Delhi District Court
State vs Kiran Biswas on 7 April, 2014
(1)
IN THE COURT OF SH. GIRISH KATHPALIA, ASJ05,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET, NEW DELHI
SC No. 15/14
STATE
vs
Kiran Biswas
D/o Sh. Joel Biswas
R/o Village Veerpada,
Silliguri, Assam.
FIR No. 373/08
PS Amar Colony
Offence under Section 289/308 IPC
State Vs Kiran Biswas
Unique ID No. : 024003R0461672009
Date of Committal : 17.01.2014
First Date in this Court: 30.01.2014
Date of conclusion of arguments : 02.04.2014
Date of decision : 07.04.2014
JUDGMENT
1. The case brought by the prosecution is as follows. On 26.09.08, when the Investigating Officer (IO) ASI Sukhvinder Singh alongwith Ct. Ashutosh was patrolling in the area of DBlock, East of Kailash, one Nand Kishore Thakur met them in injured condition and gave his statement to the effect that he is working as a peon in the office State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 1 of 27 Pages (2) of Sh. M.L. Satija; that on 20.09.2008 at about 03:30 pm, he was going home from D116, East of Kailash residence of Sh. Satija; that after Sh. Satija escorted him out and he reached in front of house no. D109, East of Kailash, a lady was taking a stroll alongwith three dogs; that suspecting him of something, the said lady released one of her dogs on him and that dog bit his private parts; that hearing his groans, Sh. Satija came running and saved him; that subsequently he came to know name of that lady as Kiran, a maid of H.No. D115, Second Floor.
2. After recording his statement, the IO took the injured Nand Kishore to Safdarjung Hospital and got him medically examined. In the MLC of the injured, the doctor opined the injury as "bite mark at base of penis right side". On the basis of statement of the injured Nand Kishore coupled with the MLC, the IO got registered an FIR for offence under Section 289/324 IPC and carried out further investigation. In the course of further investigation, the IO obtained medical opinion and the doctor opined the injury suffered by the injured Nand Kishore to be grievous sharp, so the charge sheet under Section 289/308 IPC was prepared and State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 2 of 27 Pages (3) filed in the Magisterial Court, from where it was committed to the Court of Sessions. My learned predecessor framed charge against the accused for offence under Section 289/308 IPC to which she pleaded not guilty. In support of its case, prosecution examined in all seven witnesses, whereafter the entire prosecution evidence was put to the accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied the correctness and truthfulness of prosecution evidence, but opted not to lead any evidence in her defence. I have heard Sh. R.K. Gurjar, Additional Public Prosecutor for state and Sh. Mohan Shandilya, counsel for the accused.
3. A brief conspectus of the evidence brought on record is as follows.
4. PW1 HC Tek Chand, who was working as duty officer at PS Amar Colony on 26.09.08, proved a copy of the FIR as Ex.PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka as Ex.PW1/B and stated that after registration of FIR, he delivered the original rukka and the copy of the FIR to Ct. Ashutosh for being delivered to the IO.
5. PW2 Lady Ct. Veena deposed that on 28.09.08, while posted State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 3 of 27 Pages (4) at PS Amar Colony as a constable, she joined the proceedings and in her presence the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A and that she took personal search of the accused vide memo Ex.PW2/B. In her cross examination, PW2 stated that she reached the house of the accused at about 02:00 pm and the accused was arrested at about 03:10 pm. 6.1. PW3 Sh. M.L. Satija deposed that on 20.08.08 (which date was rectified by the learned prosecutor subsequently by putting a leading question to which the witness responded that he did not remember the exact date and it could be 20.09.08) one Nand Kumar or Nand Kishore, who was working in his office as a peon had come to deliver some goods at his residence; that while returning from his home, when Nand Kumar had gone about 1520 ft away and reached in front of H. No. D109, he heard shrieks of Nand Kumar; that thereafter, he came out and called the security guard who was carrying a stick; that he noticed three dogs with the maid (the accused present in court during testimony); that out of those three dogs, two were in chain; that the security guard hit the dog with the stick due to which the dog was separated from Nand Kishore and then State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 4 of 27 Pages (5) he noticed that the dog had bitten the private part of Nand Kishore, whose shirt and pajama got torn; that later he saw wounds on the person of Nand Kumar and his staff namely Satish and another person took Nand Kumar to Safdarjung Hospital; that he spent on treatment of Nand Kumar who left job after about 23 months.
6.2. In his cross examination, PW3 stated that his qualification is intermediate and he is working as labour law consultant having retired from ESI Corporation as Assistant Head Clerk after service of 24 years; that it would be wrong to suggest that being a lawyer he had been threatening to teach lesson to the accused; that rather it is the accused who was threatening him, though he did not take any action except talking to a constable who told him not to bother; that he had been residing in the same locality for past 10 years and the victim as well as owner of the dog had been residing there for about 45 years but he did not know name of the owner of the dog; that being incharge of security of the area, he was informed by the security guard that the lady who owned those dogs was not paying monthly security charges; that after the alleged State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 5 of 27 Pages (6) incident he immediately called up his staff, who reached the spot within 23 minutes; that he could not recollect the exact clothes except the shirt worn by Nand Kishore at the time of incident; that apart from the alleged incident, he had never witnessed a dog bite a human being, though he had been himself bitten by a dog 2025 years ago; that to his knowledge, the dog of the accused had never bitten any other person of the area; that he had seen the dog biting the private part of Nand Kishore but did not remember whether the blood was on left or right side of the inner thigh; that although first aid facility is available between his residence and Safdarjung hospital, as per his knowledge, better treatment of dog bite was available in Safdarjung hospital; that he did not accompany Nand Kishore to the hospital though visited the hospital subsequently on same day and, thereafter, on several occasions; that 23 days after the incident the injured Nand Kishore became serious and started frothing from mouth, so he was taken to police station and then to Safdarjung hospital accompanied with the police; that he could not say if the doctor had registered a medico legal case on the day of the incident; that he took the State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 6 of 27 Pages (7) injured to police station 23 days after the incident when the injured was frothing from mouth and till that time he did not know if the police had registered a case or not; that he could not produce the medical record of the injured though he might have spent Rs.4,000/ to Rs.5,000/ on medical treatment in addition to full salary of Rs.4,000/ and free accommodation given to Nand Kishore; that he knew that the injured remained admitted in the hospital but did not know for how many days; that he visited the injured in Safdarjung hospital 45 times but did not remember the room number or ward number or date of discharge and he never met any doctor; that he took the injured to the police station prior to discharge from the hospital on the day when the FIR was registered but did not know as to whether permission of the hospital to take the injured to police station was obtained or not; that when he took the injured to the police station, then his statement was recorded by the police and the victim made his complaint but he did not know as to whether his statement was recorded prior to the registration of FIR or subsequent thereto; that one Virender Kumar also was residing in the staff quarter of State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 7 of 27 Pages (8) the victim Nand Kishore, which is about 1012 km from the place of occurrence; that he did not approach the owner of the dogs with compromise offer and did not know if the victim Nand Kumar had done so; that the injured had told him that being a poor person, the injured would settle the dispute in which he could help being a neighbour and since the injured was not given any compensation, efforts failed and the present case was registered; that the injured demanded Rs.10,000/ to Rs. 11,000/ to settle the dispute; that the injured remained in his employment for about 67 months but whereabouts of the injured were not known to him. On being shown portion A to B of his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the accused deliberately let one of the three dogs on the injured after being suspicious, the witness denied having made such a statement and added that there was no suspicion or any deliberate act on the part of the accused maid, though there was negligence on the part of owner of the dogs. PW3 further stated that children and residents of the area used to get nervous upon seeing the dogs, whose mouths were not tied. PW3 specifically stated that in his State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 8 of 27 Pages (9) view it is the owner of the dogs and not the maid who is blameworthy to be prosecuted. PW3 further stated in his cross examination that he had requested the SHO to take the injured to the hospital as the injured was in the police station at that time and, thereafter, they took the injured to hospital in his car; that there were only two persons apart from driver in his car and he did not remember as to whether any police officer was in his car on the way to the hospital; that on the second time when condition of the victim was serious, the SHO had deputed one police officer to accompany the victim to the hospital but he did not remember name of that police officer.
7. PW4, Dr. Amit Anand proved MLC of the injured as Ex.PW4/A and stated that on examination of the victim, he found a bite mark at the base of the penis on right side and the victim had altered behavior. In response to a court question, PW4 stated that altered behavior is abnormal behavior which could be because of nervousness or anxiety, since CNS (Central Nervous System) in this case was normal. In cross examination, PW4 stated that neither he remembered the size of State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 9 of 27 Pages (10) the wound nor the same was mentioned in the MLC nor was he aware that it was obligatory to mention size of the wound in the MLC; that it is not his job to verify the cause of injuries and he could not say as to if the bite found on the injured person was a dog bite or any other animal bite or human bite; that in case of dog bite, it has to be multiple bite marks but in the present case there was only one bite mark; that while recording the alleged history, he only believed the victim instead of examining the injuries on scientific lines; that during the period any patient is admitted in a hospital, he can be taken out only with due permission of competent doctor; that he could not say as regards age of the injuries found on the victim.
8. PW5 Ct. Ashok Kumar deposed that on 26.09.08 while he was on patrol duty in the area of DBlock, East of Kailash with ASI Sukhvender Singh, the injured Nand Kishore met them and informed that on 20.09.08, when he had reached near the house no. D109, a lady who was having three dogs with her, let those dogs opened on him and he received dog bite. Thereafter, as per PW5 they took the injured Nand State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 10 of 27 Pages (11) Kishore for medical examination to Safdarjung hospital where the IO prepared rukka and after getting the FIR registered, he returned the rukka to the IO in the hospital. In his cross examination, PW5 stated that they met the injured Nand Kishore near house no. D109 on 26.09.08 incidentally; that he did not remember as to whether it was they or Nand Kishore who started the conversation; that they took the complainant to Safdarjung hospital without first taking him to the police station but he did not remember by which conveyance.
9. PW6 Ct. Ram Jiwan also deposed that on 26.09.08 when he was on patrolling duty with the IO in the area of DBlock, East of Kailash, one Nand Kishore met them and made an oral complaint regarding dog bite whereafter, leaving him at the spot, IO ASI Sukhvender Singh alongwith Ct. Ashutosh took the injured Nand Kishore to police station from where they took Nand Kishore to Safdarjung hospital. In cross examination, PW6 stated that when Nand Kishore met them, he was accompanied with one more person who followed them in his own car; that to the hospital, the IO had gone on his scooter while Ct. Ashutosh and the State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 11 of 27 Pages (12) complainant went in the TSR.
10. PW7 SI Sukhvender Singh described in his chief examination the steps done by him in the course of investigation of this case and arrest of accused and described the asal tehrir, statement of the injured as Ex.PW7/A and proved his rukka as Ex.PW7/B and site plan as Ex.PW7/C. In his cross examination, PW7 stated that he obtained MLC on 26.09.08 but could not tell as to who had written the opinion as regards nature of injuries on the MLC and did not try to trace out the said doctor; that he did not ask the complainant or the doctor to furnish him the blood stained clothes, if any, of the injured; that when he went to the house of the employer of the accused for the first time on 28.09.08, he found 34 dogs but did not know their breeds and he arrested the accused without identification of the dog by the injured, though he had met the injured about 34 times; that on 26.09.08, the injured met him at about 04:00 pm and at that time the injured was serious in condition and unable to urinate; that when injured met him, none else was with the injured, though employer of the injured was standing some distance away; that he State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 12 of 27 Pages (13) recorded the statement of Sh. M.L. Satija, employer of the injured when he returned from the hospital; that first the injured was taken to police station and, thereafter, to Safdarjung hospital at about 06:30 pm, since the police station was on the way to the hospital and he had to collect his stamp from the police station for making an application for medical examination of the injured at the hospital; that the injured was not in good condition and was shaking head like a dog but he did not inform the SHO, though the SHO was present in the police station; that he did not remember in which vehicle the injured was taken to the hospital; that when the injured first met him, behavior of the injured was normal but it is after reaching the police station that the behavior of injured changed; that he did not ask the injured as to whether the latter had been taken to hospital on the day of dog bite also or not; that during the investigation of about one month, behavior of the injured became normal.
11. No other evidence was brought by the prosecution.
12. The entire abovesaid prosecution evidence was put to the accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused denied State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 13 of 27 Pages (14) the truthfulness and correctness of the prosecution evidence and stated that she was involved in this false case as Mr. Satija used to harass her and her employer Ms. Nitya Sampat who is a spinster living alone and Mr. Satija had evil intentions on Ms. Sampat. Although in her statement, the accused stated that she wanted to lead defence evidence but subsequently through her counsel she closed defence evidence without examining any witness.
13. During final arguments, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that although the victim Nand Kishore could not be produced in the box, but prosecution has otherwise proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 289/308 IPC for which she was charged. Learned Prosecutor argued that the MLC clearly shows grievous sharp injury caused by the dog bite on the base of penis of the victim. It was further argued that PW3 Sh. M.L. Satija has strongly supported the prosecution case and even identified the accused in court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the offence under Section 289 IPC State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 14 of 27 Pages (15) stands proved by the testimony of PW3 coupled with the contents of the MLC and as regards Section 308 IPC, even if the same is not made out, keeping in mind that injuries were caused due to negligence of the accused in safe keeping of the animal, offence under Section 338 IPC is certainly made out.
14. Per contra, learned defence counsel took me through the entire evidence recorded in this case, pointing out various contradictions and improbabilities, which as per learned defence counsel would show that the prosecution miserably failed. Learned defence counsel also argued that in the absence of the complainant Nand Kishore, on the basis of evidence available on record, it would not be safe to record conviction against the accused. As regards the offence under Section 289/338 IPC, in response to the argument of prosecution, learned defence counsel pointed out that even as per the solitary public witness PW3, the negligence, if any, was of the owner of the dogs and not of the maid who is accused in this case. Learned defence counsel also submitted that the investigation is so shoddy that in the charge sheet, filed more than one year after the State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 15 of 27 Pages (16) occurrence, sex of the accused was disclosed as male. Further, learned defence counsel pointed out that PW3 is a labour law consultant as per his own testimony, but he could not produce even employment records of the accused to corroborate his own relevance in the entire situation. Learned defence counsel also argued that it is not possible to cause bite on the base of the penis without raising the penis, which could not be possible in case of dog bite and despite extensive cross examination, prosecution remained silent on this aspect. As per learned defence counsel, prosecution has failed to prove its case.
15. At the very outset, it needs to be appreciated that merely because the injured/victim of an offence was not brought in the witness box, it cannot be said that prosecution must always fail. It depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Where the overall prosecution evidence is credible and inspires confidence, failure to examine the injured/victim need not always be fatal to prosecution. At the same time, while analysing the evidence on record in such cases, it has to be constantly and prominently kept in mind that the injured/victim was kept State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 16 of 27 Pages (17) away from the box.
16. As mentioned above, as per prosecution the alleged offence took place at about 03:30 pm on 20.09.08 while the first disclosure of the alleged offence by way of asal tehrir was done at 07:40 pm on 26.09.08 and that too only when the IO happened to by chance meet the complainant during patrolling in the area. In other words, had the IO not met the complainant during patrolling, nothing on record suggests that the complainant intended to approach the police with his complaint; this becomes significant while analysing the overall evidence since the said complainant did not appear in the box during trial. Further, prosecution has also failed to explain this delay of about 6 days and 4 hours in disclosure of the offence followed by registration of the FIR. In plethora of judicial pronouncements, including Satguru Singh vs State of Punjab, AIR 1995 SC 2449; Rajeevan vs State of Kerala, 2003(1) JCC 527 SC and Mohinder Singh vs State of Punjab, 2003(3) JCC 1943 SC, it has been held that unexplained delay in registration of FIR is fatal to State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 17 of 27 Pages (18) prosecution.
17. Not only this, it is borne out of the statement of the solitary star witness of prosecution PW3 Mr. Satija that even on 22.09.08 or 23.09.08, the injured was taken to police station. But there is no explanation as to why not even a complaint was lodged by the injured or Mr. Satija till 26.09.08. Looking at it from another angle, this statement of PW3 that after about 23 days of the alleged bite, the injured started frothing from mouth so he took the injured first to the police station and then to Safdarjung hospital is a totally new version, found nowhere else in the entire prosecution case, which impacts the trustworthiness of this witness or rest of the prosecution case.
18. At this stage, it would also be relevant to briefly look into the statement dated 26.09.08 of the injured Nand Kishore on which FIR was registered, though the said statement has not been proved by the prosecution by bringing Nand Kishore into the box. In his statement dated 26.09.08, Nand Kishore did not say that out of three dogs being carried by the accused, one was not chained and the accused let the said State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 18 of 27 Pages (19) unchained dog on him. Nand Kishore stated in that statement that the accused let one of the dogs loose on him. Had Nand Kishore been brought to the box, he would have not stated that one of the dogs was unchained, which is the case set up by PW3. Accordingly, had Nand Kishore been brought to the box, his testimony would have shown no negligence on the part of the accused.
19. Further, in his statement dated 26.09.08, the injured Nand Kishore specifically stated: "mere par shak karte huwe us aurat.... ne teen kutton mein se ek kutta mere par chhod diya" (under suspicion on myself, that lady let loose one of those three dogs on me). There is absolutely no investigation as to what were the circumstances under which as per the first informant, the accused became suspicious of the first informant and let loose one of those dogs. This stretch of path left untreaded by the investigator leaves a vital air pocket in the entire prosecution case. Then, as reflected from overall unproved statement dated 26.09.08 of the injured Nand Kishore, it is the accused who made her dog bite him while the prosecution case is that it is the negligence of the accused that led to her State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 19 of 27 Pages (20) dog biting the injured. This infirmity also seriously dents the prosecution case.
20. Read in its entirety, statement of the solitary star witness of prosecution PW3 Mr. Satija fails to inspire confidence on account of contradictions and improbabilities at various places.
21. The said star witness PW3 did not even remember the correct month of the occurrence. Even when the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was allowed by my learned predecessor and put a leading question in the chief examination of PW3 as regards the month of the occurrence, PW3 was not certain as regards the month and rather stated that the incident "might" have occurred in September, 2008.
22. The sequence of events as deposed by PW3 are that at about 03:30 pm, Nand Kishore delivered the goods to him at the gate of his house; that while returning, after Nand Kishore had gone about 1520 ft and reached in front of house no. D109, he heard shrieks of Nand Kumar and came out and called the security guard who was carrying a danda and noticed the accused with three dogs out of whom one was unchained;
State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 20 of 27 Pages (21) that thereafter, the security guard hit the danda and separated the dog from Nand Kishore. The said testimony of PW3 gives an impression as if during the entire said period, the offending dog remained stuck to the injured but this does not match with the solitary injury found on Nand Kishore in his MLC.
23. As regards the manner in which the injured Nand Kishore suffered the injury, statement of PW3 is distinct from his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW3 stated that the accused had deliberately let loose one of the three dogs on Nand Kishore after she became suspicious but in his testimony recorded in court, PW3 did not support that version even after his attention was drawn before my learned predecessor to his previous statement in the course of cross examination and reiterated that there was no suspicion in the mind of accused nor was it a deliberate act of the accused. Rather, contradicting the entire prosecution case, PW3 stated that it was not even a negligence of the accused but it was the negligence of employer of the accused who was owner of the dogs.
State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 21 of 27 Pages (22)
24. As mentioned above, in his cross examination PW3 Mr. Satija gave a totally new version of certain events which otherwise does not fit into the rest of the prosecution case. As per PW3, after 23 days of the alleged bite i.e. on about 22.09.08 or 23.09.08, condition of Nand Kishore deteriorated and he started frothing from mouth so PW3 took Nand Kishore to the police station and then to hospital accompanied with police. In a stark contradiction, the IO PW7 stated in his cross examination that it was on 26.09.08 when for the first time he met the complainant, which is also the rest of the prosecution case. This major contradiction and a new version given by PW3 shakes his reliability.
25. Even as regards the manner in which the injured Nand Kishore had first interaction with the police pertaining to this case, statement of PW3 is in total contradiction with rest of the prosecution case. As per prosecution case, the first interaction of injured Nand Kishore occurred with the police when the IO was patrolling in the area and Nand Kishore met him. But as per PW3, during the period when injured was admitted as indoor patient in the hospital, prior to discharge State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 22 of 27 Pages (23) of the injured, PW3 took him to the police station from the hospital and got the FIR registered. PW3 specifically deposed that he took the injured to the police station where statement of the injured was recorded by police and FIR was registered but in the same breath he stated that he did not know as to whether permission was taken from the hospital for taking the indoor patient Nand Kishore to the police station. This also shows that PW3 is not a reliable witness.
26. Testimony of PW3 is in specific contradiction with the testimony of PW5 Ct. Ashutosh in so far as PW3 stated that he first took the injured Nand Kishore to police station in order to probe if any settlement was possible or any offence was made out and, thereafter, the injured was taken to Safdarjung hospital, while PW5 stated that Nand Kishore was taken straight to the hospital without being taken to police station. Either of the said two witnesses was not present in the sequence and deposed falsely.
27. Infact, the overall testimony of PW3, who in his own words qualified till only intermediate but is working as labour law consultant, State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 23 of 27 Pages (24) would show that he had some axe to grind and is not a totally independent public witness. As per PW3, Nand Kishore was his employee but despite being a labour law consultant, PW3 did not produce even a shred of documentary evidence to show his connection with Nand Kishore. As per PW3, Nand Kishore had approached employer of the accused for compromise and wanted to settle the dispute for reasonable compensation; he spent about Rs.4000/ to Rs.5000/ for medical treatment of Nand Kishore, during which period Nand Kishore was paid complete salary and free accommodation; he visited Nand Kishore in the hospital 45 times; Nand Kishore remained in his employment for 67 months; but despite all that, as per PW3, he did not know the whereabouts of Nand Kishore or even name of owner of the dogs, who resides in same area. Not only this, PW3 further stated that it is the accused who threatened him when he objected to her roaming around with unchained dogs and in this regard he also spoke with a constable who asked him not to bother about such threats. The manner in which PW3 over stretched his testimony beyond prosecution case in alleging at State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 24 of 27 Pages (25) length that it is employer of the accused who should be punished lends credence to the stand taken by the accused in her statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the accused nurtured evil intentions on her employer who is a spinster living alone.
28. Coming to the rest of the prosecution evidence, as mentioned above, PW4 Dr. Amit specifically stated that he did not verify and could not say as to if the bite suffered by the injured was a dog bite or any other animal bite or human bite. PW4 further stated that in case of dog bite, there have to be multiple bite marks while in the present case, it was a single bite mark found on the injured and even as regards age of that injury, he did not investigate. Further, as regards the altered behavior of Nand Kishore, PW4 also stated that the same could be because of nervousness or anxiety since the central nervous system of the injured was found normal.
29. Even as regards the identity of the dog, who allegedly bit Nand Kishore, no investigation at all was carried out. What to say of getting the alleged offending dog examined by forensic expert to connect State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 25 of 27 Pages (26) the injury with the dog, the IO did not even get any of the dogs identified by injured Nand Kishore though he met Nand Kishore about 34 times and even found the four dogs in the house of the accused. The IO did not try to even find out the breed of the dogs who were found in the house of the accused at the time of arrest. Even the clothes worn by the injured Nand Kishore at the time of the alleged occurrence were not seized by the police. As regards investigation, in his own words, IO PW7 never met nor even attempted to meet the doctor who had given opinion as regards nature of injuries on the MLC.
30. In view of above cited contradictions and improbabilities, the unanswered question as to who is the person who suffered the bite and whether due to deliberate act or negligence of anyone become significant and failure of prosecution to produce in the box the alleged victim Nand Kishore must entail fatality of the prosecution.
31. In view of above discussion, it is held that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that on account of deliberate act or even negligence of the accused, the alleged victim Nand State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 26 of 27 Pages (27) Kishore suffered any dog bite or even any bite. Consequently, the accused is held not guilty and is acquitted of the charges framed against her.
Announced in the open court (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
on 07.04.2014 Additional Sessions Judge05,
South East, Saket, New Delhi
State vs Kiran Biswas SC No. 15/14 Page 27 of 27 Pages