Delhi District Court
Fir No. 501/2015 State vs . Raja Babu & Ors. Ps Defence Colony 1 Of 33 on 5 January, 2019
In The Court Of Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan: Metropolitan
Magistrate02 (Mahila Court), SouthEast, Saket Courts:New Delhi
State v. Raja Babu & Ors.
FIR No. 501/2015
U/s: 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC
P.S Defence Colony
JUDGMENT
Date of Institution : 11.02.2016
Criminal Case No. : 93581/2016
Name of the complainant : As per chargesheet
Name & address of the accused : 1. Raja Babu
S/o Sh. Virender Kumar
R/o Jhuggi No.215, Road6,l Indira
Camp, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
2. Vijay Chauhan
S/o Ram Prasad Chauhan,
R/o H.No.7, 3rd floor, HII, Plot
No.11/12/13, Madangir, New Delhi.
3. Prateek Gupta @ Circuit
S/o Sh. Praveen Gupta
R/O Shop No.28, Shiv Mandir,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC
Offence charged of : U/s 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 1 of 33
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.
Final order : Acquitted.
Date of arguments : 21.12.2018
Date of announcing of order : 05.01.2019
BRIEF STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR
THE DECISION OF THE CASE
BRIEF FACTS:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on 25.12.2015, at around 10:30 PM, when the complainant was standing outside his house and there was a bonfire, at that time, two persons namely Pakia and Circuit came and started hitting his neighborer namely Vijay, thereafter, complainant intervened and tried to save his neighborer namely Vijay due to which both the aforesaid persons left the spot. After sometime, both the aforesaid persons alongwith other persons namely Raja Babu forcefully entered the house of the complainant and extended threats to the complainant. All the three aforesaid persons also started abusing the complainant in filthy language and started quarreling with the complainant by manhandling him, meanwhile, the mother of the complainant intervened to save the complainant, but the accused persons even gave a fist blow to the mother of the complainant on her face. At that time, accused Raja Babu showed a knife, and threatened the complainant to be killed. At that time during the quarrel, accused persons also FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 2 of 33 slapped the complainant and complainant was injured. All the three aforesaid persons were known to the complainant.
2. Pursuant to this complaint dated 26.12.2015, FIR was registered on the same day and accused persons were summoned. Charge was framed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under section 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC, to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined eight (08) witnesses during trial: PW1 Manoj Kumar (complainant) deposed that on 25.12.2015 at about 10:30 PM, he alongwith his family members were sitting around fire outside their house. In the meantime, his neighbour Vijay was being beaten by Vijay Chauhan and both of them were scuffling with each other on the road in front of his house. He intervened and got them separated. Thereafter both of them went away from their. After about half an hour, Raja Babu, Prateek @ Cerkit and Vijay Chauhan forcibly entered his house and started threatening him saying that "Tu Bohot Bich Bachao Karta Hai Aj Tera Bich Bachao Karte Hai" and all of them started scuffling with him. After hearing the commotion, his Bhabi namely Rani came there to save him from them. Then accused Raju Babu and Cerkit also started manhandling and misbehaving with her by pulling down her wearing Duppta and suit and touched her inappropriately and all the accused persons had abused him and FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 3 of 33 his bhabi. When his Bhabi raised alarm, accused Raja Babu showed her knife and threatened her not to make hue and cry and if she would shout, then he would kill him and his bhabhi. Accused Prateek @ Cirkit had beaten his Bhabhi on her face by a fist blow due to which blood was oozing from her nose and nearby residence were gathered there and after seeing the crowd, all accused persons ran away from the spot and while running away they threatened to kill them if they would make a complaint against them to police. He called at 100 number five to six times, after that, police officials reached there and he narrated the whole incident and his statement was recorded vide Ex. PW1/A. He had shown the place of occurrence to police and police prepared the site plan at his instance which was Ex. PW1/B. Police took him to hospital i.e Trauma Center. After his medical examination, they came back at the spot and all accused persons were arrested vide memo Ex. PW1/C, Ex. PW1/D and Ex. PW1/E and their personal search were conducted vide Ex. PW1/F, Ex. PW1/G and Ex PW1/H. During crossexamination PW1 deposed that the first quarrel on 25.12.2015 had occurred around 10:00 PM between Vijay and the accused persons. This quarrel occurred at a distance of about 2030 Metres from his house. PW1 was injured at that time also only by slapping by Prateek Gupta @ Circuit. Victim Vijay was also injured in that incident. They had called at 100 number at the time of first quarrel only and again said that he had not made a call at 100 number during the first quarrel which happened between accused persons and one Vijay. He was not aware where Vijay Chauhan was residing at the time of incident. He knew Vijay Chauhan for about 78 years.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 4 of 33 He knew Raja Babu for about 45 years and Prateek Gupta for around 34 years. There was no FIR pending against accused persons filed by him prior to the present incident. It was correct that another FIR was also lodged against accused Prateek Gupta after the present incident. Police had arrived after half an hour of making call at 100 number. Police official took him and his Bhabhi Rani to the hospital. His mother also accompanied them. They remained in the hospital for around two hours. After discharge from the hospital, he went to the police station for the first time in the morning on 26.12.2015 at about 06:0007:00 AM. He deposed that his bhabhi Rani had accompanied him to the police station. He did not accompany the police official immediately after the incident as he was taken to AIIMS hospital by the police officials. The accused persons were arrested on the night of 25.12.2015. It was correct that some other persons also present with all three accused persons. He knew some of their names. He told their names to the police officials. The site plan was prepared in his presence when police official visited at his residence on the very next day of morning. He did not visit the hospital again for further treatment after discharge from the hospital. His first statement was recorded by the IO on the next day of the incident. He again stated that his first statement was recorded by the police when he reached at the spot upon calling at 100 number by him. He had taken photographs of the injury upon his Bhabhi Rani after the incident. The said photographs were handed over to the police. He did not have the said photographs in his possession. He accompanied Rekha to the court when she FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 5 of 33 came to record her statement u/s 164 CrPC. Vijay was not treated at the hospital in his presence. Witness denied all the suggestions put to him.
PW2 Rani (bhabhi of the complainant/victim) deposed that on 25.12.2012, she alongwith her brotherinlaw, motherinlaw and sisterin law were siting in front of bonfire outside her house. In the meantime, one Pakia was manhandling with Vijay, husband of Rekha. Thereafter, all of them tried to intervene between Vijay and Pakia. Thereafter, Vijay and Pakia were separated and left the spot. After about 1520 minutes, fourfive boys along with Pakia, Raja Babu and Circut came at her home 152/381, Indira Camp, Road No. 3, Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. They all started beating her brother inlaw Manoj at the ground floor. After listening to the noise and sound of her brotherinlaw Manoj, her motherinlaw and sisterinlaw, she woke up her husband and came down to the ground floor. Thereafter, when she intervened and Circut punched on her face and her nose started bleeding and she started shouting and stepped aside. Thereafter, Raja Babu showed her knife and threatened to stab in her stomach. Thereafter, accused Raja Babu touched her breast and Circut pulled her hair and also used very filthy language on her and Raja Babu also threatened her that "if she would shout more, he would kill her husband and children". Police officers came at her home on the same day and inquired her regarding the incident and took her and her brotherin law, Manoj to AIIMS for medical examination. At AIIMS she was medically examined by the doctor but she left early due to small child with her. Her statement was got recorded by police officers at her home u/s 161CrPC.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 6 of 33 During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW2 deposed that she was 8th class passed and knew the accused persons for the last four five years as they lived at the walking distance of about 1015 minutes from her home. She did not know that there was any other dispute between her brotherinlaw and accused persons. She did not recognize the fourfive other persons who accompanied the accused persons at the time of incident. She told the IO about those four five persons. Police arrived after about one hour of the incident. She did not remember the time of the incident but the date was 25.12.2015 i.e. Christmas day. There was no bonfire in the neighborhood but people were celebrating Christmas outside their houses. None of the neighbors joined in the scuffle. They went to AIIMS after about one and a half hour of the incident. Her neighbors had stopped her bleeding in the meantime. She had signed the admission form for treatment at AIIMS. She was accompanied to the hospital by her brotherinlaw Manoj and her motherinlaw. The statement of Manoj was recorded by the police in her presence. She had informed the police about the misbehavior by the accused on the same day. A site plan depicting the place of incident was prepared by police in her presence which was ExPW1/B. Manoj had explained the incident to the police. Manoj had taken the photographs of injury to her. The same were handed over to the police. The photographs were taken near her house after about half an hour before the police had arrived. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 7 of 33 PW3 Rekha (wife of victim Vijay) deposed that on 25.12.2015, at around 10:00 PM, she was inside her room and after hearing noise of shouting from outside of the house, she came out of her house and saw that all three accused persons namely Raja Babu, Circuit @ Parteek Gupta and one Pakiya @ Vijay Chauhan were beating her husband Vijay Khalko. Thereafter, she tried to rescue her husband from them. Then all accused persons started misbehaving by saying that as to why she intervened into the said incident and they torn her wearing clothes/suit. They also tried to beat her by raising a stick on her which was lying near the spot. One neighbour Manoj Kumar also tried to rescue her husband from the accused persons had given beatings to him also. She was inquired by the police officials and she gave her complaint to police on 26.12.2015 as Ex.PW3/A. She had given her aforesaid torn clothes/suit to the police official and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/B. She had given her statement 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate ExPW3/C. Witness correctly identified the case property which was Ex.P1.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW3 deposed that she was uneducated, however she knew how to write her name and signature only. She deposed that her complaint EX.PW3/A was recorded by the police official upon her dictation. She knew Babu who was the brother of Manoj/ complainant. It was correct that Babu was residing with Manoj. She was not taken to the hospital after the incident. At the time of incident Babu was also present in the house of Manoj. She had told the police official FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 8 of 33 about the name of person who had torn her wearing clothes at the time of incident. She alongwith her family member including her motherinlaw, Jeth and Jethani had reached at the police station around 11.00 pm. Accused Babu had also accompanied them at P.S. She did not remember as to how many persons had sustained injury in the aforesaid incident. Further, the accused persons were already present in the police station when they reached there. She did not know whether accused Prateek Gupta sustained injury or not. She had produced her torn cloth to the police official after one or two days of the incident. Witness denied all the suggestions put to her.
PW4 Vijay (victim) deposed that on 25.12.2015, at around 10.00 PM, he was present at tobacco/cigarette shop at route no. 3, Indira Puram and he was smoking there. Meanwhile, accused Vijay Chauhan alongwith another boy namely Vijay came at the shop and wished the accused Vijay Chauhan on the occasion of 25th December. Then he replied him, saying that "bada 25 December ki mubarak de raha hai itna bada ho gaya hai" and he started abusing him. After some time, accused Vijay Chauhan alongwith another Vijay came back and started beating him. Thereafter, accused Vijay Chauhan called another accused Prateek Gupta and Raja Babu at the spot and all three accused persons gave him severe beatings. He deposed that meanwhile, his wife Rekha, his mother and Manoj came there to rescue him from the accused persons. He deposed that while his wife tried to rescue him from the accused persons, all accused persons had torn the wearing clothes of his wife. Thereafter, his wife took him to the hospital and thereafter, nothing else had happened on the day of incident.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 9 of 33 Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State and deposed that the police official inquired from him about the incident and recorded his statement. It was correct that while accused persons had beaten him and they had torn wearing clothes of his wife, his neighbor Manoj Kumar had rescued him and his wife from the accused persons. It was further correct that after some time all accused persons had entered into the house of Manoj and told him that he has to face the consequence as he helped him being his neighbor and all three accused persons had beaten Manoj and his Bhabhi Rani and thereafter ran away from the house of Manoj. He could not disclose the said facts in his examination in chief due to lapse of time.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW4 deposed that the distance between spot and his house was around 10 to 15 meters. The brother of complainant Manoj namely Babu was not his friend however, they called him bhai. There was never any dispute with the accused persons prior to the present incident. He had informed the police about the name of Vijay, who accompanied accused Vijay Chauhan to the police. It was wrong to suggest that Babu had beaten accused Prateek Gupta @ Cirut on 25.12.2015 before the alleged incident. His wife had taken him to bangali doctor for treatment. Police did not get him medical examined. He voluntarily stated that it was got done by him.
PW5 Rajender Singh (record clerk from AIIMS hospital) deposed that he had been working as a Record Clerk in AIIMS Trauma Center since 2006. Dr. Rakesh Kumar had left the hospital on 06.01.2016 and FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 10 of 33 his present whereabout were not known to him and his department. He brought certified copy of joining and relieving register pertaining to Dr. Rakesh Kumar which was Ex. PW5/A. He correctly identified the signature of Dr. Rakesh Kumar on MLC of injured Manoj bearing MLC no. 534266/26 DEC 2015 prepared, attached with judicial file as Ex.PW5/B. During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW5 deposed that no photographs of injured, which were handed over by the injured person to concerned doctor, were on record.
PW6 HC Bali Ram deposed that he had brought original register from period 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016 of Malkhana PS Defence Colony. As per register number 19, at serial no. 946 year 2016, one torn suit colour black and white was seized in brown envelop sealed with the seal of 'SS' in FIR no. 501/2015 PS Defence Colony. Photocopy of the same was compared with original register and the same was Ex.PW6/A(OSR).
During cross examination on behalf of accused, PW6 deposed that he did not make entry of serial no. 946 as he was not posted as MHCM at that time and same entry was made by previous MHCM. He did not know his name.
PW7 Ct. Luvkesh deposed that in the intervening night of 25/16.12.2015, he was posted as Ct. in PS Defence Colony. On that day, he was on night emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At around 10:45 FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 11 of 33 PM, upon receipt of information regarding DD no.30A, regarding quarrel behind PS, Defence Colony at road no.3, Andrew Ganj, New Delhi, he alongwith IO/SI Surender Singh went to the spot at around 11:00 PM where complainant Manoj met them and gave his statement /complaint to the IO. IO prepared rukka and got it registered through him. He reached at PS with rukka at about 12:20 AM and after registration of FIR, he came back at the spot around 01:15 AM with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to IO. One Const. Karambir also found present at the spot when he came back at the spot from PS after registration of FIR. Complainant/injured Manoj was sent to AIIMS hospital for his medical examination through Const. Karambir. Thereafter, he alongwith IO came back at PS. All accused persons namely Raja Babu, Pradeep Gupta and Vijay Chauhan were found present at PS. Meanwhile, complainant Manoj also came at PS from hospital alongwith Const. Karambir and all aforesaid accused persons were arrested upon identifying them by complainant and their personal search were conducted vide memo already Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I respectively.
Thereafter, the witness was crossexamined by Ld. APP for the State and he deposed upon being pointed towards the accused Vijay Chauhan who was present in the Court today and asked the witness to identify him. Witness could not identify the accused due to lapse of time. However, accused Vijay Chauhan was arrested in his presence alongwith remaining two accused persons at PS Defence Colony. Upon being asked, if it FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 12 of 33 was correct that accused Vijay Chauhan was the same person who was arrested in his presence on 26.12.2015 vide arrest memo Ex.PW1/F, witness stated that it was correct that he could not identify him due to lapse of time.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW7 deposed that apart from complainant Manoj, his bhabhi, one Rekha and one Vijay were also present at the spot when they reached there. He did not enter the house of complainant Manoj. Only the statement of complainant Manoj was recorded in his presence. Injured Manoj was accompanied by his bhabhi also to the hospital. The accused persons had come around 02:00 AM at the PS. None of the accused persons was found injured when they came to PS. He did not know whether husband of Rekha namely Babu was also present at the time of arresting of accused persons. He did not know if any family members of the accused persons was present at the time of their arrest. It was wrong to suggest that no proof of scuffle was found at the spot of incident as the incident had never taken place. It was wrong to suggest that the accused Prateek Gupta was beaten by Babu relative of the complainant in his presence. It was wrong to suggest that he was deposing falsely.
PW8 Retired SI Surender Singh (IO) deposed that in the intervening night of 25/26.12.2015, he was posted as SI at PS Defence Colony. On that night, he was on emergency duty from 08:00 PM to 08:00 AM. At around 10:45 PM, upon receipt of information of DD no.30A regarding quarrel at road no.3, Andrew Ganj, behind PS Defence Colony, FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 13 of 33 New Delhi, copy of which was Mark A, he alongwith Ct. Lavkesh went to the spot at around 10:55 PM where complainant Manoj met them and he had given his statement as complaint Ex.PW1/A. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, he prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A and got it registered through Ct. Lavkesh. He prepared site plan at the instance of complainant as Ex.PW1/B. Ct. Lavkesh came back from PS with original rukka and copy of FIR and handed over the same to him. Meanwhile, one beat Ct. Karambir also came back at the spot. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of complainant's bhabhi namely Rani and one Vijay Kumar. Complainant/injured Manoj and his bhabhi were found injured and they were sent to AIIMS hospital for their medical examination through Ct. Karambir. He alongwith Ct. Lavkesh came back at PS. Meanwhile, all accused persons namely Raja Babu, Pradeep Gupta and Vijay Chauhan came at PS on their own. He was interrogating them. Meanwhile, complainant Manoj also came at PS from hospital alongwith Ct. Karambir and all aforesaid accused persons were arrested upon identifying them by complainant and their personal search were conducted vide memo already Ex.PW1/C, Ex.PW1/D, Ex.PW1/E, Ex.PW1/G, Ex.PW1/H and Ex.PW1/I respectively. He recorded disclosure statement of accused Raja Babu vide memo Ex.PW8/B. All accused persons were sent to lock up after their medical examination. On the next morning, Vijay Kumar alongwith his wife Rekha came at PS and Rekha gave a written complaint Ex.PW3/A to him. He attested the same at point X. He recorded statement u/s 161 CrPC of victim Rekha. Statement u/s 164 CrPC of victim Rekha was got recorded and copy of the same was collected and attached with the file. He FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 14 of 33 collected result upon MLC of injured Manoj Kumar and attached with the file. On 01.01.2016, victim Rekha alongwith her husband came to PS and handed over her torn suit coloured white having print of black to him which was put into pullanda and sealed with the seal of SS and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW3/B. He recorded statement of witnesses u/s 161 CrPC. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was prepared and filed before the Court.
During crossexamination on behalf of accused, PW8 deposed that no other public persons accompanied injured Manoj and Rani to the hospital. He made inquiry from accused Raja Babu regarding the alleged knife and he stated that the same was thrown in dirty nala while he was running away from the spot after the incident. But no knife was recovered from the said nala on the next morning of the incident. When they reached at the spot on receipt of DD no.30A, Rekha was not found present at the spot and she came for the first time at PS on next morning between 08:00 to 09:00 AM. It was wrong to suggest that accused Prateek Gupta had also given his complaint to him regarding the present incident. Two accused persons were also found injured when they came at PS. He made inquiry from them regarding the injury and they stated that they got injury while they were running away from the spot. Accused Raja Babu had injury in his leg. He did not remember on what body part accused Prateek receive injury however, he was injured. MLC of accused persons were collected and the same was attached with police file. It was wrong to suggest that accused Prateek had FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 15 of 33 also handed over photocopy of her medical record of Mool Chand hospital pertaining to his injury. It was wrong to suggest that one Babu was also present at the time of arrest of accused persons in PS and complainant Manoj was not present at the time of their arrest. It was wrong to suggest that upon release on bail accused Prateek Gupta had filed a complaint against the complainant and the said complaint was marked to him. He did not remember whether complainant Manoj had given him any photographs of his injury and his bhabhi's injuries. It was wrong to suggest that the accused Prateek Gupta was beaten by one Babu being relative of the complainant.
Statement of the accused persons was recorded u/s 294 CrPC and copy of FIR was Ex.X1, rukka was Ex.X2 and DD No.30A was Mark A.
4. Thereafter, prosecution evidence was closed and statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr. P.C wherein all incriminating evidence was put to accused. Accused denied the allegations of prosecution as false and pleaded false implication.
5. Accused persons have examined five witnesses witness in their defence and have also examined themselves as defence witnesses u/s 315 CrPC.
DW1 Raja Babu (accused) deposed that on 25.12.2015, at around 10.30 PM, he was going towards his house from the market by foot and when he reached near paratha shop situated on the corner of the market FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 16 of 33 (Andrews Ganj market) and he found that there were several public persons who had gathered on the aforesaid paratha shop and he found that one Prateek Gupta who was known to him was having injury on his forehead and he was bleeding from his forehead. At that time, Prateek Gupta had fallen on the ground and was bleeding and was surrounded by three more boys who were hurling abuses to Prateek Gupta. Thereafter, all the three persons namely Raghu, Babu, Vijay who have their house adjacent to the paratha shop left Prateek Gupta after abusing him. At that time, accused Vijay Chauan had also met him on the way and thereafter, they both alongwith the help of one or two more passersby took Prateek Gupta to Moolchand hospital and he was given first aid treatment. They also informed the family member of Prateek Gupta regarding his injuries. Thereafter, they alongwith Prateek Gupta went to police station Defence Colony to file complaint. At that time, the police officials did not register their complaint and instead made them sit in the police station. After one and half hour they took them to AIIMS hospital for their medical and the case was registered against them. On the next day, they were produced before the court. They were falsely implicated in the present matter.
During crossexamination DW1 deposed that it was correct that he had not seen anyone beating Prateek Gupta at the spot. He did not make call at 100 number at the spot. He stated that as long as he remained at the spot, no police official reached there. Police official did not take injured Prateek Gupta to hospital. He and accused Vijay Chauhan took injured Prateek Gupta to the hospital. No police official came at Moolchand hospital FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 17 of 33 till the discharge of injured from the hospital. He had not made any call at 100 number or informed about the incident to Duty constable present in the hospital. It was wrong to suggest that he had beaten the complainant and her family members after entering into her house and misbehaved with her due to which he did not make a call at 100 number and informed about the incident as stated in his examination in chief to the police. He did not inform about the incident to the police even after discharging the injured from the hospital, however the injured was taken to the police station directly from the hospital. He knew one Vijay who was residing at the corner jhuggi at the spot. He was residing at the distance of 150 metres from the residence of Vijay and residence of complainant was adjacent to jhuggi of Vijay. It was wrong to suggest that on 25.12.2015, he had quarreled with one Vijay in which complainant Manoj Kumar came there and intervened and after sometime he alongwith coaccused persons forcibly entered the house of complainant and misbehaved with bhabhi of the complainant namely Rani and beaten the complainant while he was trying to save Rani from them.
DW2 Vijay Chauhan (accused) deposed that on 25.12.2015, at around 10.30 PM, he alongwith accused Raja Babu was going towards his house from the market by foot. When he reached near paratha shop road No.3 near inquiry office, situated on the corner of the market (Andrews Ganj market) and they found that there was several public persons who had gathered on the aforesaid paratha shop and saw that one Prateek Gupta who was known to them was having injury on his forehead and he was bleeding from his forehead. At that time, Prateek Gupta had fallen on the ground and FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 18 of 33 blood was oozing out and was surrounded by two more boys who were hurling abuses to Prateek Gupta. Thereafter, all the persons whose name he did not remember, however, one Babu who resided at road No.3, Indira camp left Prateek Gupta after abusing him. Thereafter, they both alongwith the help of one or two more passersby took Prateek Gupta to Moolchand hospital and he was given first aid treatment. They also informed the family member of Prateek Gupta regarding his injuries. Thereafter, they alongwith Prateek Gupta went to police station Defence Colony to file complaint. At that time, the police officials did not register their complaint and instead made them sit in the police station. After one and half hour they took them to AIIMS hospital for their medical checkup and the case was registered against them. On the next day, they were produced before the court. He deposed that he was falsely implicated in the present matter.
During crossexamination DW2 deposed that it was correct that he had not seen any one beating Prateek Gupta at the spot. He did not make call at 100 number at the spot. As long as he remained at the spot, no police official reached there. Police official did not take injured Prateek Gupta to hospital. He and accused Raja Babu took injured Prateek Gupta to the hospital. No police official came at Moolchand hospital till the discharge of injured from the hospital. He had not made any call at 100 number or informed about the incident to Duty Ct. present in the hospital. It was correct that he had not made a written complaint to the police regarding the incident stated in his examination in chief when he took the injured Prateek in PS and thereafter also. He did not inform about the incident to the police even after FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 19 of 33 discharging the injured from the hospital, however the injured was taken to the police station directly from the hospital. He had seen one Vijay who was residing in the area of Andrews Ganj where he was also residing in that area 5 to 6 years back.
DW3 Prateek Gupta (accused) deposed that on 25.12.2015, at around 10.15 PM when he was present at paratha shop situated on the corner of the market (Andrews Ganj market) and at that time, all the three persons namely Raghu, Babu, Vijay came from back side and started hurling abuses at him. They picked up quarrel with him and the person namely Vijay hit him with the "crate" lying near the shop on his head. At that time, Raghu pulled away his gold chain and he tried to run after Raghu to take back his gold chain. Thereafter, Babu hit him again with some object because of which he fell down and since he had suffered injuries, he became unconscious. All the three aforesaid persons abused him and meanwhile both accused Raja Babu and Vijay Chauhan reached the spot and help him and took him to Moolchand hospital where he was given first aid treatment. Thereafter, they went to police station Defence Colony to file complaint. At that time, the police officials did not register their complaint and instead made them sit in the police station. After one and half hour they took them to AIIMS hospital for their medical and the case was registered against them. Police officials made them sign on blank papers. On the next day, they were produced before the court. They were falsely implicated in the present matter. He had brought the documents pertaining to his treatment at Moolchand hospital, which were marked as Mark A colly. Thereafter, they filed a complaint with the FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 20 of 33 concerned DCP vide mark B and the same was filed once they were released by the court. His complaint filed u/s 156(3) CrPC was Ex.DW1/A upon which the accused persons were summoned by the court.
During crossexamination DW3 deposed that he did not make call at 100 number at the spot. As long as he remained at the spot, no police official reached there. Police official did not take him to Moolchand hospital and he was taken to the hospital by accused Raja Babu and Vijay Chauhan. He did not tell the name of persons who had inflicted injury upon him, to the concerned doctor. He voluntarily stated that he had stated to the concerned doctor that he had sustained injury in quarrel, upon asking question as to how he had sustained injury. Even after reaching at the hospital he did not make a call at 100 number and informed about the incident to Duty Constable present in the hospital. He voluntarily stated that no duty constable was found present in the hospital. No police official reached at the hospital while he was treated in the hospital and till the time of his discharge from the hospital. He went to the police station in the same night from the hospital. He had not given written complaint to the police. He voluntarily stated that police official did not record his complaint. He was 10 th pass and he knew to write complaint in Hindi. After release on bail he made a complaint to DCP within a week.
DW4 HC Pankaj deposed that he was posted as Clerk at DCP office Hauz Khas and he had brought the complaint dated 14.01.2016 received before DCP office vide diary No. 453/SDC/DCP dated 19.01.2016.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 21 of 33 The copy of the same was Ex. DW4/A (OSR) and the ATR in respect to the same dated 14.03.2016 was Ex. DW4/B (OSR).
During crossexamination DW4 deposed that as per record complaint Ex.DW4/A, the date of complaint was mentioned as 14.01.2016 at left top portion of the complaint now pointed as X and the said complaint was received to DCP office on 14.01.2016 and received the same to complaint Branch on 19.01.2016 whereas the day of incident was 25.12.2015. As per record Prateek Gupta (complainant of complaint ExDW4/A) had not made any call at 100 number or any complaint on the day of incident i.e. 25.12.2015. It was correct that as per record of status report of the aforesaid complaint prepared by SI Pratibha Sharma ExDW4/B, it was pointed out from Point A1 to A2 that the complaint given by Prateek Gupta found to be motivated and after thought, filed to countered the case registered against him and his associates and he and his associates are involved in various cases.
DW5 Digamber Singh (Medical Record Executive from Mool Chand hospital) deposed that he was posted at aforesaid department and he had to be authorized vide authority letter Ex. DW5/A. He had brought the record pertaining to injured Prateek Gupta and the MLC dated 25.12.2015 as Ex. DW5/B (OSR).
During crossexamination DW5 deposed that MLC of Prateek Gupta ExDW5/A was prepared by Dr. Jasman Bir Singh. He had worked with doctor Jasman Bir Singh who had left the hospital in January FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 22 of 33 2016. It was correct that as per record in alleged history mentioned in MLC did not disclose the name of person who had inflicted injury upon him. It was further correct that the MLC did not bear the name of the person who brought the injured Prateek Gupta in the hospital and the time when he was brought in the hospital. It was correct that the date of given opinion upon the MLC was not mentioned either under the opinion or signature of doctor Jasman Bir Singh. However, date was mentioned as 25.12.2015. He was not aware about the fact whether the information was given to concerned police station or not from the Moolchand Hospital. It was wrong to suggest that Prateek Gupta had not sustained any injury and false MLC was prepared due to which no information regarding the same was given to concerned police station.
6. Final arguments were advanced.
7. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. APP for the State that in the present matter the guilt of the accused persons have been proved. It is further argued that the complainant and other witnesses have clearly deposed the manner in which the accused persons misbehaved with them and therefore all the accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged. It is further argued that in the present matter, all the injured persons and the victims have deposed the manner in which all the three accused persons had given beatings to them and had even outraging the modesty of PW2 and PW3 and there are no contradictions in the testimony of witnesses and therefore, all accused persons are liable to be convicted for the offences charged.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 23 of 33
8. On the other hand, it has been argued on behalf of Ld. Counsel for accused persons that in the present matter the accused persons have been falsely implicated since the complainant and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses and have falsely implicated the accused persons with ulterior motives. It is also argued that in the present matter the complainant and the other witnesses, as well as all the accused persons are known to each other much prior to the incident as they have been living in the same vicinity. It is also argued that on the alleged date of incident, it was the complainant who alongwith his brother Babu and another person namely Raghu had inflicted injuries upon accused Prateek Gupta and given severe beatings to him by hitting him on the head by a 'crate' when accused Prateek Gupta was sitting on a paratha shop. It is also argued that accused persons namely Vijay Chauhan and Raja Babu are falsely implicated since they had taken injured accused Prateek Gupta to the hospital and further the accused persons were arrested when they visited the police station in the night of 25.12.2015 to inform regarding the incident at the behest of the complainant, which is apparent from the testimony of PW8 being the IO of the matter, who has himself admitted that the accused persons had themselves reached the police station and were arrested at the police station. It is further argued that PW8 has also admitted that when accused persons reached the police station, he found accused Prateek Gupta injured, which itself shows that accused Prateek Gupta was a victim in the present matter but his complaint was not entertained by the police. It is also argued that the allegations levelled by the complainant and PW2 Rani in the complaint and in FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 24 of 33 the statement recorded of the witnesses u/s 161 CrPC are not reiterated by witness/PW4 and victim/PW3. Further, PW3 has nowhere stated the manner of commission of alleged quarrel in her statement recorded u/s 164 CrPC Ex.PW3/C. It is also argued that no weapon of offence that is the alleged knife was recovered from the possession of accused persons and admittedly accused persons had immediately after the scuffle, had gone to Moolchand hospital which is reflected in the MLC of injured Prateek Gupta Ex.DW5/A as the time on the MLC mark A is 11:08 PM and it also mentions that the accused Prateek Gupta was brought to the hospital by his friends and the injuries suffered by accused Prateek Gupta on his forehead was due to scuffle and also that he was hit on his head with a 'crate', which itself shows that accused has been falsely implicated in the present matter and instead of being treated as a victim, accused has been falsely implicated at the behest of the complainant. It is further argued that the MLC of the complainant Manoj Ex.PW5/B does not mention regarding any injury sustained by him as the MLC itself states no visible injury. It is also argued that the case property being a torn suit was handed over by injured/PW3 to the police after seven days by herself after visiting the police station and the same was not seized by the police at the time of incident or even subsequently when PW3 went to the police station for recording of her statement. Further, though PW4 Vijay has stated to have taken the photographs of the injuries received by his bhabhi, PW2 Rani, the same were never handed over to the IO or produced before the court which itself casts a shadow on the story of the prosecution. Therefore, accused persons are liable to be acquitted. It has also been argued that the FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 25 of 33 complaint is devoid of merit and does not corroborate the testimony of witnesses and therefore all the accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
Court Observations:
9. After having carefully perused the evidence on record and considered the rival contentions of the state as well as defence counsel, this court has come to the following conclusion:
In the present matter, prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and PW1 being the complainant, PW2 being the bhabhi of the complainant, PW3 being the victim and PW4 Vijay being husband of PW2 and all the aforesaid four witnesses are also the victim in the present matter. Remaining witnesses examined by the prosecution were formal in nature. PW1 is the complainant and the victim in the present matter. The present FIR is an outcome of two incidents of quarrel which took place on 25.12.2015 at around 10.00 PM and at around 10.30 PM. The story of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2015, complainant/PW1 Manoj Kumar was sitting outside his house alongwith his family members around a bonfire and he saw that his neighbourer Vijay (PW4) was being beaten by accused Vijay Chauhan and there was a scuffle between them which was witnessed by him. Upon seeing the same, he intervened and got both his neighbourer Vijay (PW4) and accused Vijay Chauhan separated. After sometime, accused persons namely Raja Babu, Prateek @ Circuit and Vijay Chauhan forcibly entered his house and started threatening the complainant and entered into a scuffle with the FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 26 of 33 complainant and even misbehaved and manhandled him and his bhabhi namely Rani (PW2). During the aforesaid scuffle, accused Raja Babu and Circuit misbehaved with his bhabhi, pulled her wearing dupatta and abused her. When his bhabhi raised alarm, accused Raja Babu showed her a knife and threatened to kill them. During that time, complainant was slapped by the accused persons and he received injuries and further that all accused persons were known to him prior to the incident. However, PW2 Rani has stated in her testimony that on 25.12.2012 while she was sitting in front of her house alongwith her family members, she found one person namely Pakia manhandling their neighbourer namely Vijay (PW4), who was the husband of PW3 and the intervened between Vijay (PW4) and the said person Pakia and separated them. However, 1520 minutes, fourfive boys alongwith persons namely Pakia, Raja Babu and Circuit came to their house and started giving beatings to complainant Manoj (PW1) on the ground floor and upon hearing the quarrel and the noise of complainant Manoj, she woke up her husband and came down on the ground floor. When she intervened person namely Circuit punched on her face and she started bleeding from her nose and moved on one side and at that time, accused Raja Babu showed her a knife and threatened to stab in her stomach and touched all her breast and person namely Circuit pulled her hair and abused her in filthy language and accused Raja Babu further threatened her. Further, police officials came to her house on the same day and inquired from her regarding the incident and took complainant Manoj to AIIMS hospital. At the hospital, she was also treated for her injuries and thereafter, she left for home and her statement was FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 27 of 33 recorded at her home by the police and she identified accused Raja Babu, Vijay Chauhan @ Pakia and Prateek Gupta @ Circuit in the court.
10. In the present matter, prior to the aforesaid incident which occurred at the house of complainant, there was another incident of the same day which had taken place between PW3 and PW4 at around 10.00 PM. It is stated by PW3 in her testimony that on 25.12.2015, she was inside her room and upon hearing some noises of scuffle from outside her house, she came out of her house and saw that all the three accused persons were beating her husband Vijay (PW4) and she tried to rescue her husband. At that time, all accused persons misbehaved with her and had torned her clothes and even tried to give beatings to her by a stick which was lying near the spot. During that time, complainant/PW1 tried to rescue her husband, but even he was given beatings by the accused persons. She was inquired about the incident by the police on 26.12.2015 and she gave her complaint Ex.PW1/A and had handed over her torn clothes. The aforesaid witness during her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC has not deposed on the lines of her aforesaid allegations but has only stated that on 25.12.2015, accused persons had scuffled with her husband and when she intervened, her suit was torn and was abused in filthy language and even threatened. Apart from the aforesaid deposition, PW3 has not stated regarding the incident narrated by complainant which had taken place at his residence with himself or PW2 and therefore, PW3 is not an eye witness to the incident which took place at the house of the complainant. Further, if we carefully peruse the testimony of PW1 and PW2, they have nowhere stated that when the alleged incident was FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 28 of 33 taking place with victim/injured PW4, PW3 was also present. It is nowhere stated that when PW1 had tried to intervene in the scuffle between Vijay (PW4) and accused Vijay Chauhan, wife of injured Vijay Khalkho that is PW3 was present. There are several contradictions in the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, since PW1 has stated that when the incident of quarrel had taken place between his neighbourer Vijay, it was only accused Vijay Chauhan who was present, but PW2 has stated that when the incident of quarrel was taking place between Vijay (PW4), all the three accused persons were present which is contradictory to each other. Further, the presence of PW3 at the time of first incident of quarrel is not stated by PW1 and PW2 though, the same is stated by PW3 and PW4 and therefore, there is again contradiction in the testimony of witnesses. As far as PW4 Vijay is concerned, who is the victim of the first quarrel or incident of beatings which had taken place also stated that on 25.12.2015 at around 10.00 PM when he was standing near the Cigarette shop, accused Vijay Chauhan started abusing him and after sometime he alongwith another person namely Vijay came back to the shop and started giving him beatings and at that time accused Vijay Chauhan called remaining two accused persons and they all started giving him several beatings. However, the aforesaid fact is not stated either by PW1 or PW2 and there is complete contradiction in the aforesaid statement as compared to the statement of PW1 and PW2, since the aforesaid witnesses have not stated the name of accused Prateek Gupta, Raja Babu or another person namely Vijay. Further, there are several contradictions in the testimony of PW3 and PW4, though it is stated by PW3 during her FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 29 of 33 testimony that all accused persons started beating the complainant and had torn her wearing clothes and even tried to beat her with a stick and she was rescued by her neighbourer namely Manoj Kumar (PW01 being the complainant herein) and her husband, the same is not stated either by PW1 or by PW4 and PW4 does not state that during the aforesaid beatings when her wife came to rescue her she was given beatings by the accused persons or they had threatened to beat PW3 by a stick. Further, PW4 was not able to narrate the manner in which the incident occurred and therefore was even crossexamined by the prosecution itself. If we carefully peruse the testimony of all the aforesaid four witnesses and the manner in which the alleged two incident stated to have occurred, the story of the prosecution is completely contradictory in view of the testimony of the witnesses PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 and the same casts a shadow on the veracity of the witnesses.
11. In the present matter, accused persons have been charged for the offences u/s 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC. To prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offences punishable u/s 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC, prosecution was required to prove that all the accused persons having common intention, on the date of incident had used criminal force against the complainant and his bhabhi and also on the same day had tried to outrage the modesty of PW3 and even given beatings to PW4 (being the husband of PW3) and during the aforesaid quarrels had committed the offence with the intention to outrage the modesty of PW3 by tearing of her clothes and uttered words or made sound or gesture with the intention to insult the FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 30 of 33 modesty of PW2 and PW3 and had committed the acts of threatening the aforesaid persons by committing trespass.
12. While testifying as PW1, complainant was not able to even mentioned the exact manner of commission of offence with victim PW4 Vijay or himself. Neither PW1 nor PW4 had stated the manner of commission of offence. Further, the victim (PW3) during her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C the commission of offence in a different manner than the one stated by her in her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C., and the complainant fails to mention the alleged abusive language or exact threats extended to her by the accused persons, during her testimony recorded before the court.
13. In the present matter, the star witness of the prosecution is the complainant. The complainant in her testimony before the court has not narrated the incident dated 25.12.2015, the manner in which he has narrated it in his complaint Ex. PW1/A. Further, if we carefully peruse the record and confine ourself to the incident dated 25.12.2015, the allegations of the complainant are not substantiated by him in his complaint or in the testimony recorded before Court. Further, none of the witnesses have stated with certainty the manner of commission of offence and there is no corroboration in the testimony of all the witnesses and therefore do not inspire confidence. Further, the testimony of all the witnesses lacks credence.
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 31 of 33
14. Accused persons cannot be held liable for causing any insult to PW2 or PW3 as the witnesses have failed to narrate any such insulting language or gestures used against them by the accused persons or if any threats were extended by the accused persons to the complainant or other witnesses. Further, the aforesaid witnesses have not narrated if the accused persons had used or uttered any word with the intention to insult their modesty or had intruded into the privacy of PW2 or PW3 by misbehaving with them.
15. The improvement in the version of all the witnesses is crucial as Ex. PW1/A is a hand written complaint admittedly prepared by complainant and there is no justification or plausible ground as to why the complainant was unable to narrate the incident explicitly or elaborate upon the details particularly when the same has been written on the same day and thus without being under any influence. The very fact that the complainant did not mention about the aforesaid fact and was never taken for medical examination from the place of incident itself shows that the complainant had not suffered any injury upon the alleged beatings given to him by the accused persons. Further, the allegations of touching PW2 and PW3 with the intention to outrage her modesty are also not sustainable as the same are completely vague and do not inspire confidence. The complainant has levelled general allegations against the accused persons and the same are devoid of merit as the complainant has not explained the same even during his testimony recorded before the Court. Further, the story of the complainant cannot be believed as he himself has admitted during his crossexamination that at the FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 32 of 33 place of incident, there were several public persons but none was examined by prosecution. Therefore, there was nothing to lend support to the testimony of PW1 apart from bald averments made in the complaint and his testimony before the court. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the guilt of the accused persons has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
16. In view of the above discussion and considering the material, available on record, the guilt of the accused persons is not proved beyond reasonable doubts. Therefore, all three accused persons are acquitted for the offences U/s 323/354/354B/452/506/34 IPC.
Announced in Open Court (Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan)
on 05.01.2019 (Metropolitan Magistrate02,(Mahila Court),
SouthEast, Saket, New Delhi.
Digitally signed
by SHEETAL
SHEETAL CHAUDHARY
CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
PRADHAN Date:
2019.01.07
16:47:26 +0530
FIR No. 501/2015 State Vs. Raja Babu & Ors. PS Defence Colony 33 of 33