Delhi District Court
State vs : Draupdi on 24 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK : ACMM-01 :
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI State Vs : Draupdi FIR No : 149/2006 U/s : 160 IPC PS : Paharganj Unique ID : 02401R0085752007 Date of Institution: 15.01.2007 Date of Judgment reserved for: 03.05.2014 Date of Judgment: 24.05.2014 Brief Details of the Case A. Sl. No. of the case 558/P B. Offence complained of or proved U/s 160 IPC C. Date of Offence 31.03.2006 D. Name of the complainant SI I.K.Jha PS Paharganj, New Delhi E. Name of the accused (1) Draupdi W/o Sh. Ram Prasad R/o 3905, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, New Delhi (2) Chanda (already convicted) W/o Sh. Lal Chand R/o 3904, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
(3) Santosh (already convicted) W/o Sh. Anil Kumar R/o 3904, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
(4) Km. Pooja (already convicted) W/o Sh. Lal Chand R/o 3904, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, New Delhi.
(5) Santra (already convicted) W/o Sh. Tek Chand R/o 3905, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, New Delhi.FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 1 of 8
F. Plea of the accused Pleaded not guilty
G. Final order Convicted
H. Date of Order 24.05.2014
Judgment
On the accusation of committing affray by fight in a public place and disturbing public peace, accused Smt.Chanda, Smt. Santosh, Kumari Pooja and Smt. Santra were sent up for trial for committing offence punishable under Section 160 IPC.
Brief facts as unfolded during trial
2. The case of prosecution is that accused persons were neighborers residing at Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, Delhi. Accused Smt. Chanda, Smt. Santosh and Kumari Pooja were residing at House No.3904, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, Delhi while accused Smt. Dropadi and Smt. Santra were residing at House No. 3905, Kaseruwalan, Paharganj, Delhi. There used to be frequent fights between them over petty issues. On 31.03.2006, at around 05.15 PM, information about such a fight was received and recorded at Police Post Sangatrashan as DD No.21. On receiving information, Ct. Mahesh Kumar (PW6) and ASI Dharamvir (PW4) reached the spot and found the accused persons fighting with each other in the street and disturbing public peace. Neighborers Narender Kumar (PW1) and Smt. Brahma Devi (PW2) were standing at the spot and observing the accused persons fighting and abusing each other. In the meantime, Inspector I.K.Jha (PW5), Incharge of Police Post Sangatrashan, reached the spot and tried to pacify the accused persons. The other family members of accused persons came there and took them to Lady FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 2 of 8 Harding Medical College(LHMC). Inspector I.K.Jha left ASI Dharamvir at the spot and reached LHMC alongwith Ct. Mahesh. He collected the MLCs of accused persons and prepared rukka (Ex.PW5/A) and handed it over to Ct. Mahesh for registration of FIR. In the said background, present FIR bearing No. 149/2006 under Section 160 IPC was registered at PS Paharganj.
3. Necessary investigation was carried out and documentation was done. Statements of witnesses were recorded by Inspector I.K.Jha but further investigation was assigned to Insp. Bhramjit Singh (PW7) who arrested the accused persons and took opinion on the MLCs. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was put to the Court. Copies of chargesheet were supplied to all the accused and charge under Section 160 IPC was framed against them to which they pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed trial.
Witnesses examined
4. Seven prosecution witnesses were examined.
Eye witnesses PW1 Narender (Neighborer present at the spot) mentioned that he saw all the accused fighting with each other. He stated that initially, a verbal altercation started between Smt.Santosh Kumari and Smt. Dropadi and thereafter, the other accused also joined them and started quarreling with each other.
PW2 Brahma Devi (Neighborer residing at House No. 3895) stated that she came out of her house after hearing some noise. She mentioned that after coming out, she saw that all the accused persons were fighting with each other. She deposed that she tried to sortout the matter but accused persons FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 3 of 8 did not listen and started abusing her.
PW4 ASI Dharamvir (police officials who reached the spot) stated that he reached the spot and saw that accused persons were fighting with each other. He mentioned that while the fight was going on, Inspector I.K.Jha arrived at the spot and tried to pacify the accused persons.
PW5 Inspector I.K.Jha (Incharge, Police Post Sangatrashan) stated that on reaching the spot, he saw the accused fighting and abusing each other. He mentioned that he tried to pacify the accused persons. He deposed that accused persons were taken to LHMC by their respective family members and he also reached there alongwith Ct. Mahesh.
PW6 Ct. Mahesh (police official who reached the spot alongwith ASI Dharamvir) deposed on the lines of ASI Dharamvir mentioning that accused persons were fighting with each other.
Witnesses of investigation PW7 Inspector Bharamjit Singh (Second Investigating Officer) stated that investigation was assigned to him on 02.04.2006. He mentioned that he arrested the accused persons on 05.04.2006 and collected the result of their MLCs.
PW3 ASI Krishan Pal (witness of arrest) mentioned that accused were arrested in his presence by Inspector Bharamjit Singh. The arrest memos are Ex.PW3/A to Ex.PW3/E.
5. Separate statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein they denied all the incriminating evidence. They mentioned that they have been falsely implicated by the police officials. Subsequently, FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 4 of 8 accused Kumari Pooja, Smt. Santra, Smt. Santosh and Smt. Chanda pleaded guilty for committing the offence punishable under Section 160 IPC and they were convicted by the Ld. Predecessor. Therefore, the present judgment is qua the accused Smt. Dropadi only and the term 'accused' hereinafter would refer to this accused only.
Arguments
6. I have heard Ld. APP for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and carefully gone through the entire material available on record.
7. Ld. Defence Counsel has submitted that there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of eyewitnesses. He has contended that Narender Kumar (PW1) and Smt. Brahma Devi (PW2) have deposed against the accused on account of family rivalry and their testimony should be discarded. He has argued that police officials have falsely implicated the accused and she is innocent.
8. On the other hand, Ld. APP has contended that charge against the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt. He has contended that testimony of neighborers find support from the version of police officials who immediately arrived at the spot after receiving information about the incident. He argued that police officials have specifically mentioned that accused persons were found fighting and abusing each other in the street. He has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that accused committed an affray by fighting in a public place and disturbing public peace.
9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the entire material available on record. FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 5 of 8
Brief reasons for the decision
10. There are number of eyewitnesses of the incident but the testimony of Narender Kumar (PW1) and Smt. Brahma Devi (PW2) is the most crucial piece of evidence. Let us peruse the testimony of these witnesses. Narender Kumar (PW1) stated that at the time of incident, he was going to the market for purchasing some articles. He stated that while he was passing from the spot, he saw that Smt. Santosh Kumari was sitting at the corner of the street and talking to her nephew. He mentioned that in the meantime, Smt. Dropadi arrived there and started quarreling with Smt. Santosh Kumari under misconception that she was passing some remarks against her. He stated that after this, other ladies i.e. Smt. Santra Devi, Smt. Chanda and Kumari Pooja also came there and started quarreling with each other. He mentioned about arrival of police officials stating that his statement was recorded by them. Smt. Brahma Devi (PW2) has supported and corroborated the testimony of this witness. She stated that she came out of her house after hearing noise from outside. She mentioned that after coming out of her house, she saw all the accused involved in a scuffle. She stated that she tried to sortout the matter and separate them but they did not listen and started abusing her. Ld. Defence Counsel has attacked the testimony of these witnesses arguing that they have falsely deposed against the accused on account of family rivalry. It has been contended by him that statement of these witnesses should be discarded. I do not find any force in the argument of defence.
11. Perusal of statements of both the spot witnesses shows that they have given a detailed account of the incident. Narender Kumar (PW1) has mentioned the name of accused and identified her in the court stating that she FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 6 of 8 was fighting in a public place and disturbing public peace. His version finds support and corroboration from the testimony of Smt. Brahma Devi (PW2). There is no reason to doubt the version of these witnesses. Ld. Defence Counsel has crossexamined both the witnesses but no serious infirmity or inconsistency has been brought about. The defence has failed to cause any serious dent in the version of spot witnesses. A stereotyped argument has been put forward about some previous rivalry between the witnesses and accused but the said argument does not find any support from record. The falsity of defence is evident as the accused did not even whisper about the alleged previous rivalry during her examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No suggestion in this regard was put to the witnesses during their cross examination. I find the testimony of both the spot witnesses coherent and fully reliable. Moreover, their testimony find support from the version of police officials.
12. ASI Dharamvir (PW4) stated that after receiving information about incident vide DD NO.22, he immediately reached the spot alongwith Ct. Mahesh and found that 45 ladies were fighting with each other. He stated in his cross examination that all the accused persons were fighting with each other in the street. Ct. Mahesh (PW6) has also narrated similar version. He stated that while accused persons were fighting with each other, Inspector I.K.Jha arrived at the spot and tried to pacify them. Inspector I.K.Jha has corroborated the version of these witnesses stating that when he reached the spot, he saw the accused persons fighting and abusing each other. He mentioned that he tried to pacify the accused persons but it did not yield any result. He mentioned that family members of accused persons came there and FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 7 of 8 took them to LHMC. He mentioned about collecting MLCs of accused persons and recording the statement of witnesses. All the police witnesses have narrated similar chain of events. Their testimony has remained unblemished.
13. In view of the discussions made in the abovestated paras, I am of the considered opinion that the charge against accused Dropadi has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of neighbors which has been corroborated by the statement of police officials leaves no scope for doubt that on 31.03.2006, at around 05.40 PM, accused Dropadi was fighting in a public place with the other accused persons (who have already been convicted) to disturb public peace and thereby committed the offence of Affray punishable under Section 160 IPC. Accused Dropadi stands convicted for committing the said offence.
Be heard separately on point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) on 24.05.2014 ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI
It is certified that this judgment contains 08 (eight) pages and each page bears my signature.
(SUDHANSHU KAUSHIK) ACMM-01/(CENTRAL)/DELHI FIR No.149/2006 State Vs Dropati & Ors. Page 8 of 8