Delhi District Court
State vs . Jai Gopal Wadhwa on 19 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF Ms. CHETNA SINGH:MM-02(SOUTH DISTRICT)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
STATE Vs. Jai Gopal Wadhwa
FIR No.1132/00
U/s : 323/342 IPC
P.S. : Malviya Nagar
Date of institution of case : 26.03.2001
Date on which case reserved for judgment : 19.05.2014
Date of judgment : 19.05.2014
JUDGMENT
1.FIR No. of the case : 1132/00
2.Date of the Commission : 19.12.2000
of the offence
3.Name of the accused : Jai Gopal Wadhwa S/o Late Sh.
: Shyam Dass Wadhwa R/o L-59B,
: Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
4.Name of the complainant : Ms Laj Handa W/o Sh. M.P. Handa
: R/o L-59B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.
5.Offence complained of : 323/342 IPC
6.Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
7.Final order : Convicted u/s 323/342 IPC
FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 1/10
BRIEF FACTS
1. The story of the prosecution is that on 19.12.2000 at 2.50pm at L-59/B, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of PS Malviya Nagar accused Jai Gopal Wadhwa unlawfully confined the complainant Smt. Laj Handa and voluntarily caused simple injuries to her and thereby accused committed an offence punishable u/s 323/342 IPC.
2. On the basis of the said allegations and on the basis of the complaint of the complainant namely Ms Laj Handa, an FIR bearing number 1132/00 under section 323/342 IPC was lodged at Police Station Malviya Nagar.
3. After investigation, charge-sheet under section 173 Cr.P.C was filed on 26.03.2001.
4. On the basis of the charge-sheet, a charge for the offence punishable under section 323/342 IPC was framed against the accused Jai Gopal Wadhwa and read out to the said accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial on 02.06.2005.
Appreciation of Evidence
5. To prove its case, prosecution examined the following witnesses:
6. PW-1 Smt. Laj Handa being complainant was examined on 26.04.2006 and deposed that on 19.12.2000 at about 9am one Prem Pal visited her house at L-59B, Malviya Nagar and called the accused Jai Gopal present in the court. She further deposed that she came out and informed Jai Gopal that somebody was calling him. Jai Gopal came out and Prem Pal told him that demolition was to be carried out at L-59B, Malviya Nagar. She FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 2/10 further deposed that Jai Gopal was inside, in the meanwhile, Prem Pal came near to her main door and started smoking Bidi and behaving in a strange manner. She objected to that behaviour of Prem Pal and asked him to wait outside. However, he did not listen to her and in the meanwhile, Smt. Sunita Wadhwa and wife of accused Jai Gopal came out and started abusing (TERA KHASAM LAGDA HAI JO TO USKO HATA RAHI HAIN) her and said as to why she was asking Prem Pal to leave the place. In the meanwhile, Jai Gopal came out and he also started abusing her and he went away to Prem Pal. Thereafter, she went to PS and moved an application against Prem Pal vide Ex. PW-1/A. She further deposed that she kept waiting at PS since demolition work was going on in the area on that day. She further deposed that she wanted to know whether demolition had to be carried out at their places on that day or not. In the meanwhile, accused Jai Gopal gave a telephone call in the PS which was received in the duty officer's room by Jai Kishan, reader of SHO. She further deposed that she inquired from the duty officer as to what Jai Gopal was asking. The DO told her that Jai Gopal wanted to know whether she i.e. the complainant was sitting in the PS and whether MCD Party has come to PS for police help or not. She further deposed that when she was about to leave her home, Jai Gopal caught hold of her wrist and pushed into her room and thereafter, started beating her with fists and kicks and he hit her on her private part also and he further said that how dare you thought of getting his shop demolished, he will see to it that she does not move out of the home and detained her inside the room for about an hour and in the meanwhile, Sunita Wadhwa, wife of the accused Jai Gopal exhorted to give more beatings to her and she also shouted and said to the accused that brake her bones so that she cannot move. She further deposed that she tried to move to her bed, at this Jai FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 3/10 Gopal smoking bidi inside the room itself and received injuries on her left ear and it started bleeding. She further deposed that somebody knocked the door from outside at about 1.00pm and Jai Gopal opened the door. She further deposed that her daughter Ms Savri Handa entered into the room and she started talking to her but since he could not respond. She further deposed that her daughter asked her to move out of the room since she wanted to talk to her in private. She further deposed that as soon as her daughter namely Sanwari Handa tried to pick up the buds of the bidi lying on the floor, Jai Gopal put his feet on her hands so that she could not pick the bidi. Thereafter, they went outside the room and informed the PCR and also informed her sister Smt. Prem Mehendru through telephone and police came to their residence and after observing the spot of incident went back to the PS and she was asked to come to PS to lodge the complaint and Jai Gopal was told that if he wanted to move some complaint against Laj Handa, he may proceed accordingly. She further deposed that police did not receive her complaint at her residence since she had already moved complaints against them. She further deposed that she was not got medically examined and when she went to DCP office on 19.12.2000, the concerned DCP as well as ACP was not available so the Reader of the DCP took her to the ACP Vigilance SS Tomar and he sent her along with L/Ct. Mukti to the AIIMS Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, she come back to the DCP office as the station In-charge of the PS Malviya Nagar refused to book her complaint/take action. She further deposed that on the same day she had given complaint before ACP vide Ex. PW-1/B. Thereafter, she was sent to PS Malviya Nagar and at the directions of Ld. ACP, the FIR was registered at PS Malviya Nagar and she was provided the police protection on that day. Site plan was prepared at her instance vide Ex.
FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 4/10PW-1/C. Accused was arrested and his personal search was conducted vide memos Ex. PW-1/D and E respectively. She further deposed that on 20.12.2000 she moved a complaint before the PS Malviya Nagar which is Ex. PW-1/F. She further deposed that the accused present in the court had beaten her on 19.12.2000 and wrongfully retrained her due to the fact that she was demolishing the illegal construction at property No. L-59, Malviya Nagar which belongs to her. She further deposed that on 20.12.2000 the accused again had restrained her and threatened from going to MCD office as well as police station by extorting "Mai Tumhe Jaan Se Khatam Kar Doonga" and complaint in this regard is already Ex. PW-1/F.
7. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
8. PW-2 Lady ASI Mukti who is formal witness was examined on 07.12.2011 and deposed that on 19.12.2000 on the instruction of SHO, she had got conducted the medical examination of complainant Laj Handa at AIIMS Hospital and thereafter, she had handed over the complainant with MLC to IO SI Satvinder Singh. She further deposed that her statement was recorded by IO.
9. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
10. PW-3 Dr. Pankaj Kumar, senior resident at AIIMS was examined on 01.05.2013 and deposed that on 19.12.2000 the injured namely Mrs. Laj Handa was admitted in the AIIMS Hospital vide MLC no. 13679, alleged history of assault. He further deposed that the MLC of injured Laj Handa was prepared by Dr. Ravi Desai which is Ex. PW-3/A bearing the signature of Dr. Ravi Desai at point A and the signature of Dr. Desai was identified by Sh. Bhuwan Ram, record clerk in AIIMS. He further deposed FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 5/10 that as per MLC of injured, about 1cm cut injury over posterior attachment of left ear and abrasion of left ear and right leg. The nature of injury is simple in nature.
11. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
12. PW-4 SI Satvinder Singh was examined on 01.07.2013 and deposed that on 19.12.2000 the investigation of the present case was marked to him and DO handed over complaint, copy of FIR to him. He further deposed that thereafter, the investigation of the present case was transferred to District Crime Cell, South District and accordingly he handed over the case file to MHCR.
13. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
14. PW-5 SI Naresh Kumar being IO was examined on 12.12.2013 and deposed that in February 2001, he was posted as SI at District Crime Cell, South District and on that day investigation of this case was handed over to him on the directions of senior officers. He further deposed that during investigation he prepared rough site plan on the instance of complainant Ms Laj Handa on 20.02.2001 which is already Ex. PW-1/C bearing his signature at point A. Accused was arrested on 06.03.2001 and he had given notice of arrest which is Ex. PW-1/E bearing his signature at point A. He further deposed that he had prepared personal search memo already Ex. PW-1/D bearing his signature at point A. He further identified the accused present in the court.
15. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
16. PW-6 HC Rang Rao being DO was examined on 19.12.2013 FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 6/10 and proved the FIR vide Ex. PW-6/A and endorsement on the basis of Rukka vide Ex. PW-6/B (OSR).
17. This witness was not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
18. As all the witnesses have been examined by the prosecution, PE was ordered to be closed on 19.12.2013. The statement of accused under section 313 r/w section 281 Cr.P.C was recorded on 27.01.2014 in which he stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he does not wish to lead any defence evidence.
19. Final arguments were advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused and Ld. APP for state. Heard.
Reasons for Decision
20. In the present matter, prosecution has filed six witnesses in total and all six witnesses have been examined. Charge u/s 323/342 IPC was framed vide order date 02.06.2005. In support of its version the prosecution has examined the complainant namely Smt. Laj Handa who deposed that on the date of incident at about 9am one Prem Pal came to her house i.e. L-59B, Malviya Nagar and called the accused Jai Gopal and thereafter, Jai Gopal came out and in the meanwhile, Prem Pal started smoking Bidi and started behaving in a strange manner. It is further stated that when this behaviour of Prem Pal was objected to, the wife of accused namely Suneeta Wadhwa came out and started abusing the complainant. She further stated that in this regard, she gave a complaint to PS and in the meanwhile, accused Jai Gopal Wadhwa along with one Prem Pal left the place. The complainant has proved her complaint Ex. PW-1/A bearing her signature at FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 7/10 point A. It is further stated that thereafter at about 11 am accused Jai Gopal caught hold of wrist of the complainant and pushed her into the room and started beating with fists and kicks and also kicked on her private parts. He further threatened her as to how dare she got his shop demolished. He further alleged that the accused detained the complainant inside the room for about an hour and wife of the accused incited him to give further beatings to the complainant. It is further alleged that wife of the accused shouted that the accused should break the bones of the complainant so that she is unable to move. She further deposed that she received injuries on her left ear and in the meanwhile, somebody knocked the door. The door was opened and her daughter Ms Sanvri Handa entered the room and realized that something wrong has happened. She further deposed that the accused was present in the room throughout and she picked up articles which were lying scattered in the room. She further deposed that when her daughter tried to pick up the buds of the bidi lying on the floor, accused Jai Gopal put his feet on her hands. Thereafter, police was informed and on seeing the spot of incident the complainant was asked to come to police station and report the matter. Complainant further proved her complaint Ex. PW-1/F and again reiterated that the accused had beaten her and wrongfully retrained her due to the fact that she was getting illegal construction of the property No. L-59, Malviya Nagar demolished.
21. Despite repeated opportunities given, this witness was not cross examined and the opportunity of cross examination was closed as repeatedly the accused was seeking the time to call his advocate however, despite various adjournments given by the court the complainant was not cross examined.
22. Apart from this witness, SI Satvinder Singh has been FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 8/10 examined as PW-4 being witness to the registration of FIR. PW-5 SI Naresh Kumar has been examined who deposed that in February 2001 the investigation of this case was handed over to him and he prepared site plan on the instance of complainant Ms Laj Handa which is Ex. PW-1/C. Accused was arrested which is Ex. PW-1/E and his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex. PW-1/D. He also identified the accused present in the court and stated that he prepared the charge sheet and filed before the court. This witness was also not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
22. Another witness namely HC Rang Rao has been examined as PW-6 being duty officer who deposed that on the basis of rukka received, he registered the FIR which were handed over to him by SI Satvinder Singh. He proved the copy of FIR Ex. PW-6/A and Rukka Ex. PW-6/B (OSR). This witness was also not cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel for the accused despite opportunity given.
23. As far as the allegations of the complainant are concerned, she alleged that she was beaten and as a result of beatings given by the accused she received injuries on left ear. In this regard, one lady Ct. ASI Mukti has been examined as PW-2 who deposed that on 19.12.2000 on the instruction of SHO, she got medical examination of the complainant conducted at AIIMS Hospital and her statement was recorded by IO. This witness was also not cross examined despite opportunity given.
24. Apart from this witness, Dr. Pankaj Kumar has been examined as PW-3 who deposed that MLC of the complainant Mrs Laj Handa bearing no. 13679 was prepared by one Dr. Ravi Desai which is Ex. PW-3/A bearing the signature of Dr. Ravi Desai at point A. The signature of Dr. Ravi Desai was identified by record clerk namely Bhuwan Ram who was present on that FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 9/10 day. This doctor also opined that as per the MLC, the injured received 1cm cut injury over the posterior attachment of the left ear and abrasion of the left ear and right leg and the injury was opined simple in nature.
25. The opinion of the MLC Ex. PW-3/A further substantiates the claim/allegations of the complainant that she would beaten by the accused on the date of incident and received injury on her left ear. It is further substantiated by deposition of PW Lady ASI Mukti who deposed that she was instructed by SHO to take the complainant to the hospital for getting her MLC conducted.
26. In this regard, the deposition of the complainant along with medical papers on record are clear enough to substantiate the allegations of the complainant that she was beaten by the accused after being wrongfully confined in a room and accordingly, the guilt of the accused Jai Gopal Wadhwa has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt and he is required to be convicted for offence u/s 323/342 IPC. Accused Jai Gopal Wadhwa is convicted for offence u/s 323/342 IPC.
Be listed for arguments on sentence on 21.05.2014 at 2.00pm.
Announced in the Court
on 19.05.2014 (CHETNA SINGH)
MM-02(SD)/19.05.2014
Certified that this judgment contains 10 pages and each page bears my signatures.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM-02(SD)/19.05.2014 FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 10/10 STATE Vs. Jai Gopal Wadhwa FIR No.1132/00 U/s : 323/342 IPC P.S. : Malviya Nagar 28.05.2014 At 2.00pm ORDER ON SENTENCE Present: Ld. APP for the State.
Convict is present in person with LAC Sh. Amit Chaudhary.
Complainant Smt. Laj Handa is also present.
Today clarifications have been sought by both the parties as regards likelihood of compensation to be given by the convict to the complainant.
Convict submits that he is unable to pay any amount of compensation to the complainant.
An application for release of convict on probation of good conduct has been filed by LAC Sh. Amit Chaudhary on behalf of convict.
Considering the previous litigation between both the parties and considering the fact that various other litigations pending before this court which are of similar nature, I do not deem it fit to release the convict on probation of good conduct. Hence, application is dismissed.
Thus, in view of all these facts and circumstances, the convict is sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months u/s 342 IPC and simple imprisonment for a period of six months u/s 323 IPC. Both the sentences shall FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 11/10 run concurrently. Benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C be also given.
2 At this stage, an application U/s 389 Cr. PC for suspension of sentence and grant of bail till filing of appeal has been filed on behalf of convict namely Jai Gopal Wadhwa.
On account of reasons stated, convict namely Jai Gopal Wadhwa is admitted to bail in sum of Rs. 10,000/ with one surety of like amount till 30 days, for allowing him to prefer appeal against this conviction.
Bail bond qua convict furnished. Same is accepted vide separate endorsement.
Copy of this order and judgment be given to the convict free of cost.
File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
(CHETNA SINGH) MM02(South)/28.05.2014 FIR No. 1132/00 State Vs Jai Gopal Wadhwa Page 12/10