explained how accused suffered injuries. This casts doubt on the prosecution story. It was emphatically argued that IO did not join any independent witness at the time of recovery of weapon FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 7 of 26 PS North Rohini and the incident took place in a DDA residential colony and no public witness was asked about the incident by the IO. Counsel stated that the statement of the witnesses suffers from contradictions and inconsistencies.
FINDINGS
12. After going through the arguments addressed by the parties, I give my findings hereinafter. But before proceeding further, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant provisions of law involved in the present case. The accused has been charged under Section 325, 506 and 509 IPC. These provisions have been mentioned below for ready reference:-
● Section 325. 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 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.
Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc. FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 8 of 26 PS North Rohini And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.
● Section 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman.--Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
13. The term grievous hurt has been defined under Section 320 of the IPC as follows:-
320: Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous':-
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 9 of 26
PS North Rohini
First.- Emasculation.
Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either
eye.
Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of
either ear,
Fourthly.- privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the
powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or
face.
Seventhly.- Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which
caused the sufferer to be during the space
of twenty days in sever bodily pain, or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
14. Section 325 of the IPC punishes any person who causes grievous hurt to any other person. The requirement of the section is that the grievous hurt should have been caused voluntarily by the accused. The term voluntarily has been defined under Section 39 of the IPC as follows:-
Section 39. "Voluntarily" - A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 10 of 26 PS North Rohini to be likely to cause it.
15. A person is said to cause grievous hurt voluntarily when he does an act with the intention or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person and he performs an act due to which the person intended is caused grievous hurt by the said person. The act of voluntarily causing grievous hurt has been defined under Section 322 of the IPC as follows:-
Section 321. Voluntarily causing 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."
16 Thus, it was imperative on the prosecution to prove in the light of facts and circumstances of the case that accused Manohar Lal had acted voluntarily in causing grievous hurt to the injured. I shall deal with each and every objection raised by the defence counsel in order to see whether the prosecution witnesses have passed the test of cross examination or not.
17. It has been argued by the defence counsel that if the prosecution witnesses are to be believed, the incident occurred in the morning at FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 11 of 26 PS North Rohini around 9:00 AM and the injured was examined at the hospital at around 11:00 AM and was fit for statement but despite the same, IO did not record the statement of the injured. Thereafter, injured himself gave the statement at police station at around 3:00 PM which shows that FIR was registered with a delay after much thinking by the injured to manipulate and the same has not explained by the injured or the IO. I have perused the statement of the witnesses. It has come in the statement of PW4 Ct. Ravinder that they took accused and injured to the hospital for medical examination where the doctors opined fracture in the hand of the injured and they left the injured for treatment. PW5 ASI Surender also deposed on the similar lines that the injured's MLC stated OR and there was mark of fracture and he did not give his statement and they returned to the police station. In my opninon, merely because the statement of the injured was not taken by the IO in the hospital does not make the story of the prosecution doubtful. It is clearly stated by the witnesses that injured suffered fracture in his right hand and he was referred to Orthopedics department which is quite evident from the MLC on record and statement of PW6 & PW7. Being fit for statement does not imply that the statement has to be given at that particular moment. The priority for a person who has suffered fracture in his hand is medical treatment for himself and this does not in any manner belies his statement. Further, there is no set criterion as to how a person will react in a particular situation and how he should react always. The medical procedure takes time and depends upon the influx of patients arriving daily in the hospital especially in the government hospitals. Simply because the IO returned to the police FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 12 of 26 PS North Rohini station does not constitute as a reasonable doubt as police officials have so many duties to address. I do not find any delay in the registration of the FIR as the same is not found to be ante timed or ante dated.
Even if there was any delay, the explanation is quite apparent from the testimony of the witnesses. No major contradiction could be brought on record in the testimonies of the witness with regard to the same. The DD no. 8A has been proved on record vide which the initial information concerning the quarrel was received in the police station and on which the IO has acted. The investigation commenced even before the registration of the FIR and registration of the FIR was not a condition precedent for investigation. Therefore, the above argument raised on behalf of the accused does not qualify as a reasonable doubt and in order to support my reasoning, I am relying upon the following judgements.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as Anjana Dass Gupta v. State of West Bengal AIR 2016 SC 5510 has held that the receipt and recording of the first information report is not a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal investigation and the relevant para is as below:-
"...16....The receipt and the recording of the First Information Report is not a condition precedent for setting in motion of a criminal investigation. When the information that Debol Kumar Ghosh is shot dead, police was duty bound to start investigation. This Court in Apren Joseph Alias FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 13 of 26 PS North Rohini Current Kunjukunju And Others v. The State of Kerala 1973 (3) SCC 114: (AIR 1973 SC 1) stated following in paragraph 11:
"as observed by the Privy Council in K.E. v.
Khwaja, the receipt and recording of information report by the police is not a condition precedent to the setting in motion of a criminal investigation."..."
19. The Hon'ble Apex Court with regard to the delay in the registration of the FIR in case titled as State of H.P. v. Gian Chand AIR 2001 SC 2075 has held as below:-
"...Delay in lodging FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding it. Delay has the effect of putting the Court on its guard to search if any explanation has been offered, and if offered, whether or not it is satisfactory. If prosecution fails to satisfactorily explain the delay and there is possibility of embellishment in the prosecution version on account of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the prosecution case. However, if the delay is explained to the satisfaction of the Court, it cannot by itself be a ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire prosecution case..."
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 14 of 26 PS North Rohini
20. In Rana Pratap v. State of Haryana [AIR 1983 SC 680], apex court observed as follows;
"Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way".
21. In State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohd. Omar [AIR 2000 SC 2988], it was observed by the apex court that:
"Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, ill- equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 15 of 26 PS North Rohini forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case".
22. Another defence raised by accused is that the MLC's are not trustworthy as the doctors who prepared and signed it were not examined and details of the injured are filled in different handwriting. It has been stated by PW4 and PW5 that both the accused and injured were taken to the hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, doctors examined the injured and found fracture on his right hand. The original MLC is on record and Exhibited as PW6/A. PW6 and PW7 have also identified the handwriting and signatures of the concerned doctors on the MLC as they have worked with them. Perusal of the same shows that injured was produced in the hospital by PW5 as his name is mentioned there. The MLC has been verified from the record of the hospital by PW6 and PW7. There is no ground to disregard the MLC as the same pertains to a government hospital and original is well placed before the court. The timings and content of the same matches with description given by PW1, PW4 and PW6. The argument that particulars of patient appears to be in different handwriting cannot be termed as a major discrepancy when rest of the content is amply proved through the ocular testimonies of the witnesses. The MLC has been proved and the injuries are found to be grievous as per the opinion of the doctor. The accused could not bring on record any motivation on the part of these doctors to prepare a false MLC. If any motive could be FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 16 of 26 PS North Rohini attributed, the same would have been within the knowledge of the accused as he was also examined in the hospital. Therefore, I do not find any reason to doubt the genuineness of the MLC.
23. The accused also took the defence that the version of the prosecution is improbable as no public witnesses were examined in the investigation despite it being a residential locality and also the investigation officer did not join any independent witness at the time of seizure of weapon from the accused which is against the law. Non examination of public witnesses cannot be considered to be fatal to the prosecution case as it is generally seen that the general public does not come forward to give evidence or get entangled in the criminal investigation and prefers to stay away from the same. Therefore, it cannot be made a mandate for the prosecution case and give unwarranted benefit to the accused when other form of evidence exists. The sole testimony of injured is also considered sufficient to prove prosecution case unless and until it suffers from serious defect or infirmity. Similar is the position with regard to the joining of independent witness at the time of seizure of case property. The seizure conducted by the IO cannot be doubted merely on this ground. I would like to support my reasoning with the following judgements rendered by Honorable Supreme Court of India.
24. In Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. in criminal appeal no. 1467-1468 of 2005, it was observed by the Apex Court that the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted only on the ground that no FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 17 of 26 PS North Rohini independent witness was examined. The relevant para of the judgment is as follows:
"... 21... vi) As far as the non - examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the court as they feel it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this handicap of the investigating agency in discharging their duty. We cannot derail the entire case on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy."
25. In Sanjay alias Kaka Vs. State of NCT of Delhi [AIR 2001 SC 979], it was held that non joining of independent witnesses with the recovery cannot be considered as sufficient to create doubt regarding the truth of the prosecution version.
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 18 of 26 PS North Rohini
26. The defence counsel also stated that the statement of the witnesses suffers from many infirmities and inconsistencies. It was pointed out that PW1 in his initial information Ex. PW1/A has stated that accused came at their house and started abusing whereas he has stated before the court that accused was abusing from his floor. The statement given before the court by a witness holds much value. It is be seen whether the witness has given a completely different account of the incident before the court than mentioned in initial information. It has to be understood whether a statement constitutes as improvement or not. In the given case, the accused and injured were the resident of the same building. The context of the testimony has to be analyzed in whole and not in parts. The entire statement of the PW1 points out to the fact that he was beaten by the accused with an iron rod when he went downstairs as called by the accused. The testimony of PW1 has been corroborated by his wife who is examined as PW2 in the court. Both the witnesses also identified the weapon involved in the commission of the crime. Minor discrepancies are bound to happen when witnesses come to depose after a long span of time. It cannot be expected out of a witness to give detail of incident minutely. The prosecution is not obliged to remove each and every doubt but only reasonable doubt and every trivial or imaginary doubt cannot be termed as reasonable doubt. The argument that only IO has stated that accused was also taken to the hospital is unmerited as PW4 has also stated that accused as well as injured were taken to the hospital. Statement of PW1 is further corroborated through the testimony of PW4 and PW5 who have seen a quarrel taking place between the accused and injured on FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 19 of 26 PS North Rohini the road outside house no. C-4/288, sector-6, Rohini. Therefore, the inconsistency pointed out in the initial information of PW1 that accused came at their house to abuse does not qualify as reasonable doubt as witness has given a detailed account of the incident which has been corroborated by other prosecution witnesses. The fact that police officials have referred to the iron rod as iron pipe on certain occasions has no relevance as both the witnesses identified the case property in the court and accused could not bring any contradiction in respect to the same. It appears to be an interchanged terminology used by the witnesses with same connotation for them. I will refer to certain judgments to support my view given as above.
27. In Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh [AIR 2016 SC 5160], it was held as follows:
"...29. It is well-settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 20 of 26 PS North Rohini that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution of case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence. The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serial contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission..."
28. In Leela Ram (Dead) through Duli Chand v. State of Haryana AIR 1999 SC 3717 it was observed that:
"There is bound to be some discrepancies between the narrations of different witnesses when they speak on details, and unless the contradictions are of a material dimension, the same should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Incidentally, corroboration of evidence with mathematical niceties cannot be expected in criminal cases. Minor embellishment, there may be, but variations by reason therefore should not render the evidence of eye witnesses unbelievable. Trivial discrepancies ought not to obliterate an otherwise acceptable evidence."
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 21 of 26 PS North Rohini
29. In my opinion, the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused qua section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the injured. It is apparent from the testimony of the witnesses that it was accused who called the victim downstairs after abusing them and then beat the injured with an iron rod. This shows that the act of the accused was voluntarily in nature. The injuries mentioned by the witness in his testimony are in consonance with MLC proved on record. Weapon of offense has also been recovered in the present case. The injury received by the injured is also covered under the definition of grievous hurt as the bone of the right hand of the injured was fractured. The accused has raised the point that the IO did not conduct inquiry with regard to his injury. The accused cannot burden everything upon the IO. Did he file any complaint for the non action of the IO with regard to his injuries which were simple in nature. The facts which are within the specific knowledge of the accused have to be explained by him. He has not raised the defence that he was not present at the date, place and time of incident. He has not given any explanation as to how he received injuries. The right to silence cannot be stretched to an extent that accused does not give account of the facts which are within his personal and specific knowledge. He has simply denied in his statement under section 313 CrPC that no incident took place as alleged by the prosecution which is not sufficient. The witnesses have stood the test of the cross examination with regard to their eye witness account. It has been observed by the apex court in case titled as Surya Baksh Singh v. State of UP [AIR 2013 SC 2381] that "Recent judgements of the court contain a perceptible dilution of FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 22 of 26 PS North Rohini legal principles such as the right of silence of the accused. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, departed from this rule in enunciating inter alia, that the accused are duty bound to give a valid explanation of facts within their specific and personal knowledge in order to dispel doubts on their complicity." Further, it has been argued that there is discrepancy in the recovery of the case property and the same is not properly explained by the IO. It is a settled law that the victim shall not suffer due to the defective investigation by the IO. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled as C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 2010 SC 3718 as below:-
"....44. There may be highly defective investigation in a case. However, it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the IO and whether due to such lapse any benefit should be given to the accused. The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in this investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. If primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigations or to the omissions or lapses by perfunctory investigation, the faith and confidence of the people in the criminal justice administration would be eroded. Where there has been negligence on the part of the the investigating agency or omissions, etc. which resulted in defective investigation, there is legal FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 23 of 26 PS North Rohini obligation on the part of the court to examine the prosecution evidence dehors such lapses, carefully, to find out whether the said evidence is reliable and as to whether such lapses affected the object of finding out the truth. Therefore, the investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in a criminal trial. The conclusion of the trial in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation......"
The guilt of the accused under section 325 IPC has been proved by the prosecution beyond every reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused Manohar lal stands convicted for the offence under section 325 IPC for voluntarily causing grievous hurt to the injured Sanjiv Adhikari.
30. Now, I shall proceed further to see whether the charge under section 506 and 509 IPC stands amply proved against the accused or not. The testimonies of witness PW1 and PW2 are relevant to prove the above stated charges. Section 503 IPC defines the term 'Criminal Intimidation.' The essential ingredients of Section 503 IPC are that (1) threatening a person with any injury; (i) to his person, reputation or property; or (ii) to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, (2) and the threat must be with intent (i) to cause alarm to that person or (ii) to cause that person to do any act FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 24 of 26 PS North Rohini which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat or (iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat. PW1 has stated that the accused had beaten him with a rod and kept giving him several blows and said that he would kill him. In my view this statement does not amount as a statement which would have caused alarm in the mind of the injured. The threat of injury already existed as the injured was being beaten by the accused. There was nothing in the statement of the accused which could have induced the injured to to do or abstain from doing anything. The essential ingredients under section 506 are not fulfilled. Therefore, the accused stands acquitted under section 506 IPC.
31. Coming to last charge for which accused has been charged is under section 509 IPC. Section 509 IPC punishes any person who insults the modesty of a woman through words, sounds, gesture or object. The most necessary ingredient of the offense is the intention of the person to utter those words or gestures. Every insult cannot be regarded as insulting the modesty of the woman. In the case at hand, it is to be seen whether the accused had the intention to insult the modesty of PW2. PW2 has stated that the accused was hurling abuses at her and to her husband from his floor and it used to happen on many occasions. She has stated that accused used to give 'maa behan ki gali'. It has been stated by PW1 that accused was abusing him and his wife and when he went downstairs he was still abusing his wife who was in the house. It appears from the testimony of the witnesses that accused FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 25 of 26 PS North Rohini did not have the particular intention of insulting the modesty of PW2 as he was hurling abuses at both of them. Further, the statement regarding the abuse is very general and not specifically stated before the court. The essential ingredients under section 509 IPC are not fulfilled. Therefore, the accused stands acquitted under section 509 IPC.
32. The above stated discussion is summarized as below:
● Accused Manohar Lal stands convicted for the offence under section 325 IPC.
● Accused Manohar Lal stands acquitted for the offence under section 506 IPC.
● Accused Manohar Lal stands acquitted for the offence under section 509 IPC.
33. Announced on 31st of July, 2020 in the presence of stake holders through CISCO WEBEX platform on account of the suspended functioning of the court due to the corona pandemic.
34. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost to the accused.
ABHISHEK Digitally signed by
ABHISHEK KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2020.08.01 15:33:48
+05'30'
(ABHISHEK KUMAR)
Metropolitan Magistrate-05
North -West, Rohini Courts
FIR No.69/2010 State v. Manohar Lal 26 of 26
PS North Rohini