Delhi District Court
State vs . Ram Charan Singh And Ors. on 25 July, 2018
FIR No.312/13
State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar
IN THE COURT OF SHRI DEEPAK GARG:ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGEII
(NORTHWEST): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
Sessions Case No.52505/16
Unique Case ID: 02404R0384482014
State
Vs
1. Ram Charan
S/o. Late Sh. Soran
2. Raj Kumar
S/o. Ram Charan
3. Sunny
S/o. Ram Charan
All R/o. E111, Aman Vihar
Delhi
FIR No. : 312/13
Police Station : Aman Vihar
Under Section : 308/34 IPC
Date of Institution in Sessions Court : 05.12.2014
Date when judgment reserved : 25.07.2018
Date when judgment pronounced : 25.07.2018
Page No. 1 of 23
FIR No.312/13
State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar
JUDGMENT
1. This is the case under section 308/34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. The facts of the case in brief are that on 27/7/2013 after receiving a call vide DD no. 50B regarding quarrel and incident of eve teasing at Aman Vihar, SI Vasant Kumar and Ct. Pawan reached at the spot i.e. E110/111 Aman Vihar, Delhi and they found two boys quarreling with each other whose names later revealed as Sunny and Dharmender. Dharmender was badly injured. SI Vasant tried to pacify Sunny but he refused to relent and continued indulging in beating and abusing Dharmender. Both of them were shifted to SGM Hospital. IO prepared kalandara u/s 107/151 CPC against accused Sunny. On the next day IO found Dharmender admitted in LNJP hospital and he was not fit for statement. IO found Jija of injured namely Gajender Singh in the hospital and he recorded his statement on the basis of which this FIR was registered.
3. Complainant Gajender Singh who is the brother in law of injured Dharmender in his complaint has alleged that on 27/7/2013 he had gone to his in laws house at E110, Page No. 2 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar Aman Vihar Delhi at around 12:30 p.m. At about 1:00 p.m. when he was sitting inside the house of his in laws he heard some commotion in the street. On hearing the same, he came outside from the house and saw that Ram Charan, his son Sunny and Raj Kumar were abusing his brother in law Dharmender and they were scuffling with him. All of them beat Dharmender and Ram Chran lifted a brick and hit on the head of Dharmender due to which he sustained injury and became unconscious. Someone dialed to police at 100 number. In the meantime, Ram Charan and his elder son Raj Kumar ran away from the spot. PCR van came there and took Dharmender and Sunny to SGM Hospital and subsequently he was shifted to Lok Nayak hospital. Investigation was carried out. Accused Ram Charan was arrested during investigation and accused Raj Kumar and Sunny had surrendered themselves. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed in the Court.
4. On compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C, the charge sheet was committed to this Court by the Court of Ld. MM.
5. Charge under Sections 308/34 IPC was framed against all the accused persons by my Ld. Predecessor vide order dated 19/1/2015, to which they pleaded not guilty Page No. 3 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar and claimed trial.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in total 14 witnesses.
PUBLIC WITNESSES
7. Complainant Gajender Singh and injured Dharmender have been examined as PW10 and PW9 respectively. Their testimony shall be discussed in the later part of the judgment.
POLICE WITNESSES
8. PW1 W/Ct Sayar tendered her examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is ExPW1/A. She has proved the DD no. 50B as ExPW1/B.
9. PW2 Ct. Love Kush tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is ExPW2/A. He has proved the PCR form as ExPW2/B.
10. PW3 HC Raj Kumar tendered his examination in chief by way of affidavit, which is ExPW3/A. He has proved Page No. 4 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar the wireless log and diary register as ExPW1/B.
11. PW4 Ct. Sombir Malik has deposed that on 28/7/2013 SI Vasant Kumar had produced the accused Sunny before Ld. SEM, Outer District, along with original kalandada DD No. 21A. On 29/7/2013 accused Sunny was released on bail. He proved reply of accused as ExPW4/A. On 22/11/2013 accused admitted his guilt and he was conducted. Order of SEM has been proved as ExPW4/B.
12. PW6 SI Janak Raj is the Duty Officer, who proved the copy of FIR and endorsement on rukka, as Ex.PW6/A and Ex.PW6/B respectively.
13. PW11 Ct. Sandeep has deposed in sync with PW14 SI Vasant Kumar with whom he remained in the investigation.
14. PW12 Ct. Pawan has deposed in sync with PW14 SI Vasant Kumar with whom he remained in the investigation.
15. PW14 SI Vasant Kumar has deposed that on 27.07.2013, on receipt of a call regarding the quarrel and incident of eve teasing at Aman Vihar. he alongwith Ct. Pawan reached at the spot i.e. E110111, Aman Vihar, Delhi and found two Page No. 5 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar boys quarreling over there whose names later on revealed as Sunny and Dharmender and Dharmender was badly injured. He tried to pacify Sunny but he refused to relent and continued to indulge in beating and abusing Dharmender. At the spot, one girl namely Vandana Sharma alongwith her father who was alleged to have been eve teased was present. However, Vandana Sharma denied having been eve teased by anyone. Thereafter, he informed the SHO about the entire circumstances prevailing over there and at his instance, he prepared the Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.PC against accused Sunny. Both accused Sunny and injured Dharmender had been shifted to SGM Hospital in the PCR van alongwith Ct. Pawan. Thereafter, he visited the hospital and collected the MLC of both Sunny and Dharmender. On 28.07.2013, accused Sunny was produced before the SEM Court from where the accused was got lodged in lock up and I came back to PS. He received a call from LNJP Hospital regarding the admission of injured Dharmender in unconscious condition at LNJP Hospital. Thereafter, he alongwith Ct. Sandeep reached at LNJP hospital where injured Dharmender was found admitted and the doctor concerned had declared him unfit for statement. He recorded the statement Ex.PW10/A of Gajender Singh, brother in law of injured and endorsed the Page No. 6 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar same Ex.PW14/A and got the FIR registered through Ct. Sandeep. On 29.07.2013, he prepared the site plan Ex.PW14/B at the instance of the complaint. On 03.08.2013, he arrested accused Ram Charan vide arrest memo Ex.PW11/A and his personal search was carried out vide memo Ex.PW11/B. On his pointing out, he prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW11/D. Accused Rajkumar and Sunny, came at PS Aman Vihar on 21.10.2013 and were formally arrested vide memos Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/D. Their disclosure statement was recorded vide Ex.PW14/E and Ex.PW14/F. On 25.05.2014, final opinion on the MLC of injured Dharmender was obtained and the doctor concerned opined the injury suffered by injured Dharmender to be dangerous in nature. He prepared the challan and filed it in the court.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
16. PW5 Dr. Avinash Kumar Bhardwaj has deposed that on 28/7/2013 patient Dharmender was referred to department for NCCT head. He conducted the NCCT head and prepared his report ExPW5/A. As per NCCT head film there was a fracture on right temporal bone with acute EDH with active bleeding along right fronto temporal parietal Page No. 7 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar region with mass effect.
17. PW7 Dr. M. Das, CMO, SGM Hospital has deposed that on 27/7/2013 patient Dharmender was examined by him vide MLC no. 13848, ExPW7/A and after initial examination patient was referred to SR surgery for further management and treatment. As per the SR surgery the injury was simple.
18. PW8 Dr. P.N. Pandey has deposed that patient Dharmender was admitted in Lok Nayak Hospital on 28/7/2013 and was referred to Neuro Surgery Department by SGM Hospital, Mangol Puri. On CT scan of head of patient Dharmender it was revealed that there was a blood clot in the right frontal temporal parietal region with mass thickness of 9.2 mm and mid line shift of 5.5 mm and linear fracture on right temporal bone. Patient was operated for head injury. Medical treatment paper and discharge summary of patient have been exhibited as ExPW8/A and ExPW8/B respectively.
19. PW13 Dr. Shailinder Koul has appeared and deposed that the patient was examined by Dr. Madhur and the said Dr. Madhur had left the services of the hospital.
Page No. 8 of 23 FIR No.312/13State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar PW13 has perused the MCL of Dharmender in which observations were made by Dr. Madhur on the right hand side of the said MLC ExPW7/A and the signatures at point X. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
20. After completing the prosecution evidence, statement of all the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, in which all the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in evidence was put to them, which have been denied by them in toto. The accused persons stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. They have stated that Sunny was not well and hence he was at home and Ram Charan and Raj Kumar had gone to duty. When they had come to their house they came to know that Dharmender had eve teased Vandana who was living in neighbourhood. The family members of Vandana had assaulted Dharmender for his act and they had quarreled with each other. Pooja, daughter of Ram Charan was also earlier eve teased by Dharmender and they had objected to the same in the past and out of this enmity, their names were falsely involved in this case. The accused persons have Page No. 9 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar examined 3 witness in their defence.
21. DW1 Smt. Santosh has deposed that she knows the families of Ram Charan Singh and Dharmender who are living in her neighbourhood. The relation between both the said families were strained on the issue of teasing of the daughter of Ram Charan Singh. On 27/07/2013, there was quarrel between the family of Vandana with Dharmender. Dharmender had allegedly teased Vandana and on this issue, there was quarrel between both the said families. In the afternoon when the quarrel was already over, Ram Charan Singh came to his house during lunch hours and he was falsely implicated in this case by Dharmender and his family. All the three i.e. Ram Charan Singh and his sons Raj Kumar and Sunny were not present at the spot when the incident had occurred.
22. DW2 Veerpal Singh has deposed that he is a junk dealer and Ram Charan is also doing the same work in his neighbourhood. As per his personal knowledge, Ram Charan goes to his house to take lunch between 1.001.30 p.m. On 27/07/2013 also, at about 1.00 p.m., Ram Charan had left for his house to take his lunch.
Page No. 10 of 23 FIR No.312/13State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar
23. DW3 Rajender Singh has deposed that on 27.7.2013 in the afternoon at about 1:00 - 1:15 p.m. a boy namely Lala was teasing a girl of the locality namely Vandana d/o Chanderpal. When Vandana raised alarm, lot of locality members gathered there and quarrel took place on this issue. The locality members tried to apprehend the said Lala but he attempted to flee and in that process he fell down and received injuries. He had also reached at the spot when public gathered there and saw the incident. Ram Charan and his son are working in a factory in Mangol Puri and they come home only in the evening.
ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES
24. I have heard the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ld. Counsel Sh.K. Lal for the accused persons and have perused the material available on record.
25. It is argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the statement of both the public witnesses i.e. PW9 Dharmender and PW10 Gajender Singh are completely unreliable and there are lot of contradictions in their statements which make the case of Page No. 11 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar the prosecution highly doubtful. It is further argued that the incident never took place as narrated in the case of prosecution. It is further argued that the relation between both the families were strained as Pooja daughter of accused Ram Charan was earlier eve teased by Dharmender and the family members of Pooja i.e. the accused persons had objected to the same in the past and due to this enmity the accused was falsely involved in this case.
26. Per contra, Ld. Addl. PP for the State has argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that complainant Gajender Singh (PW10) and the victim Dharmender (PW9) have deposed in detail about the manner in which the offence was committed and there is nothing in their cross examination to weaken their testimony and this coupled with the medical evidence and the testimony of police officials and the documents prepared by them completes the chain of circumstance for the prosecution to prove its case.
FINDINGS OF THE COURT Page No. 12 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar Ocular Evidence:
27. Ocular evidence/ eye witness count is the best evidence in any case but it is settled law that the testimonies of the eye witnesses are required to be carefully analyzed to test the reliability, credibility and truthfulness of the witness. Though minor infirmities and discrepancies are bound to occur in the normal course yet in a case where the various eye witnesses corroborate each other on material aspect connected with the offence, there is no reason to reject their testimonies.
28. In the present case the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the eye witness account given by the victim Dharmender (PW9) and complainant Sh. Gajender Singh (PW10) who have identified the accused persons and also proved the incident which had taken place at the spot. Here, I may observe that since the prosecution is placing its heavy reliance on the testimony of the said witnesses, hence it is necessary for this Court to first determine whether they have deposed is reliable and truthful. It is settled law that in a case where the testimony of a witness is found to be reliable, the conviction can be based even on the sole Page No. 13 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar testimony of such a truthful and trustworthy witness. The Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again determined the parameters on the basis of which the credibility/ truthfulness of a witness can be ascertained. In the case of Bankey Lal vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1971 SC 2233 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that in a case where prosecution witnesses are proved to have deposed truly in all respects then their evidence is required to be scrutinized with care. Further, in the case of Kacheru Singh Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1956 SC 546 it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court whether the witness should be or should not be believed is required to be determined by the Trial Court. It is therefore evident that Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touchstone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witnessbox; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put Page No. 14 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar into the scales for a cumulative evaluation. (Ref.:
Krishnan Vs. State reported in AIR 2003 SC 2978).
PRESENCE OF GAJENDER SINGH AT THE SPOT HIGHLY DOUBTFUL
29. Sh. Gajender Singh (PW10) is the brother in law (sala) of injured Dharmender (PW9). It is deposed by him that on 27/7/2013 at about 12:001:00 p.m. he had gone to his in laws house at Aman Vihar, Delhi and while he was sitting inside the house of his in laws, he heard commotion on the street and on hearing this he came outside and saw that accused persons i.e. Ram Charan, Sunny and Raj Kumar were abusing and scuffling with Dharmender and they were beating Dharmender by giving fists and leg blows. Accused Ram Charan lifted a brick and hit on the head of Dharmender due to which he sustained injury and became unconscious. PCR van came there and took Dharmender and sunny to SGM Hospital and subsequently Dharmender was to be admitted in LNJP hospital where he underwent surgery of his head.
Page No. 15 of 23 FIR No.312/13State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar
30. Although this witness is claiming to be an eye witness to the incident but as rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for the defence, his presence at the spot is highly doubtful due to following reasons:
(i) When the incident in question took place on 27/7/2013 and the police came at the spot, this witness i.e. Gajender Singh brother in law of the injured did not present himself to the police as the eye witness to the incident. It was only on the next day of the incident i.e. on 28/7/2013 when injured Dharmender was admitted in unconscious condition at LNJP hospital, Gajender Singh claimed himself to be an eye witness of the incident and his statement was recorded by the police which is ExPW10/A on the basis of which this FIR was registered.
There is no explanation why he did not make complaint to the police on 27/7/2013 itself. It is not the case of this witness that he tried to make his statement to the police but the police did not deliberately record his complaint.
(ii) The testimony of this witness is in contradiction to the testimony of IO SI Vasant Kumar (PW14) who had reached the spot after receiving the call vide DD no. 50B. SI Vasant Kumar (PW14) has deposed that on 27/7/2013 after receiving a call vide DD no. 50B regarding the quarrel and incident of eve teasing at Aman Vihar, he Page No. 16 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar along with Ct. Pawan reached at the spot ie.. E110111, Aman Vihar Delhi and found two boys quarreling with each other whose names were later revealed as Sunny and Dharmender and Dharmender was badly injured. It is further deposed that when the police party reached there, both of them were fighting and at the spot, one girl namely Vandana Sharma who was alleged to have been eve teased was present there along with her father but the said Vandana Sharma denied of having being eve teased by anyone.
Witness Gajender Singh has not deposed the sequence of events between Sunny and Dharmender even after the arrival of the police, as narrated by SI Vasant Kumar. Further he is completely silent about the issue of eve teasing of any girl with the name Vandana Sharma. Gajender Singh has not deposed that Sunny was fighting with Dharmender even at the time of arrival of the police at spot. Hence, the testimony of Gajender Singh is highly doubtful.
CONDUCT OF INJURED DHARMEDNER
31. It is contended by Ld. Counsel for the defence that accused Dharmender and the accused persons are next Page No. 17 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar door neighbours and Dharmender used to tease Pooja d/o accused Ram Charan and sister of accused Raj Kumar and Sunny and the accused persons had complained to Dharmender and his family members in the past number of times and due to this issue, the relation was strained between both the families. Although Ld. Addl. PP for the State has denied any such conduct of Dharmender but it is relevant here to state that the testimony of injured Dharmender (PW9) itself speaks volumes about it. PW9 Dharmender has himself deposed that on 27/7/2013 at about 1:00 p.m. he had gone to the house of accused Ram Charan to return 45 letters written to him previously by Pooja, d/o accused Ram Charan and upon this the accused persons who were present in the house started abusing him and started beating him by fist blows. It is admitted fact that Dharmender at the time of incident was a married person. It is highly strange conduct of the witness that a neighbour, who is already married, would go to the house of the parents of the girl living in the neighbourhood, who allegedly passed on love letters to him in the past. This conduct of the witness speaks about his character and reputation in the society.
Page No. 18 of 23 FIR No.312/13State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar ALLEGATION OF EVE TEASING OF VANDANA BY DHARMENDER
32. As per the case of the prosecution itself an intimation was received at about 1:28 p.m. which was recorded as DD No. 50B on 27/7/2013 which is ExPW1/B that one boy had misbehaved with a girl at E111, Aman Vihar, Delhi In pursuance to this call, IO S IVasant Kumar (PW14) along with Ct. Pawan had gone at the spot where they had found Sunny and Dharmender quarreling with each other and he had also found one girl namely, Vandana Sharma present there along with her father, who was alleged to have been eve teased.
33. DW1 Smt. Santosh has categorically deposed that on 27/7/2013 there was quarrel between the family of Vandana and Dharmender as Dharmender had allegedly teased Vandana and on this issue, there was quarrel between both the families.
34. In a case titled as Dudhnath Pandey vs. State of U.P. AIR 1981 Supreme court 911 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the defence witnesses are entitled to equal treatment with those of the prosecution and the courts ought to overcome their traditional, instinctive disbelief in Page No. 19 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar the defence witnesses. In the present case, this court does not find any reason to discard the testimony of defence witnesses and in my view their testimony inspires much confidence in the mind of this court as the testimony coming out from their mouth is unimpeachable and reliable.
PROCEEDING U/S 107/151 CRPC AGAINST ACCUSED SUNNY
35. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that after the incident in question, accused Sunny was booked u/s 107/151 CrPC and the kalandara under the said provisions was filed in the court of ACMM by SI Vasant Kumar and the copy of the same is mark A on which SI Vasant Kumar (PW14) identified his signatures at point B and B1 and that of Ct. Pawan at point A. The kalandara was filed after investigation of police in which it was alleged that the police had gone at the spot after receiving DD no. 50B which was regarding misbehaviour with a girl but on reaching there it was a quarrel between Sunny and Dharmender and that while Dharmender was riding a motor cycle, he made him stop it and he started altercation with him and he pushed him from the motor cycle and beat him with fist and leg blows and he did not mend his way Page No. 20 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar even after arrival of police and hence he was apprehended and booked u/s 107/151 CrPC and presented before Ld. ACMM concerned.
36. If this was the investigation of the police that it was Sunny who had beat Dharmender and caused injury to him, the implication of accused Ram Charan Singh and Raj Kumar on the statement of Sh.Gajender Singh PW10 becomes highly doubtful.
37. It is not out of place here to mention that in the said kalandara u/s 107/151 CrP , the police allegedly recorded statement of Dharmender u/s 161 CrPC on 27/7/2013 itself and if Dharmender was in a position to give the statement to the police, it is not clear why the FIR of the present case was not registered then and there itself on his statement. It also creates doubt in the case of prosecution.
38. It is very relevant here to state that injured Dharmender (PW9) has categorically deposed in his cross examination that he did not remember by which particular accused he was hit on the head. Hence he was failed to identify accused Ram Charan Singh as the person who had allegedly hit him with a brick.
Page No. 21 of 23 FIR No.312/13State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar
39. A criminal trial is not a fairy tale wherein one is free to give flight to one's imagination and fantasy. Crime is an event in real life and is the product of an interplay between different human emotions. In arriving at a conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and the animus of witnesses. It is settled law that the burden of proof in a criminal trial never shifts and it is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of acceptable evidence. It has been so held in Paramjeet Singh vs. State. Of Uttrakhand AIR 2011 Supreme Court 200.
40. In case titled Sohan and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Another (2001) 3 SCC 620 it has been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
"An accused is presumed to be innocent until he is found guilty. The burden of proof that he is guilty, is on the prosecution and that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In other words, the innocence of an accused can be dispelled by the prosecution only on establishing his guilt beyond all reasonable doubts on the basis of Page No. 22 of 23 FIR No.312/13 State Vs. Ram Charan Singh and ors.
Police Station : Aman Vihar evidence".
41. In view of the above discussion, in my view, prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and hence the accused persons are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
42. Accused persons are directed to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/ with one surety each of like amount u/s 437A CrPC. Bail bond furnished and accepted.
43. Case property is confiscated to the State and the same may be disposed of after the expiry of the period of the appeal/revision & if this order is challenged, subject to the order of Hon'ble Appellate Court.
44. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court
th
on this 25 day of July, 2018.
(DEEPAK GARG)
ASJII, NORTHWEST
ROHINI: DELHI
Page No. 23 of 23